Climate Catastrophe Chat

[The Walrus]

So, when you thought it was a reduction in growth, that was “terrible,” but now that you realize it meant slower growth, you think that it “worse?”

[squilliam]

I just want to say that it is so bloody depressing reading climate denial in the present. At what point does this become so obvious that even the most recalcitrant denier is forced to actually accept that the science is real?

[Rodius]

So, when you thought it was a resection in growth, that was “terrible,” but now that you realize it meant slower growth, you think that it “worse?”

Yes, it is worse.

A smaller economy means less damage.
If the regrowth is controlled and wealth distributed then it could be a very good thing for us and the planet. This would be the path where we are situated moving forward.

If the reduction is chaotic and uncontrolled with an increasing concentration in wealth, which is the most likely projection, it will end very badly within 15 years. The article states the business-as-usual approach with slower growth.... which just means it will take a few years longer.

That is the worst-case scenario done slightly slower.

So yeah, if it involves growth at any speed, it is very bad.

[The Walrus]

I just want to say that it is so bloody depressing reading climate denial in the present. At what point does this become so obvious that even the most recalcitrant denier is forced to actually accept that the science is real?

I don’t believe this has anything to do with climate denial.  This is about the guardian misrepresenting a scientific journal article.  In their defense, the article was written in such a way that it could easily be misinterpreted in the way that the guardian did.  One has to wonder if that was intentional.  It wouldn’t be the first time.  That said, the best way to way deniers, skeptics, and other non-commitals is with accurate scientific information.  These types of claims, which turn out to be woefully inaccurate, do more harm than good.  Sure, they may work initially, causing folks to become more serious about the issue.  However, once exposed, has the exact opposite effect.

[kiwichick16]

this study is actually saying that for the majority of the planet we are LOCKED IN to catastrophic losses .....and these losses are somewhat offset by some countries seeing gains in growth ......ie Russia, Scandinavia , Greenland , Alaska and Canada

these countries having gains has the effect of decreasing the average loss that the rest of the world will experience

no misrepresentation

[Rodius]

this study is actually saying that for the majority of the planet we are LOCKED IN to catastrophic losses .....and these losses are somewhat offset by some countries seeing gains in growth ......ie Russia, Scandinavia , Greenland , Alaska and Canada

these countries having gains has the effect of decreasing the average loss that the rest of the world will experience

no misrepresentation

We also need to consider the idea of perpetual growth, which is ignored a lot by people trying to convince everyone that we will be okay.

Assuming a basic 3% global growth rate over a 25-year period, that is more than double the size of today's global economy.

How is that even possible given the situation is so dire now?
And how can anyone think that doubling this will work without completely destroying the environment and climate?

It just makes no sense at all to think we can do that... something will break before 2025.

Slowing the growth by 20% changes almost nothing other than it will be about 80% growth instead of 100%.... we cant do either of those increases.

[gerontocrat]

It is now pretty much certain that climate change guarantees that +1.5C will be history in a few years, and the debate is mostly about how large will be the overshoot.

Add to that the near certainty of increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events.

Add to that continuing environmental degradation and destruction of ecosystems.

Add to that more and more science papers projecting the occurence and severe consequences of crossing tipping points (some of which are passed already).

All this says to me that forecasts and projections as far ahead as 2050 contain so much uncertainty as to be almost valueless.

What we need is risk assessments to highlight the peril in which humanity has already placed itself and life on earth through its actions, starting with what is already baked in and unstoppable in, say, the next 10 years. That might concentrate peoples' minds.

[Rodius]

It is now pretty much certain that climate change guarantees that +1.5C will be history in a few years, and the debate is mostly about how large will be the overshoot.

Add to that the near certainty of increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events.

Add to that continuing environmental degradation and destruction of ecosystems.

Add to that more and more science papers projecting the occurence and severe consequences of crossing tipping points (some of which are passed already).

All this says to me that forecasts and projections as far ahead as 2050 contain so much uncertainty as to be almost valueless.

What we need is risk assessments to highlight the peril in which humanity has already placed itself and life on earth through its actions, starting with what is already baked in and unstoppable in, say, the next 10 years. That might concentrate peoples' minds.

From what I see, people don't like changing anything, especially when they are safe, secure and/or comfortable.
The only way people will radically change anything is when the disaster hits them directly and multiple times... and by then, it is too late.

This is the main reason we wont do anywhere near enough until after the shit hits the fan is many places.

Until then, those who are hit will adapt or move and we will be taken down in bits and pieces until it collapses properly.

To me, and I have been going on about this for well over ten years now, we would be better of prepping for what is coming rather than trying to stop it. But that wont happen either.

Maybe the death of the Great Barrier Reef will trigger a change... add in the disappearing summer Artic ice as well, or a sudden collapse of the Amazon will do the trick.
The AMOC slowing down enough to cause a sudden drop in temps in Europe and parts of the US would do the trick.

[The Walrus]

I tend to agree that most people are resistant to change.  The nomadic herders were better equipped for changes, following the herds as they sought food and water.  As we became an agrarian society, we tried to tame nature.  But history is rife with societies being forced from their homes by changes in nature.  Eventually, we built dams and levees, irrigation systems, and all sorts of other fabrications in an attempt to maintain a particular lifestyle.  Occasionally, nature still wins out.

Yes, we are basically a reactionary people.  We tend to take action to prevent a certain disaster from reoccurring, without thinking about the next one.  With that said, I do believe adaptation is quite achievable, as we have been doing so for eons.  We do a rather good job of preparing for the future, just not preventing it.  I see no reason why we won’t survive any climatic changes.  We are a resilient species, living in some inhospitable places.

  The world may look different a century from now, but when has it not?

[kassy]

We life in an untested phase of society. We never had this much people in big cities. Yes it all held so far but... we are not that good at preparing for the future or even taking care of today. Along with climate change we have a number of other problems like aquifers running dry , a horrible plastic problem and a problem with persistent chemical pollution.

GDP numbers are rather abstract and not that important. All these things we fail to handle and thus we dump the problem on our kids and the grandkids etc.

We were all born in a less polluted world then the current state. Our world is not preparing for the future at all but milking the present.

[John_the_Younger]

We were all born in a less polluted world then the current state.

Maybe "on average" ...  There was a lot more leaded gasoline around then (compared to now [unless you live at an airport harboring small airplanes]).

But I remember when Alberto VO5 shampoo came out with plastic bottles, so yes, there is much much more plastic pollution around now.  And although the transistor was invented in 1947, the first commercial transistor radio was released a year or two before I was; so electronic waste is much much more polluting now than then.  [My older siblings debate whether I was hatched, purchased or released - but this is a different "catastrophe chat."]

[The Walrus]

We were all born in a less polluted world then the current state.

Maybe "on average" ...  There was a lot more leaded gasoline around then (compared to now [unless you live at an airport harboring small airplanes]).

But I remember when Alberto VO5 shampoo came out with plastic bottles, so yes, there is much much more plastic pollution around now.  And although the transistor was invented in 1947, the first commercial transistor radio was released a year or two before I was; so electronic waste is much much more polluting now than then.  [My older siblings debate whether I was hatched, purchased or released - but this is a different "catastrophe chat."]

I tend to agree with you regarding plastic and electronics.  Chemical pollution is much less than half a century ago.  In addition to unleaded gasoline, smokestacks have scrubbers, there is less dumping of hazardous chemicals into landfills and rivers.  Cities used to be so polluted that the smog blocked out the sun.  Certain lakes were considered “dead,” because fish couldn’t line with the toxic waste.  We even had a river that burned. 

Back then, the western world was more polluted, due to increased business and industry.  Now, I would say the opposite, due to cleaner waste.

[Rodius]

We were all born in a less polluted world then the current state.

Maybe "on average" ...  There was a lot more leaded gasoline around then (compared to now [unless you live at an airport harboring small airplanes]).

But I remember when Alberto VO5 shampoo came out with plastic bottles, so yes, there is much much more plastic pollution around now.  And although the transistor was invented in 1947, the first commercial transistor radio was released a year or two before I was; so electronic waste is much much more polluting now than then.  [My older siblings debate whether I was hatched, purchased or released - but this is a different "catastrophe chat."]

I tend to agree with you regarding plastic and electronics.  Chemical pollution is much less than half a century ago.  In addition to unleaded gasoline, smokestacks have scrubbers, there is less dumping of hazardous chemicals into landfills and rivers.  Cities used to be so polluted that the smog blocked out the sun.  Certain lakes were considered “dead,” because fish couldn’t line with the toxic waste.  We even had a river that burned. 

Back then, the western world was more polluted, due to increased business and industry.  Now, I would say the opposite, due to cleaner waste.

Are you guys joking?

So, lets look at 50 years ago... 1975.
Population was 4 billion compared to 8 billion today.

https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth

This means we would need to be using less than half the pollution today than 50 years ago... we are not doing that. Not even close to it. And, barring the rare exception, everything is worse today in regards to the amounts we pollute the world.

Petrols... sure, removing lead was a good thing.
But again, does it matter much?

Oils produced 31.7 terawatts of power in 1975
Last year was 52 terawatt hours worth. Still going up.

Plastics made...
1975 - 46 million tons
2019 - 460 tons

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-plastics-production

And what do you mean by "chemical pollution"?
Here is an interesting take on how you think it is reducing.... short answer, it isn't.

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/waste/hazardous-waste-statistics

On no level did either of you say a correct statement... all I see is a couple of people wearing rose coloured glasses and pining for the past. It is truly sad.

[The Walrus]

We were all born in a less polluted world then the current state.

Maybe "on average" ...  There was a lot more leaded gasoline around then (compared to now [unless you live at an airport harboring small airplanes]).

But I remember when Alberto VO5 shampoo came out with plastic bottles, so yes, there is much much more plastic pollution around now.  And although the transistor was invented in 1947, the first commercial transistor radio was released a year or two before I was; so electronic waste is much much more polluting now than then.  [My older siblings debate whether I was hatched, purchased or released - but this is a different "catastrophe chat."]

I tend to agree with you regarding plastic and electronics.  Chemical pollution is much less than half a century ago.  In addition to unleaded gasoline, smokestacks have scrubbers, there is less dumping of hazardous chemicals into landfills and rivers.  Cities used to be so polluted that the smog blocked out the sun.  Certain lakes were considered “dead,” because fish couldn’t line with the toxic waste.  We even had a river that burned. 

Back then, the western world was more polluted, due to increased business and industry.  Now, I would say the opposite, due to cleaner waste.

Are you guys joking?

So, lets look at 50 years ago... 1975.
Population was 4 billion compared to 8 billion today.

https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth

This means we would need to be using less than half the pollution today than 50 years ago... we are not doing that. Not even close to it. And, barring the rare exception, everything is worse today in regards to the amounts we pollute the world.

Petrols... sure, removing lead was a good thing.
But again, does it matter much?

Oils produced 31.7 terawatts of power in 1975
Last year was 52 terawatt hours worth. Still going up.

Plastics made...
1975 - 46 million tons
2019 - 460 tons

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-plastics-production

And what do you mean by "chemical pollution"?
Here is an interesting take on how you think it is reducing.... short answer, it isn't.

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/waste/hazardous-waste-statistics

On no level did either of you say a correct statement... all I see is a couple of people wearing rose coloured glasses and pining for the past. It is truly sad.

It is not rose colored anything.  It is fact!  Air pollutants have decreased significantly, even while population and gdp has increased.

https://www.resources.org/archives/looking-back-50-years-clean-air-act-1970/

In the U.S., two-thirds of the lakes and rivers were polluted in 1972.  Most have been remedied in the half century since.

https://www.environmentalworks.com/history-of-the-clean-water-act/amp/

Production is not the same as pollution.  Your numbers mean nothing.  By comparison, read what real data says.  I haven’t even included reusing and recycling.

Regarding your confusion about chemical pollution, let me try to enlighten you.  Chemicals can be either pure elements or compounds which get released, intentionally or unintentionally, into the environment, accumulating in the air, water, or soil.  This contrasts with litter, such as plastic bottles, paper, and junk.  While unsightly, this litter does not accumulate in the air, water, and soil, posing a health hazard to the air we breathe, water we drink, or food we eat.  These chemicals have been reduced substantially over the past half century.  Has that helped with your understanding?

Perhaps where you live things are getting worse.  But in the developed world (especially the U.S.), pollution is much less today than in the 1970s.  Those of us who lived through those years, know first hand.  You may not truly know how bad it was.  Either that, or you are refusing to acknowledge what you do not want to accept.  How can you say removing lead did not do much.  Are you still using leaded gasoline where you live? 

[Rodius]

Its like you dont have a clue.... do you understand that the sheer volume of environmental destruction via oil, plastics, and chemicals doesn't matter to you.

You seem to have no idea that the US is NOT THE WORLD.

You say air pollutants have decreased... well, it might be cleaner on a chemical level but we use A LOT more of the stuff than the "cleaning" has been reduced. And, lets be clear on this, no amount of cleaning a dirty product makes it good for the environment or climate. It is still very bad and we are piling on.

Water... since you cant figure out the US isn't the world, lets focus on you some more.

Water quality is not solved or close to solved.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/347735/water-pollution-remains-top-environmental-concern.aspx

I could get into how the aquifers are drying up from overuse... so even with the poor attack on water pollution continuing in the US, there is also less of it.

But of course, when you comeback is "the numbers mean nothing", it is difficult to show how you are wrong when you refuse to acknowledge the numbers that show the problem.

As I said, rose coloured glasses and ignorance thrown on top makes for a happy idiot.

Just to be clear here... this is not about the US< it is about the entire world.

The US is not fixing anything on scale within its own borders.

Nothing you have mentioned in terms of the situation getting better is correct and it is shown in the numbers that you say mean nothing.

And I am not confused about chemicals... you didn't say which chemicals or define it. So this is not about me needing my confusion removed, it is about you not being clear and swooping in afterward like some sort of saviour.

I provided information about chemicals... but again, those numbers don't mean anything to you.... probably because they don't match your rose colour, mirror filled, version of the world.

[The Walrus]

Its like you dont have a clue.... do you understand that the sheer volume of environmental destruction via oil, plastics, and chemicals doesn't matter to you.

You seem to have no idea that the US is NOT THE WORLD.

You say air pollutants have decreased... well, it might be cleaner on a chemical level but we use A LOT more of the stuff than the "cleaning" has been reduced. And, lets be clear on this, no amount of cleaning a dirty product makes it good for the environment or climate. It is still very bad and we are piling on.

Water... since you cant figure out the US isn't the world, lets focus on you some more.

Water quality is not solved or close to solved.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/347735/water-pollution-remains-top-environmental-concern.aspx

I could get into how the aquifers are drying up from overuse... so even with the poor attack on water pollution continuing in the US, there is also less of it.

But of course, when you comeback is "the numbers mean nothing", it is difficult to show how you are wrong when you refuse to acknowledge the numbers that show the problem.

As I said, rose coloured glasses and ignorance thrown on top makes for a happy idiot.

Just to be clear here... this is not about the US< it is about the entire world.

The US is not fixing anything on scale within its own borders.

Nothing you have mentioned in terms of the situation getting better is correct and it is shown in the numbers that you say mean nothing.

And I am not confused about chemicals... you didn't say which chemicals or define it. So this is not about me needing my confusion removed, it is about you not being clear and swooping in afterward like some sort of saviour.

I provided information about chemicals... but again, those numbers don't mean anything to you.... probably because they don't match your rose colour, mirror filled, version of the world.

I tried to explain it you, but you refuse to listen.  I showed you quantitatively how pollution has been reduced, but you ignore them.  Instead pointing to numbers which have nothing to do with pollution.  You refuse to listen to anyone who does not agree with your own version of reality, and proceed to question their intelligence. 

In all your posts, you seem fixated on certain issue, choosing to ignore others, as if they don’t matter to you.  Then you have the gall to others clueless.  I guess I better leave you to own version of the world.  I would say enjoy it, but you seem to think it is hell on earth.  I, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy the better life we have nowadays.  Good day.

[HapHazard]

Lead pollution/pervasiveness was much much higher back in the day. It's been linked to IQ drops in older folk. Good thing it's cleaner now, Rodius.

[Rodius]

Its like you dont have a clue.... do you understand that the sheer volume of environmental destruction via oil, plastics, and chemicals doesn't matter to you.

You seem to have no idea that the US is NOT THE WORLD.

You say air pollutants have decreased... well, it might be cleaner on a chemical level but we use A LOT more of the stuff than the "cleaning" has been reduced. And, lets be clear on this, no amount of cleaning a dirty product makes it good for the environment or climate. It is still very bad and we are piling on.

Water... since you cant figure out the US isn't the world, lets focus on you some more.

Water quality is not solved or close to solved.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/347735/water-pollution-remains-top-environmental-concern.aspx

I could get into how the aquifers are drying up from overuse... so even with the poor attack on water pollution continuing in the US, there is also less of it.

But of course, when you comeback is "the numbers mean nothing", it is difficult to show how you are wrong when you refuse to acknowledge the numbers that show the problem.

As I said, rose coloured glasses and ignorance thrown on top makes for a happy idiot.

Just to be clear here... this is not about the US< it is about the entire world.

The US is not fixing anything on scale within its own borders.

Nothing you have mentioned in terms of the situation getting better is correct and it is shown in the numbers that you say mean nothing.

And I am not confused about chemicals... you didn't say which chemicals or define it. So this is not about me needing my confusion removed, it is about you not being clear and swooping in afterward like some sort of saviour.

I provided information about chemicals... but again, those numbers don't mean anything to you.... probably because they don't match your rose colour, mirror filled, version of the world.

I tried to explain it you, but you refuse to listen.  I showed you quantitatively how pollution has been reduced, but you ignore them.  Instead pointing to numbers which have nothing to do with pollution.  You refuse to listen to anyone who does not agree with your own version of reality, and proceed to question their intelligence. 

In all your posts, you seem fixated on certain issue, choosing to ignore others, as if they don’t matter to you.  Then you have the gall to others clueless.  I guess I better leave you to own version of the world.  I would say enjoy it, but you seem to think it is hell on earth.  I, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy the better life we have nowadays.  Good day.

Yeah.... that is the problem... you get to have a better life at the expense of others and the planet and wont need to deal with the consequences of generations of that type of thinking.

Enjoy your life... don't worry about the others who gave it to you or the future generations that have to fix your mess.

Dont worry about the planet, only the US matters and your own little region of it.

The stats tell a story of more air pollution, more plastics, more CO2, more production, more water pollution and just more of everything we need to reduce.

The clean up doesn't keep up with the mess making.

And the resources required to maintain this lovely little lifestyle you are lucky to have are running out fast.

And in all of that, you think we can double the economy size in 25 years and it will be mostly okay.

More growth isn't possible for 25 more years... it isn't going to happen because it cant happen. There isn't enough good land, there isn't enough clean water, there isn't enough minerals to double what we have now.

That is the point of this.
Not you talking about the US and how wonderful it is... even though it is easy to show it isn't good there in terms of water quality, amount, air pollution, CO2 emissions, and so on. But this isn't about you... this is a global thing.

That is the point.
THe planet cant do it even if you think it can... the physical reality is we cant maintain what we are doing now.
How do we double something we cant maintain already?

We need something like 4 planets worth of resources to maintain what we are doing at the moment.... and you think we can double that lol.

That is the point.

Can you stay on it?

Explain to everyone how a species using 4 planets' worth of resources can double everything in 25 years.

Slight edit... not 4 times as much resources... 1.7 worth
https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/#:~:text=Humanity%20is%20using%20nature%201.7,the%20resources%20of%201.7%20Earths.

The four planets worth comes from the idea that everyone lived like the US... it is actually five but lets not quibble over that.

https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/#:~:text=The%20Ecological%20Footprint%20for%20the,to%20look%20at%20the%20data.

[vox_mundi]