According to a study published last month in the journal Nature Sustainability, 3 to 6 billion people, or between a third and a half of humanity, could be trapped outside of that zone, facing extreme heat, food scarcity and higher death rates, unless emissions are sharply curtailed or mass migration is accommodated.
I thought that this article was especially relevant because it made the ethics of global warming the central point, and it highlighted the impact that climate change could have on a large percentage of the human population.
I am not well-versed in any of the social (or technical) aspects of this, and I'd honestly love to hear more from people who know more than I do about the impacts of climate change.
It's treated as a conspiracy theory by a large fraction of the voting public. Most of the rest will nod in agreement that there's a problem, but refuse to change their lifestyles one iota to do anything about it, while blaming that first group.
7 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 32.7 ms ] threadI am not well-versed in any of the social (or technical) aspects of this, and I'd honestly love to hear more from people who know more than I do about the impacts of climate change.