Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: World of 2030  (Read 63700 times)

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2487
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 23170
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #300 on: May 26, 2020, 07:29:38 AM »
Working from home will help if those workers are normally commuting by private luxury FF car. Workers who change their (electrical) train commute to working from home won't have much positive effect on carbon footprint.

The revenue drop by the privatised company NS ('Nederlandse Spoorwegen', originally national rail) would suggest a hand-out from the government for this important low CO₂ personal transport, especially since they're running on 'green electricity'.
I haven't seen any hand-outs to the low carbon NS company but I have seen a 2-4 billion hand-out to the private company 'KLM' that offers only very high CO₂ personal transport.

I observe that the BAU trend continues unabated or with even more vigour eyeing the accompanying hand-outs to the FF related industries and billionaires; BAU² (hat-tip to gerontocrat I think), which means the transition to a low carbon economy is further hindered and postponed (politicians/lackeys kicking the can down the road to oblivion).
Saving extraordinary circumstances, I think 2030 will see BAU³ if the neo-liberal dogma's are still prevalent. When will weather extremes become a large/significant/dominating factor in our global economy? Before 2030?
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

ralfy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #301 on: May 26, 2020, 04:31:19 PM »
http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/

The world currently consumes around 20 TW of energy. Much of the population of that world belong to developing economies and they earn less than $10 daily. They lack one or more basic needs.

To make sure that the current population receives at least basic needs, around 50 TW of energy will be needed.

To meet a population of around 10 billion, it will need around 75 TW.

To ensure continuous economic growth (because most of the wealth of the same population consists of money whose value can only be maintained with increasing economic activity), much more than that.

To adjust to diminishing returns, even more.

What about diminishing returns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

The ave. ecological footprint per capita is in excess of biocapacity, leading to diminishing returns, pollution, and the effects of pollution, including global warming. Even more energy will be needed to minimize the effects of those problems.

Part of that biocapacity are fossil fuels needed for mining, manufacturing, and shipping of even components needed for renewable energy, not to mention mechanized agriculture.

ArcticMelt2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #302 on: May 28, 2020, 06:56:06 PM »
The first orders appeared for the largest turbines. Even before a working prototype was built.

https://www.evwind.es/2020/05/26/siemens-gamesa-sg-14-222-dd-offshore-wind-turbines-planned-for-300-mw-hai-long-2-offshore-wind-energy-project-in-taiwan/74872

https://www.power-technology.com/news/deal-news/sgre-wins-turbine-contracts-for-2640mw-virginia-wind-farm/

Although the new record of the Spanish-German company will not last long.

https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/aerodyn-confirms-development-of-111-m-blade-to-market-59580

Quote
Aerodyn confirms development of 111-m blade for offshore market
28 May 2020
by David Foxwell

Aerodyn Energiesysteme in Germany has confirmed earlier reports about a new rotor blade it is developing for next-generation offshore wind turbines

The Rendsburg-based company is developing the 111-m TC1B rotor blade with 11-15 MW offshore wind turbines in mind.

The length of the blade it is developing thus exceeds that of those on GE Renewable Energy’s 12-MW Haliade-X, which are 107 m long, and Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy’s recently announced 15-MW capable SG 14-222 DD direct drive offshore wind turbine, which has 108-m blades.

The company described the new blade as a promising 14-MW pre-design for a TC1B site that can be optimised to take into account turbine rated power, type class and BCD.

“The rotor blade has a hybrid CFRP-GFRP spar caps to reduce the use of costly C-fibres to a minimum,” said the company.

For some time, Aerodyn has also been working on a 10-MW+ offshore wind turbine and components for it and has stated it is ready to enter into production. It previously stated that generator production is planned for Q1 2021.

The company also earlier reported a new focus on turbines and components for the floating wind market.

Aerodyn said it had developed new software and processes to address challenges associated with using very large turbines with floating structures and mooring systems. These include increased movement and hydrodynamic and other forces that affect the dynamics of floating turbines, that result in high acceleration forces on the tower head that may be imparted to the drivetrain.

jens

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #303 on: June 06, 2020, 08:40:21 PM »
Civilization has already peaked. Now in 2020 we have already started to see decline (wildfires, pandemic, economic crisis, social unrests, tropical countries in real trouble with food and water, etc). It is just a light prelude of what is about to come.

What will the world look like in 2030? Well, hard to tell exactly, but a lot will happen during the next 10 years. To give a personal overview of the situation in 2030:

- emissions will have dropped a lot, but not due to switch to renewable energy, but due to global economic collapse. However, this won't save us from climate catastrophe, because a lot of warming is already locked in.

- tropical countries will have largely collapsed by that point. Places like India and Pakistan will have run out of water and will have severe food shortages. Africa will be largely starving. Australia may well have collapsed by that point too. Bushfires, desertification and water shortages will have done the job by then.

- current developed world will have largely turned into a developing world. Rise of totalitarian regimes to keep social order, while people panic as life standards are dropping and poverty sets in. Resource wars and a lot of fences built everywhere to keep migrants away, while countries are busy dealing with their own problems. Concentration camps. Can't tell if we could see a nuclear war by that point, or not.

Doesn't sound pretty? Well, future isn't pretty in any way...

Of course, by 2030 we won't yet have +3/+4C warming, which would make significant parts of the planet uninhabitable. The projected "hothouse Earth" scenario looks more likely to happen either by 2050 or beyond. However, trouble is already real by 2030 due to biosphere degradation and ever-increasing amount of climate disasters. And who knows, which kind of pandemics we could get by that point! There would already be more uninhabitable regions in the world, several regions with severe water shortages and a global food crisis. World human population will have started to decrease already and many of those, who are still alive, would be in severe poverty.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 09:03:36 PM by jens »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #304 on: June 06, 2020, 08:45:26 PM »
Well, jens, why don't you tell us the bad news?  :)

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #305 on: June 06, 2020, 10:07:17 PM »
Simple question: In what year will human population peak? Right now human births outnumber deaths by ~80 million people a year. When do folks think annual human deaths will outnumber births?

I'll throw out 2034.  I recognize that represents a dramatic, unprecedented demographic shift.

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #306 on: June 07, 2020, 12:31:57 AM »
Simple question: In what year will human population peak? Right now human births outnumber deaths by ~80 million people a year. When do folks think annual human deaths will outnumber births?

I'll throw out 2034.  I recognize that represents a dramatic, unprecedented demographic shift.

Nothing unprecedented, but it will be after 2100.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #307 on: June 07, 2020, 01:00:54 PM »
Hefaistos, I am well aware of the standard UN predictions. Jens just posted his prediction that we will be well into civilizational collapse by 2030. He included a list of dire outcomes. He wrote "tropical countries will have largely collapsed by that point. Places like India and Pakistan will have run out of water and will have severe food shortages. Africa will be largely starving."

That would seem to imply global human populations on the decline. Oren frequently asserts he sees "collapse" by 2050 or so. Again, I would suspect that prior to collapse, the general situation for humanity would be such that deaths would be rising and births falling and that deaths would overcome births.

If human populations began to fall in the 2030s that would represent a huge, dramatic and essentially unprecedented change in our demographic trajectory (other than theorized "bottlenecks" during human evolution 10s of thousands of years ago and the Black Death).

I tend to think that if deaths begin to rise and births fall to the extent that we begin to noticeably fall off of the standard demographic predictions leading us to 10 billion later this century, that would be strong evidence that we are indeed in overshoot and exceeding the planet's carrying capacity.

Or maybe we will follow the curve you posted with no hints of trouble until population crashes all at once with no prior hint of trouble. I doubt it.

jens

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #308 on: June 08, 2020, 09:02:11 AM »
The problem with UN projections is that they use a mathematical model based on past data, but don't take into account climate change and the changing environment we are going to live in. I'm not even convinced their population counters would determine the start of decline, because once countries face collapse, who is going to count all the dead bodies to great precision? We can only get a rough guesstimate, when will population start to decrease.

What concerns "collapse" itself, then really depends on what anyone means by it. And in different regions it happens at different times. Tropical areas with overpopulation, close to +50 C heatwaves and acute droughts are really much closer to a tipping point than, say, Nordic countries, who by the looks of it can keep going for a decent while, even if with reduced living standards.

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #309 on: June 08, 2020, 03:24:45 PM »
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over.  Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in the next decade, in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

“nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

"crowded India is essentially doomed."

"Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come, an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #310 on: June 08, 2020, 04:02:29 PM »
He did not appreciate high yield varieties enough or maybe he did make tons of money over the publicty...   

Off course we have a totally different problem now.

Assume we go to zero CO2 increase tomorrow what will be the locked in effects?

Assume we go to zero CO2 increase on your most likely time table what will be the locked in effects?

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

jens

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #311 on: June 08, 2020, 08:12:45 PM »
I have understood back in 1960's there was a different direct reason for doomsday predictions. It was about when "green revolution" started, which greatly increased agricultural productivity. Before this happened, there indeed was concern that it wouldn't be possible to feed all people with old agricultural methods, but it changed.

However, nowadays there is a different situation. Now there is an increasing amount of direct climate disasters, which wasn't the case back then. And I don't see, which technology could halt this, unless they find out quickly, how to capture carbon and reduce the amount of CO2 massively in athmosphere. But such an undertaking seems very unlikely.

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #312 on: June 08, 2020, 10:15:41 PM »
Let's see, the worst cyclone of all time was the Bhola in 1970, which killed half a million people in Bangladesh.  Prior to that, the deadliest cyclones occurred in the 19th century.  The worst floods were all in China during the early 20th century.  The worst droughts in the U.S. occurred in the 1930s and 50s.  Of course, nothing compares to the great Chinese drought of the 1920s, which killed millions (total unknown, but estimates are as high as 10 million).  Ironically, that was followed by the great flood of 1931 mentioned previously.  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?


oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #313 on: June 08, 2020, 11:13:37 PM »
Great, someone made a doomsday prediction 50 years ago and was wrong. That should mean no doomsday prediction can be correct, right?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 09:47:41 AM by oren »

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #314 on: June 08, 2020, 11:19:21 PM »
Let's see, the worst cyclone of all time was the Bhola in 1970, which killed half a million people in Bangladesh.  Prior to that, the deadliest cyclones occurred in the 19th century.  The worst floods were all in China during the early 20th century.  The worst droughts in the U.S. occurred in the 1930s and 50s.  Of course, nothing compares to the great Chinese drought of the 1920s, which killed millions (total unknown, but estimates are as high as 10 million).  Ironically, that was followed by the great flood of 1931 mentioned previously.  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?

Compare to the current corona pandemic. Maybe it will kill one million people.
The modern world seems to be more resilient to catastrophies.

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #315 on: June 08, 2020, 11:34:49 PM »
Great, someone made a doomsday prediction 50 tears ago and was wrong. That should mean no doomsday prediction can be correct, right?

Has anyone been correct yet?

jens

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #316 on: June 08, 2020, 11:40:14 PM »

----  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?

The keyword in my post was increase. Disasters happened in the past too. But it's about frequency. Of course nowadays world has much better ability in dealing with catastrophes. Were a cyclone to arrive, people would be evacuated. Humanitarian aid is sent to regions in trouble. Food aid would be sent to regions in drought. But of course this kind of global resilience has limits. If the frequency of events is too high, you lose capacity to manage and re-build.

A decent example would be to look at the Caribbean islands. An increasing amount of hurricanes has left several islands there in trouble, which have frankly never recovered. I'd say several places have already effectively collapsed there. They lack resources to rebuild and you could get a hurricane in any year again.

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #317 on: June 09, 2020, 12:15:57 AM »

----  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?

The keyword in my post was increase. Disasters happened in the past too. But it's about frequency. Of course nowadays world has much better ability in dealing with catastrophes. Were a cyclone to arrive, people would be evacuated. Humanitarian aid is sent to regions in trouble. Food aid would be sent to regions in drought. But of course this kind of global resilience has limits. If the frequency of events is too high, you lose capacity to manage and re-build.

A decent example would be to look at the Caribbean islands. An increasing amount of hurricanes has left several islands there in trouble, which have frankly never recovered. I'd say several places have already effectively collapsed there. They lack resources to rebuild and you could get a hurricane in any year again.

There has not been much change in frequency over the long term.  Sure, the trend in Atlantic hurricanes has been on the rise since 1970, but that particularly low time.  Prior to then, the frequency was higher, and the long term trend is relatively flat.  The bigger problem is development.  That has increased significantly, resulting in greater destruction when a hurricane strikes.

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #318 on: June 09, 2020, 01:46:27 AM »
Simple question: In what year will human population peak? Right now human births outnumber deaths by ~80 million people a year. When do folks think annual human deaths will outnumber births?

I'll throw out 2034.  I recognize that represents a dramatic, unprecedented demographic shift.

Nothing unprecedented, but it will be after 2100.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900

If the human population doesn't peak till after 2100, good lord I will have to pray for every living species on the planet. If we allow that to happen, there won't be much left.

This is why I think we will peak much sooner. The famous study "Limits to growth", is the key to this topic.
"When the ice goes..... F***

greylib

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #319 on: June 09, 2020, 02:48:10 AM »
I believe there are over thirty countries with birth rate below death rate. Some have declining populations, others are sustained by immigration.

The countries with rising populations are mainly in Africa, which is one reason why many African nations have so much trouble feeding their people. The gap is partially bridged by (a) food aid; (b) emigration; (c) famine; (d) wars. The situation is unstable, and has been for at least fifty years. Climate change is making things even worse nowadays. I'm not sure what can be done, but I don't think it's going to end well.

I remember being part of an internet debate ten or fifteen years ago, sparked by a news report about a Nigerian family. The father lived (very poorly) on welfare. He had three wives, two of whom earned a small amount sweeping streets, with the third mending clothes. Between them, the three women had THIRTY children. The debate focused on the simple question: "how can you not feed a hungry child? But if you do, what happens when they grow up and have children of their own?"

The answer's no clearer now than it was then. With the COVID-19 economic shock, a lot of donor countries won't be able to send as much aid as they did. Or at least, they won't want to. And then millions will either die or attempt to emigrate, with richer countries putting up barriers. We're seeing signs of that already - I'd say the policies will be in place well before 2030. And as I said, I don't think it's going to end well.
Step by step, moment by moment
We live through another day.

jens

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #320 on: June 09, 2020, 09:35:04 AM »
Great, someone made a doomsday prediction 50 tears ago and was wrong. That should mean no doomsday prediction can be correct, right?

Has anyone been correct yet?

Eventually some predictions will be correct, but the problem is that when this happens, there won't be people left to reflect on this. And nobody would be able to say "I told you so". However, before "doomsday" people will keep ignoring problems as long as they can, and make a brave face everything is fine.

We are in a classic case of "overshoot and decline", which is basically an operative mechanism in the laws of nature. It's just the question of when "decline"/"collapse"/"doomsday"/whatever happens, not if.

In any case, we don't need to wait till we see the ultimate doomsday happening. We can see that the tide has already turned and civilization has entered decline mode with a multitude of problems happening already now. And it is 2020. By 2030, as per topic, it will be much more amplified.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 09:44:32 AM by jens »

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #321 on: July 06, 2020, 01:48:12 PM »
Not quite sure where to put this, but it works here.  His view of the next few decades strikes me as not unreasonable:
https://eand.co/if-life-feels-bleak-its-because-our-civilization-is-beginning-to-collapse-a787d62d714b

If Life Feels Bleak, It’s Because Our Civilization is Beginning to Collapse
2030 Will Be Even Worse than 2020. And 2040 Will Be Even Worse than That. Unless.


There’s an old line from a movie called Office Space — do you remember that one? — that I’ve always loved: “Every day since I began work is worse than the day before it.” That’s kind of an apt summary for…everything…at the moment.

Life isn’t a happy thing right about now. It’s stressful, strange, upside-down. I’m weary with boredom, exhausted by isolation, tired of all the nothing…and I bet you are, too. So.
Is it just me, or living through the end of human civilization kind of…sucks?

There’s not — or there shouldn’t be, by now — any real debate on the point that we are now living through the probable end of human civilization.

The end of human civilization is now easy enough to see, over the next three to five decades. It’s made of climate change, mass extinction, ecological collapse, and the economic depressions, financial implosions, political upheavals, pandemics, plagues, floods, fires, and social breakdowns all those will ignite.

Coronavirus is a foreshadowing, a taste of a dismal future, a warning, and a portrait, too. Life as we know it is falling apart. Life as we know it will continue to fall apart, for the rest of our lives. How do you live through that?

I’m not your therapist, sadly — or luckily. I’m just an economist. So let me paint you a picture.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #322 on: December 02, 2020, 07:43:31 PM »
The Next Decade Could Be Even Worse
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/can-history-predict-future/616993/
Quote
“We are almost guaranteed” five hellish years, Turchin predicts, and likely a decade or more. The problem, he says, is that there are too many people like me. “You are ruling class,” he said, with no more rancor than if he had informed me that I had brown hair, or a slightly newer iPhone than his. Of the three factors driving social violence, Turchin stresses most heavily “elite overproduction”—­the tendency of a society’s ruling classes to grow faster than the number of positions for their members to fill. One way for a ruling class to grow is biologically—think of Saudi Arabia, where princes and princesses are born faster than royal roles can be created for them. In the United States, elites over­produce themselves through economic and educational upward mobility: More and more people get rich, and more and more get educated. Neither of these sounds bad on its own. Don’t we want everyone to be rich and educated? The problems begin when money and Harvard degrees become like royal titles in Saudi Arabia. If lots of people have them, but only some have real power, the ones who don’t have power eventually turn on the ones who do.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #323 on: December 02, 2020, 07:56:51 PM »
Well if you self identify as ruling class it is still a social type problem and not related to climate change.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

El Cid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 923
  • Likes Given: 225
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #324 on: December 02, 2020, 09:30:18 PM »
Not quite sure where to put this, but it works here.  His view of the next few decades strikes me as not unreasonable:
https://eand.co/if-life-feels-bleak-its-because-our-civilization-is-beginning-to-collapse-a787d62d714b

If Life Feels Bleak, It’s Because Our Civilization is Beginning to Collapse
2030 Will Be Even Worse than 2020. And 2040 Will Be Even Worse than That. Unless.

I’m not your therapist, sadly — or luckily. I’m just an economist.

Not for nothing is economics called the dismal science...Starting with Malthus more than 200 years ago, many prophesized the end of the world due to similar reasons. One day, one of them will be right. Or not.

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10165
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3510
  • Likes Given: 745
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #325 on: December 03, 2020, 12:24:06 AM »
... Things fall apart; the center cannot hold ...

'Under Siege': Armed Bank Robbers Launch Assault On Brazilian City
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/armed-bank-robbers-assault-brazilian-city-criciuma-siege

Bank robbers armed with military-grade weapons have laid siege to a city in southern Brazil, torching vehicles, kidnapping government workers, blowing up a bank and engaging in a two-hour gun battle as the mayor begged residents to stay indoors.

Access points to the city were reportedly blocked to prevent police reinforcements from responding to around 30 hooded individuals running amok.

The audacious heist reportedly injured two people and left banknotes strewn across the ground in the city of Criciúma (pop 220,000).

https://twitter.com/WhyDoISabotage/status/1333641654637645824

Clésio Salvaro, the mayor of Criciúma, warned residents to stay at home in the early hours amid reports that criminals were running amok in the city.

Shooting and explosions were heard throughout the city overnight, Globo reported. A number of people were taken hostage but they were later released unharmed, Salvaro told the network.

Brazil has a long history of bank heists, according to Reuters, and major lenders have struggled with a wave of violent robberies in recent years as criminals have mastered the use of explosives to access cash. (better than an ATM)

-------------------------------------

Horde of Brazilian Bank Robbers Attack Another City, Kill 1
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-media-robbery-8646a320b40f8c9b5e44a4ad4af3f1a4

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — A large gang of heavily armed bank robbers invaded the Brazilian city of Cameta just one day after a similar force struck another mid-sized city on the opposite side of the country, taking residents hostage as they looted a bank.

Para state’s public security secretariat said in a statement Wednesday that more than 20 criminals with assault rifles attacked a branch of the state-run Bank of Brazil in the city in the Amazon region overnight.

Video on social media showed a line of roughly a dozen hostages being led away from a square in Cameta, a city of 140,000 people, and shots ringing out in the night. Local media reported that a military police station was attacked, preventing officers from responding.

As in Criciuma, they took actions to impede police response and fired shots into the air, apparently to scare people and keep them at home.

The robberies took place at the start of December, when bank coffers are filled in anticipation of employees withdrawing their year-end bonuses, according to Cássio Thyone, a council member of the non-profit Brazilian Forum on Public Safety. Many Brazilians get an extra month’s salary paid out in December, known as the 13th salary.

“It doesn’t happen without planning,” Thyone told the Associated Press by phone. “It’s another demonstration that everything is planned. They think of the location, and the timing.”
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #326 on: May 08, 2021, 01:56:00 PM »
Paul Beckwith's take on the next ten years. IMHO it is a good depiction of the worst-case outlook (Sam Carana is fantasy):

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #327 on: May 08, 2021, 03:03:58 PM »
Well worst-case outlook is sort of his trademark. Still some interesting points and a timeline. Might write a longer post on this some time later.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #328 on: May 08, 2021, 03:37:28 PM »
Peter was an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Climate Change Assessment (AR5, 2014) and the IPCC’s 2018 Special Report on 1.5ºC. Also in 2018, Peter published Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival, which he co-authored with Elizabeth Woodworth.





kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2041
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #329 on: May 08, 2021, 04:30:52 PM »
Short version is from about 16 to 26 minutes which talks about collapse Watch that all the way to the IPCC7 comment which is maybe on minute 28.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Jacobus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 28
  • Concerned Citizen
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #330 on: May 08, 2021, 04:41:34 PM »
Well worst-case outlook is sort of his trademark. Still some interesting points and a timeline. Might write a longer post on this some time later.

I like Paul. At best he is a realist. Beyond that, he's been more of an apocaloptimist on Hopium (thinking humanity can or will do anything about the predicaments we've placed ourselves in) than worst case scenario guy.

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #331 on: May 08, 2021, 11:01:50 PM »
Roger hallem a former farmer and co creater of extinction rebellion goes through the science papers for the future 2020-2030 and beyond 22.50 mins in to 51.38 mins is the main points for this called the real world.



« Last Edit: May 08, 2021, 11:49:05 PM by glennbuck »

Shared Humanity

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1400
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #332 on: May 09, 2021, 04:27:15 PM »
Short version is from about 16 to 26 minutes which talks about collapse Watch that all the way to the IPCC7 comment which is maybe on minute 28.

Sobering.

Understanding that human suffering in terms of mass starvation killing hundreds of millions or a billion could occur at anytime in our immediate future by simply having multiple bread basket failures in two successive years caused by two weeks of crop killing temperatures.

Global catastrophe is now is the essential message of this video.


glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #333 on: May 09, 2021, 09:10:51 PM »
Will steffen lead author of the paper hothouse earth, speaking the 6th May 2021.




glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #334 on: May 09, 2021, 10:01:15 PM »
The Math is not good for 2030

2020 was 1.3C above pre industrial

2000-2010 we added 0.2C
2010-2020 we added 0.3C
2020-2030 we add 0.4C?

That is 1.7C in 2030 and 1.5C in 2025

El Nino added 0.3C in 2016 for that year, the next El Nino is serious problems.

What if we reduce emmisions today until 2030, would this cause global dimming if global dimming is factual from the science papers adds 0.2C-1.1C the papers say, lets say 0.5C.

1.7C becomes 2.2C, 2030

If the amazon reaches a tipping point that is 0.2C added.

2.4C, 2030

If the Arctic melts in summer before 2030 this adds 0.4C instantly

2.8C, 2030

All of the above is from science peer reviewed papers.

“The science of climate change has never been clearer ... we have a window of only 10 to 15 years to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points.” Tony Blair 2006 (6+15=2021)

UN Sec Gen'l António Guterres - "The State of the Planet is Broken"

« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 10:34:05 PM by glennbuck »

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #335 on: May 09, 2021, 10:51:57 PM »
I read the rebuttal from ZEKE HAUSFATHER

I was not convinced - he avoided any reference to tipping points, domino effects and any risk assessments from the papers he quotes.

It felt like trying to pour oil on troubled waters.

I wish I had been convinced. It has been a very poor week for finding good news.

And pity Will Steffen - an Australian where his Government is pushing "gas-fired recovery" down the throats of the people who mostly do not want it and yet remains popular and likely to win the next election.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #336 on: May 10, 2021, 05:01:28 AM »
We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future.

https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368

Given that the world has already warmed by around 1.3C, this means that the 1.5C limit would be breached, if current CO2 concentrations are held steady due to some continued emissions.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 11:29:28 PM by glennbuck »

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #337 on: May 10, 2021, 06:11:19 PM »
The Math is not good for 2030

2020 was 1.3C above pre industrial

2000-2010 we added 0.2C
2010-2020 we added 0.3C
2020-2030 we add 0.4C?

That is 1.7C in 2030 and 1.5C in 2025

El Nino added 0.3C in 2016 for that year, the next El Nino is serious problems.

What if we reduce emmisions today until 2030, would this cause global dimming if global dimming is factual from the science papers adds 0.2C-1.1C the papers say, lets say 0.5C.

1.7C becomes 2.2C, 2030

If the amazon reaches a tipping point that is 0.2C added.

2.4C, 2030

If the Arctic melts in summer before 2030 this adds 0.4C instantly

2.8C, 2030

All of the above is from science peer reviewed papers.


Your math is not good.  The cumulative temperature rise from 2000 to 2020 was 0.35C.  Your numbers total 0.5C, more than 40% higher than the data show.  You are utilizing what statisticians call an endpoint fallacy.  The beginning falls below the long-term trend (due to La Nina) and the ending falls above the trend line (due to an El nino).  Using your math and starting from 2020, the temperature rise to 2030 is most likely 0.1C! 

Hence your claim of 1.7C by 2030 is unreasonable, while your 2.2C is pure fantasy.  I will not even address the rest.  None of your numbers area actually supported by climate science.

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #338 on: May 10, 2021, 11:12:28 PM »
The Math is not good for 2030

2020 was 1.3C above pre industrial

2000-2010 we added 0.2C
2010-2020 we added 0.3C
2020-2030 we add 0.4C?

That is 1.7C in 2030 and 1.5C in 2025

El Nino added 0.3C in 2016 for that year, the next El Nino is serious problems.

What if we reduce emmisions today until 2030, would this cause global dimming if global dimming is factual from the science papers adds 0.2C-1.1C the papers say, lets say 0.5C.

1.7C becomes 2.2C, 2030

If the amazon reaches a tipping point that is 0.2C added.

2.4C, 2030

If the Arctic melts in summer before 2030 this adds 0.4C instantly

2.8C, 2030

All of the above is from science peer reviewed papers.


Your math is not good.  The cumulative temperature rise from 2000 to 2020 was 0.35C.  Your numbers total 0.5C, more than 40% higher than the data show.  You are utilizing what statisticians call an endpoint fallacy.  The beginning falls below the long-term trend (due to La Nina) and the ending falls above the trend line (due to an El nino).  Using your math and starting from 2020, the temperature rise to 2030 is most likely 0.1C! 

Hence your claim of 1.7C by 2030 is unreasonable, while your 2.2C is pure fantasy.  I will not even address the rest.  None of your numbers area actually supported by climate science.

James Hansen, 2018 paper

 La Nina minima probably provide a better estimate, and they provide more recent rates. As the figure (below) shows, the most recent two La Ninas imply a warming rate of 0.38°C per decade, at least double the longer term rate! Such acceleration is predicted by climate models for continued high fossil fuel emissions as a result of amplifying climate feedbacks and is a cause for concern.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181015_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-07-16/as-warming-approaches-1-5c-talk-of-a-carbon-budget-for-the-paris-targets-is-delusional/

And 1.5°C by 2030 tallies with a paper published in 2017, ‘Trajectories toward the 1.5°C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation’, which found that in the absence of external cooling influences, such as volcanic eruptions, the midpoint of the spread of temperature projections exceeds the 1.5°C target before 2029, based on temperatures relative to 1850–1900.

Through the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.

https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2620

Given that the world has already warmed by around 1.3C, this means that the 1.5C limit would be breached, if current CO2 concentrations are held steady due to some continued emissions.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100062364&utm_content=deeplink

CBS News spoke to Lenton and several other scientists about the state of climate tipping points. While they have different areas of expertise, ranging from oceans to atmosphere to biosphere, their message was unanimous: Changes are happening faster than what was expected and the chance of hitting tipping points in the climate system, which just a decade ago appeared remote and far off, now seems much more likely and more immediate.

"This is why I have been raising the alarm," Lenton said. "In just a decade the risk level has gone up markedly — that should be triggering urgent action."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-tipping-points-amazon-rainforest-antarctic-ice-gulf-stream/

According to CopernicusECMWF, globally, the twelve-month period from July 2019 to June 2020 was 0.65°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average (see chart above).
Then 0.63°C should be added to these values to relate recent global temperatures to the pre-industrial level defined as a late 19th century baseline.
So warming for the period July 2019-June 2020 is 1.28°C, compared to the late 19th  century, for which instrumental temperature records are available from 1850.  This ties with the warmest year on record.

In a 2018 paper, “Climate Impacts From a Removal of Anthropogenic Aerosol Emissions”, Bjørn Samset  and colleagues found that “removing aerosols induces a global mean surface heating of 0.5–1.1°C”, with a multi-model mean of 0.7°C. Samset says the vast majority of this net temperature change would be due to sulphate emissions from fossil fuel sources. This is because, in general terms, the other two forms of anthropogenic aerosols — black carbon and organic carbon, which have major contributions from biofuel and other biomass burning — cancel each other out, at roughly 0.1°C each, one cooling and one warming. In other words, going to zero emissions with carbon dioxide at ~420ppm would result in a warming of around 2°C at equilibrium, if the level of short-lived gases was constant.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076079





« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 01:11:57 AM by glennbuck »

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #339 on: May 10, 2021, 11:44:08 PM »
1.5C in 2030 is a far cry from 2.8C, or any of those other figures stated previously.  a 2030 temperature 0.1C above the 2020 temperature will fall right on your upward trend of 0.2C / decade for the 21st century.

This is the high end of the NASA stated trend.  Nasa is not the one making stuff up.

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2505
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #340 on: May 10, 2021, 11:54:53 PM »
Endpoint fallacy is of course a commonly abused tool of misinformation but if we start with 2000 yes we have a LaNina but 2020 was also LaNina most of the year. See below

https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

So using the 2000 to 2020 comparison isn’t biased IMO






El Cid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 923
  • Likes Given: 225
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #341 on: May 11, 2021, 09:27:09 AM »

Understanding that human suffering in terms of mass starvation killing hundreds of millions or a billion could occur at anytime in our immediate future by simply having multiple bread basket failures in two successive years caused by two weeks of crop killing temperatures.


Understanding that this has happened many times during history is also essential. Greek Dark Ages / Migration period, Crisis of 535-536, the year without summer in 1816, just to name a very few. (you don't even need killing temperatures as the Great bengali Famine of 1770 shiwed when 1/3 of the population perished there)

As long as there are many humans trying to subsist on just a handful of mostly annual (and often vulnerable) crops this will most definitely happen as it happened before. This time however, with globalization, we stand a much better chance of such an anomaly not killing millions...


Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #342 on: May 11, 2021, 11:55:53 AM »
Quote
This time however, with globalization, we stand a much better chance of such an anomaly not killing millions...
Do you mean killing billions instead, or not killing anyone?

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #343 on: May 11, 2021, 01:53:23 PM »
'The problems that await us in the next 5-10 years are even greater'

Sir David Attenborough, COP26 People's advocate.




Shared Humanity

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1400
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #344 on: May 11, 2021, 01:57:54 PM »

Understanding that human suffering in terms of mass starvation killing hundreds of millions or a billion could occur at anytime in our immediate future by simply having multiple bread basket failures in two successive years caused by two weeks of crop killing temperatures.


Understanding that this has happened many times during history is also essential. Greek Dark Ages / Migration period, Crisis of 535-536, the year without summer in 1816, just to name a very few. (you don't even need killing temperatures as the Great bengali Famine of 1770 shiwed when 1/3 of the population perished there)

As long as there are many humans trying to subsist on just a handful of mostly annual (and often vulnerable) crops this will most definitely happen as it happened before. This time however, with globalization, we stand a much better chance of such an anomaly not killing millions...


While this headline is from 2017, it would seem my fears may be unwarranted...

Some farmers are renting runways and parking lots to store growing mountains of their grains

"Farmers face similar problems across the globe. World stockpiles of corn and wheat are at record highs. From Iowa to China, years of bumper crops and low prices have overwhelmed storage capacity for basic foodstuffs."

https://www.businessinsider.com/global-corn-wheat-rice-soybeans-surplus-storage-2017-4

...until you read further into the article and come across this.

"Global stocks of corn, wheat, rice and soybeans combined will hit a record 671.1 million tonnes going into the next harvest - the third straight year of historically high surplus, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). That's enough to cover demand from China for about a year."

The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 484
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #345 on: May 11, 2021, 04:05:46 PM »
The Math is not good for 2030

2020 was 1.3C above pre industrial

2000-2010 we added 0.2C
2010-2020 we added 0.3C
2020-2030 we add 0.4C?

That is 1.7C in 2030 and 1.5C in 2025

El Nino added 0.3C in 2016 for that year, the next El Nino is serious problems.

What if we reduce emmisions today until 2030, would this cause global dimming if global dimming is factual from the science papers adds 0.2C-1.1C the papers say, lets say 0.5C.

1.7C becomes 2.2C, 2030

If the amazon reaches a tipping point that is 0.2C added.

2.4C, 2030

If the Arctic melts in summer before 2030 this adds 0.4C instantly

2.8C, 2030

All of the above is from science peer reviewed papers.


Your math is not good.  The cumulative temperature rise from 2000 to 2020 was 0.35C.  Your numbers total 0.5C, more than 40% higher than the data show.  You are utilizing what statisticians call an endpoint fallacy.  The beginning falls below the long-term trend (due to La Nina) and the ending falls above the trend line (due to an El nino).  Using your math and starting from 2020, the temperature rise to 2030 is most likely 0.1C! 

Hence your claim of 1.7C by 2030 is unreasonable, while your 2.2C is pure fantasy.  I will not even address the rest.  None of your numbers area actually supported by climate science.

James Hansen, 2018 paper

 La Nina minima probably provide a better estimate, and they provide more recent rates. As the figure (below) shows, the most recent two La Ninas imply a warming rate of 0.38°C per decade, at least double the longer term rate! Such acceleration is predicted by climate models for continued high fossil fuel emissions as a result of amplifying climate feedbacks and is a cause for concern.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181015_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-07-16/as-warming-approaches-1-5c-talk-of-a-carbon-budget-for-the-paris-targets-is-delusional/

And 1.5°C by 2030 tallies with a paper published in 2017, ‘Trajectories toward the 1.5°C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation’, which found that in the absence of external cooling influences, such as volcanic eruptions, the midpoint of the spread of temperature projections exceeds the 1.5°C target before 2029, based on temperatures relative to 1850–1900.

Through the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.

https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2620

Given that the world has already warmed by around 1.3C, this means that the 1.5C limit would be breached, if current CO2 concentrations are held steady due to some continued emissions.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100062364&utm_content=deeplink

CBS News spoke to Lenton and several other scientists about the state of climate tipping points. While they have different areas of expertise, ranging from oceans to atmosphere to biosphere, their message was unanimous: Changes are happening faster than what was expected and the chance of hitting tipping points in the climate system, which just a decade ago appeared remote and far off, now seems much more likely and more immediate.

"This is why I have been raising the alarm," Lenton said. "In just a decade the risk level has gone up markedly — that should be triggering urgent action."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-tipping-points-amazon-rainforest-antarctic-ice-gulf-stream/

According to CopernicusECMWF, globally, the twelve-month period from July 2019 to June 2020 was 0.65°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average (see chart above).
Then 0.63°C should be added to these values to relate recent global temperatures to the pre-industrial level defined as a late 19th century baseline.
So warming for the period July 2019-June 2020 is 1.28°C, compared to the late 19th  century, for which instrumental temperature records are available from 1850.  This ties with the warmest year on record.

In a 2018 paper, “Climate Impacts From a Removal of Anthropogenic Aerosol Emissions”, Bjørn Samset  and colleagues found that “removing aerosols induces a global mean surface heating of 0.5–1.1°C”, with a multi-model mean of 0.7°C. Samset says the vast majority of this net temperature change would be due to sulphate emissions from fossil fuel sources. This is because, in general terms, the other two forms of anthropogenic aerosols — black carbon and organic carbon, which have major contributions from biofuel and other biomass burning — cancel each other out, at roughly 0.1°C each, one cooling and one warming. In other words, going to zero emissions with carbon dioxide at ~420ppm would result in a warming of around 2°C at equilibrium, if the level of short-lived gases was constant.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076079

That is much better.  Averaging the El Nino, La Nina, and average temperatures yield a rise of ~0.2C/decade.  That would result in ~1.4C by 2030, plus or minus an ENSO oscillation.

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #346 on: May 12, 2021, 02:17:08 AM »

That is much better.  Averaging the El Nino, La Nina, and average temperatures yield a rise of ~0.2C/decade.  That would result in ~1.4C by 2030, plus or minus an ENSO oscillation.

The temperature rise could be 1.5 C in 2025, i see i can not debate with you, good luck with your head in the sand.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 11:13:29 AM by glennbuck »

Shared Humanity

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1400
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #347 on: May 12, 2021, 02:58:06 PM »
I am not a survivalist but I've gone and checked how long dried beans and grains can be stored...beans for years if tightly sealed and stored in a dark, cool, dry space. Whole grain for about a year.

I really fucking hate that the idea of checking even crossed my mind.

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2505
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #348 on: May 12, 2021, 03:47:16 PM »
If you were a survivalist you’d be looking for an underground bunker and a dependable water source.
Acorns last years in the shell.

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2126
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 645
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: World of 2030
« Reply #349 on: May 13, 2021, 02:32:50 AM »
As a survivalist of sorts, mostly because I have young children (12 and 8), I believe the way to increase your odds of survival is not storage and bunkers. Although it would be nice to be able to afford them, I consider them one way to extend the time you hide from the inevitiable.

My approach sounds simple but workable long term.
Stay fit all the time. Walking and bike riding for the most part.
Look after your bicycle, have a bike trailer... cars will rapidly stop, bikes are good to go all the time.
Know how to trap. For us, the preferred animal are rabbits (there are a lot of them, they wont be disappearing anytime soon) and some birds.
Know the local berries, know how to find root plants, and understand where the water hides (in Australia, this is a major skill set that is still beyond me but is being resolved in the coming years)

Watch politics closely, know the signs of bad things are coming.

By 2030, the odds of a well functioning city is not good. Personally, I hate that I have to do this type of shit but it is required even if I am wrong. Our species has survived some seriously bad situations because we dont give up. But in our situation, luck will play a part for whoever survives, chances are we wont be lucky, but where we are, our odds are better than most.