> First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.
> I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”
> All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.
Additionally, what is a “planetary state of emergency?” Like global martial law? Because if the tipping point theory is correct, that’s what we have to be talking about, right. It can’t just be a metaphor for “try harder to meet climate change protocols.”
> Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post
Additionally, the author cites and links to specific facts in IPCC and UN reports regarding population displacement, sea levels, crop yields, and economic impact.
I would rather listen to the IPCC direct from their reports, or via less biased reporting than to Michael Shellenberger. He is consistently pro nuclear, a registered lobbyist, and particularly anti renewables - often simply making stuff up to find problems in their use.
Thus he often leaves me with feeling that I have to check every citation back to source to see the part he didn't quote, or the preceding and following sentence. He has such a clear agenda I find him hard to trust on any topic.
He’s linking to the IPCC and UN reports he’s citing so you can just look it up.
Being anti-nuclear is a pretty good indication that you don’t think climate change is really a serious problem. France has a CO2 footprint much lower than its neighbors because it’s grid is heavily nuclear. (Right now, we don’t have the battery technology for a fully renewable grid, so countries like Germany must backup renewables with coal and gas. Also, it makes no sense to shut down nuclear plants that have already been paid for to build renewables. If climate change was really pressing, you’d keep the nuclear plant running, build the renewable resource, and shut down a coal plant instead.)
Being obstinately anti-nuclear can be, though it pays to recognise the absurd costs that tend to come with nuclear electricity when you consider full lifecycle including decommissioning and waste handling. Right now we can bring renewables online cheaper and faster, though we are probably best served with a mix of both if nuclear costs can be constrained. Germany's move from already existing nuclear whilst using lignite is madness.
Being a pro-nuclear zealot who feels solar, wind, and hydro essentially has no place is as damaging and unhelpful, with as much of an agenda as anyone pro-fossil or believing climate heating isn't a problem. The man has a one issue agenda, read all his writings accordingly. shrug :)
While the IPCC talks about "tipping points," it does not mean "cascades" that "threaten the existence of human civilization." It's important to understand that what the IPCC means by "tipping points" is certain irreversible changes in things like sea ice coverage, or collapse of maize crops in "certain areas." Those things might be bad, but they don't imply "runaway climate change" or collapse of global agricultural systems, or anything like that. See Table 3.7.
The aggregate effect of these local effects is estimated in box 3.6. For the United States, it says:
> The results for the baseline no-policy case indicate that economic damages along median temperature change and median damages (median-median) reach 4.5% of GDP by 2100, with an uncertainty range of 2.5% and 8.5% resulting from different combinations of temperature change and damages. Avoided damages from achieving a 1.5°C temperature limit along the median-median case are nearly 4% (range 2–7%) by 2100.
That's the bottom-line figure quoted in the article I linked. Avoided damages from keeping climate change to 1.5C are 2-7% of GDP by 2100. That means significant disruptions to the structure of our economy in response to climate change will almost certainly cost us more than what we avoid in damage from climate change.
The last section of the Nature article says that in the authors' view, the aggregate effect of these tipping points could be worse than the IPCC projects. (Note that the above GDP figures do attempt to account for tipping point effects.) That may or may not be true, but that conclusion is not part of the IPCC consensus.
Im sorry but, when have economists been right about anything? Economics is not a science, they just use math and big words because real scientists seem to.
> Meanwhile CBO’s 2010 premium projections were remarkably accurate: within 1 percent of actual average 2017 marketplace premiums.
Note that economists aren't running climate models. IPCC climate scientists are running models projecting what will happen (e.g. crop yields will decline by 20%.) IPCC economists are then putting a dollar value on those effects. (If crop yields decline by 20%, what will be the hit on the economy?)
Economics is a difficult phenomena but any nation or academic body which ignores it study would be severely foolish. There’s no point in bashing its scienciness.
For the ice sheet collapses, it takes 100s or 1000s of years for the effects to be realized. Others such as permafrost melting or Amazon forest disappearance are faster, but time scales are not given. For example -
>The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate3. It could add a further 7 m to sea level over thousands of years if it passes a particular threshold. Beyond that, as the elevation of the ice sheet lowers, it melts further, exposing the surface to ever-warmer air. Models suggest that the Greenland ice sheet could be doomed at 1.5 °C of warming3, which could happen as soon as 2030.
>Thus, we might already have committed future generations to living with sea-level rises of around 10 m over thousands of years3. But that timescale is still under our control. The rate of melting depends on the magnitude of warming above the tipping point. At 1.5 °C, it could take 10,000 years to unfold3; above 2 °C it could take less than 1,000 years6. Researchers need more observational data to establish whether ice sheets are reaching a tipping point, and require better models constrained by past and present data to resolve how soon and how fast the ice sheets could collapse.
"Scientifically, this provides strong evidence for declaring a state of planetary emergency, to unleash world action that accelerates the path towards a world that can continue evolving on a stable planet."
Talk about weasel words
"Exiting the fossil fuel economy is unlikely before 2050, but with temperature already at 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperature, it is likely Earth will cross the 1.5°C guardrail by 2040. The authors conclude this alone defines an emergency"
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change” likewise Greta Thunberg warned us that according to the UN’s IPCC, (the same one THE Scientists/authors use as a reference on this paper)“we have less than 12 years left in which to correct our mistakes.” and now THE Scientists/authors talk for LIKELY cross the 1.5°C by 2040?
The warming is going to continue for decades even after net emissions have dropped to zero. So yes, we're in a real hurry even if the worst effects are still a few decades away. It's not like we can wait UNTIL the 1.5° point is crossed and then magically stop the warming.
Yes, it's because the impact of putting greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not immediate. Temperatures will continue to rise after the fact. Sea level rise is also much slower, meaning that even if we stop emitting, levels continue to rise for hundreds of years.
There's a lot of uncertainty regarding the tipping points. Some scientists fear that if we cross the 2 degrees celcius, we could have a runaway breakdown due to processes such as melted ice heating the ocean much more and permafrost releasing enormous amounts of ghg.
We don't know for sure that will happen, but its extremely risky. Some fear we could lock in devastating processes within 12 years (even if they won't happen immediately).
Some people think that even if we don't know for sure it'll happen, we should follow the precautionary principle and not take the risk of these extreme events.
Pretty hard to take climate change reporting seriously.
The media is an amplifier that only publishes the most alarmist scientific findings, always blanketed in paragraphs of the editors own apocalyptic interpretation.
Climate science is complex. There's a broad spectrum of findings, many are not world-ending, and sometimes disagree on the details.
If anything, the media understates the threat by mixing in a lot of debunked misinformation. It's hard to take most journalism seriously with the sensationalism bias, but we're already seeing serious negative effects from climate change in the most vulnerable countries.
The planet will be a very different place in 50 years.
> Is there an example of any we have already passed?
Reading about nature before humans or where humans settle shows that what passes as nature today is nothing like it used to be. That we are mostly ignorant of it doesn't change that we've passed many tipping points. Each extinction, for example, is irreversible and everyone here knows we're causing more than ever.
No. The list has nine tipping points that the authors are afraid we will pass in the future. From the article:
> Nine active tipping points:
> [...]
> The rainforests, permafrost and boreal forests are examples of biosphere tipping points that if crossed result in the release of additional greenhouse gases amplifying warming.
Well . . . I have now read the source article (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0), and I would say that the authors fear that we have already passed or will pass these tipping points in the near future. I.E. they are basically inevitable, but we may be able to affect the rate of change.
> It seems like they are always saying we are on the brink of some "tipping point."
Of course, as soon as someone says “that’s it, science has concluded we’re all fucked” no one will see the value in the various money-shifting schemes that have been proposed to save the earth.
It's difficult to appreciate or convey the timescales involved here.
Human activities are pushing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to levels not seen for millions of years.
We've accomplished that in a scant 200 years of fossil fuel use, though with consumption doubling about every 30-40 years, half of the total has occurred since the 1970s.
Atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels will remain elevated for many thousands of years.
The first awareness of a possible problem seems to have been in the 1850s (yes, the 19th century), and by the early 20th century, the US Naval Research Laboratory was warning of possibly impacts on civilisation. Comprehensive and consistent measurements didn't begin until the 1950s (Charles Keeling and his eponymous curve), and political efforts to address the challenge began in the 1960s. They've been less successful than early activists forecast.
The impacts of climate change not only develop slowly and over time, but through emergent and second-order effects, the full impacts aren't directly forseable. We know that temperatures on average will rise, as will sea levels. Local climactic effects may be above or below those averages. Direct changes include not only temperature but chemistry, and induced effects on ecosystems and human activities, including agriculture and disease. We're seeing long-term trends already in terms of temperatures, sea level rise, shifting climactic zones, changes to forest health, and more. Those are just the harbinger of what will all but certainly be vastly greater consequences playing out over coming decades and centuries.
If it helps: you're in the middle of a train wreck, as a bridge collapses, and the cars hurtle into a fuel storage dump, but are witnessing all of this in super slow motion. What looks like nothing happening is in fact things happening, and most especially approaching critical points at which either it's not possible to roll back to the previous state, much as a block tipped too far doesn't fall back, but continues over, or where behaviour changes dramatically, as the difference between tapping a windowpane and driving your fist through it. Nonlinear responses mean you cannot predict future states based on a steady extrapolation from past experience.
You are in the middle of the emergency -- the emergent situation. The brink lasts a long time, at human scales. On geological ones, this is the blink of an eye, or less.
A thoroughly disheartening read, as from what we've seen so far, we seem incapable of taking any action, let alone "emergency action" to mitigate this.
One thing I find encouraging is how many people (particularly young people) are now understanding the seriousness of the climate situation. I would really like to see a public pledge from companies, universities, etc that people who risk their education/career by pushing for real change will not be disadvantaged.
If anyone is interested in helping to make this a reality, shoot me an email at together@highestsupport.com
Getting it into perspective, emissions of CO2 in the UK are now at a level last seen in 1890 and that contribution to world CO2 is around 1% with US at 16% with a bit more than half that from Europe.
Meanwhile it's widely understood that all major fossil fuel-producing nations—including the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, Canada, and Australia—have ambitious plans to increase production.
It's understanding on the part of the odd 70% that counts and good luck with that. Lectures from the West don't go down very well especially since most of these countries are committed to increasing their standard of living and that's necessarily linked to energy use.
I'm sorry, but is your argument really that this issue is "n[o]t thought ... through" unless people actually starve themselves over it? That it's all a "ploy" unless this guy actually dies for his cause?
I can't quite tell if you're engaging in a non sequitur or moving the goalposts, but your comment doesn't make sense to me in context.
The scariest thing about climate change is not climate deniers. The scariest thing is people who believe in climate emergency and sit on their butt and do nothing.
I challenged myself to avoid flying for a year, anticipating a year of missing out, losing money, missing family, and all sorts of deprivation and sacrifice. Within a few months I found it one of my best decisions so kept going. I'm now over 4.5 years and may never fly again.
But when I talk to people about not flying, or avoiding packaged food, they tell me it's impossible.
It's not only possible, it will improve your life as much as dropping sugar or any other addiction. Nobody gets it. They think I'm suffering or privileged when it's the opposite. I explain more in my second TEDx talk http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-ge....
Come to think of it, maybe I should stop posting about the joys of not flying since it almost always leads to people responding with thoughtless misunderstandings like: one person's actions don't matter or they need to for work and family. We have to get past these knee-jerk misunderstandings.
It took me a very long time (years) to come to terms with the idea that as a techie I can't do anything to help climate. Tech projects is just an excuse to stay in my comfort zone. A very uncomfortable realization.
Do you not think about living by your values as a matter of integrity?
I don't not steal to stop others from stealing. I don't steal because I don't want to hurt others. If everyone in the world stole, I still wouldn't. If the whole world pollutes, I'm still going to avoid polluting as much as I can.
I would like to add this article by Bret Victor: "What can a technologist do about climate change? (A personal view)" http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
This piece by Brett Victor gave me the push to focus more on what work I do rather than just focusing on personal wealth + career. I ended up being employee #1 at solar forecasting company that is targeting the intermittency problem of renewables.
If you’re in a privileged enough situation, I’d highly recommend renewable energy sector, lots of problems where applying technical skill can be extremely impactful.
> Likewise support Green New Deal politicians in the US and elsewhere.
If we are really trying to avert climate change, how is spending trillions on labor unions and guaranteed jobs going to help?
If this was the plot of the movie Armageddon, and there was an asteroid hurtling towards earth, would your planned respond spend pages talking about unions, wealth inequality, indigenous people, and guaranteed healthcare, jobs, and housing? If climate change is really imminent and existential threat that requires “war time mobilization” then how can we afford to water down our response with these tangential things?
Under the Green New Deal you’d spend trillions more a year on healthcare, housing, etc. For that money you could buy up the major oil companies like Exxon (market cap $300 billion) and keep the oil in the ground. You could make the US carbon neutral using existing or near-term CO2 recapture technology. You could bankroll India and China to keep their fossil fuels in the ground and build out fully renewable capacity. You could invest in renewables technology, nuclear, carbon capture at the same time. If you sincerely believed that climate change was an existential crisis, why would you divert 90%+ of the force of the “war time mobilization” on social programs?
In my view, the Green new deal has done incalculable damage to the environmental movement. It is a transparent and cynical attempt to piggy-back traditional left wing politics onto the environmental movement, undermining its credibility and seriousness.
The logic behind the GND is simple: if we don’t do something about this, we’re going to be screwed. People don’t want to do anything about it because they’re afraid it will cost jobs. So make a plan that guarantees them jobs if they do something about it.
It’s a political solution to a technical problem. You may not like the politics, but it’s pretty damn logical.
> The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.
> “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
The question is whether there is a logic to it beyond the pretext that motivated it originally. And I don’t think there is. Protecting jobs from displacement as a result of climate change mitigation efforts makes sense. That could be accomplished for a fraction of the price of offering guaranteed housing, jobs, healthcare, higher education, etc.
We are talking about spending trillions a year on social welfare to get maybe $100 billion (at most?) on climate change mitigation. Is that “pretty damn logical?”?)
I think it’s one solution on the table, and not even one that has the full support of a single party. The others so far seem to be pretty close to a no-op. Be nice to see some other folks try to modulate it and offer a better proposal.
Barack Obama is a boring, middle of the road, centrist as hell politician.
He is as much a “proponent” of climate change as, say, Angela Merkel. Which is to say, not all that much. He cares a little bit but not that much.
Also, he’s rich and for rich people the risk of sea level rise is dramatically lower because they can fight for their little corner either through technological means or they can just move away and it’s not an existential threat to them, no matter what they do.
Human civilizations have always blossomed in warmer climate. All this scaremongering about global warming ending human civilization and destroying nature is just laughable.
The sociological impact will be immense and likely bankrupt most of the world. We're going to have to move people out of low-lying areas in a pretty short amount of time. There will be billions of refugees but the inland areas don't have the infrastructure or water sources to absorb that many people. There will be food shortages as farmable land becomes inundated or dries up. Wars will happen as desperate people / nations fight over limited resources.
Every coastal city is under threat, and east Asia (where half the world's population lives) is especially vulnerable. I have a feeling things are going to get really, really bad in about 20 years because there's no realistic plan to do anything about it.
Sounds like fearmongering with no basis. There are lots of areas which would benefit from warming and become food producers (Siberia and Canada come to mind). As for Southeast Asians: they're already used to living on water, with stilt houses, rice terraces etc. Humans can cope, as tgey always have. Overall, there will be more water, more warmth and more civilization.
Sure, individual humans will cope with change the best they can, but in the absence of coordinated effort they’re just refugees.
Refugees aren’t bad people, but they are desperate. They will not abide by your country’s rule of law if it means they starve as a result.
The global political environment is actively hostile to coordinated climate action. Without that, we’re just going to see a series of uncontrolled crises spilling over into neighboring nations as countries fight over limited and shifting resource patterns.
What are your qualifications that enable you to come to this conclusion?
I would be very interested in studying your publications - where can I find your analysis?
Also it would be really very appreciated if you would like to publish the datasets that lead you to this conclusion - would you like to give us a public repo with the data, so we can check your results?
That's not very humble. His assertions are quite basic, and don't need research-grade qualifications to consider. The earth has certainly prehistorically been much warmer, so nature handled it just fine, and it is an interesting question to consider how much more arable land a warmer earth would have.
Earth has not been considerably warmer prehistorically (a term that, technically speaking, refers to the period between the appearance of tool-using hominins and the invention of written history). If you mean paleontological periods before the appearance of genus Homo, yes, but that's not very relevant given how the GP talked about the human civilization (which, incidentally, did not exist in the prehistoric era either!)
As far as we know, the loss of arable land caused by the climate change (and other anthropogenic environmental changes) far outweighs possible gains elsewhere, and even if it didn't, agricultural land area is not exactly fungible.
Ok, I used the wrong word. I was also referring to OP's point that "nature was just fine" - the earth has been up to 12degC warmer than present, before humans could make any impact. My point is that, taken in isolation, a warmer earth is not fundamentally bad, nor new.
As for his point about humans preferring warmer temperatures - hopefully that is self-evident.
>As far as we know, the loss of arable land caused by the climate change (and other anthropogenic environmental changes) far outweighs possible gains elsewhere
Would like to see an analysis of arable land gained vs. lost. This is all purely hypothetical, of course - such a change would be drastic, and as you point out, arable land isn't exactly fungible.
A warmer earth with humans on it is fundamentally new, as we've not been around that long. Even forerunner species like Homo habilis only go back three million years. An eye blink in the geologic record, and long, long after the five mass extinctions.
12C warmer would put vast amounts of the land area of the planet outside habitable conditions for humanity. We'd probably be restricted to former arctic regions, and not much else. So no, I don't think it's self evident at all. It won't take many degrees rise to rule us out of equatorial regions, then tropical...
True, it would be new to humans, but (at least initially) it's not fundamentally a problem (please note, I'm arguing in the most theoretical sense here). Large amounts of the equatorial regions are already uninhabitable - it would be interesting to see an analysis of the total inhabitable land loss vs gain for each degree in temperature rise.
Given a slow enough rate of change, species would adapt and migrate. Presuming there aren't farms, cities, roads, railways, dams and fences preventing smooth migration to the newly appropriate regions.
My concern is we're changing the climate at geologically unprecedented rates, likely far too quickly for species to evolve and migrate, even if we hadn't locked up 50% of the world's landmass for our own use. That will play interesting havoc with food chains no matter what former permafrost and arctic is freed up for use (with its own emissions load on melting).
Start changing behaviour after the IPCC first report came in, in 1990. Waiting until we have not just visible, but dramatic and surprisingly early consequences is leaving taking evasive action in the car until the bodywork has started to crumple. I note that nearly all the surprises seem to be of things being far more or far sooner than predicted...
That leaves dramatic and expensive global scale action. We're not doing it. There's no sign we're thinking about doing it. Let the market resolve is the sole incredibly weak suggestion.
I don't think history is going to view citizens and politicians of the 21st century kindly. I can forgive and understand those contributing to the problem before say 1990, before the awareness was widespread. We've emitted more since 1990 than in the entire time before.
And the "hothouse" Earths were drastically different from Earth today. Given time, life adapts, but the point is that there's no time. There have been sudden, drastic global climate changes in Earth's history before. It's just that they have been accompanied by massive extinction events. Whatever we do, we probably won't destroy the whole ecosystem. But that's a rather ridiculously low bar to clear!
Sure, the "hothouse" earths are at the drastic end of the scale, but earth has spent significant periods of time at temperatures a few degrees above current. "There is no time" is a complex assertion that needs at least some research, and if there really isn't, what do you propose we do?
The details make it a very hard problem. There is scientific consensus that a too rapidly changing climate leads to mass extinction of species (plants, animals, etc.), because suddenly species are not adapted to the climate they find themselves in and can't migrate quickly enough. This loss of biodiversity should be of great concern, because it is irrecoverable. There are tons of other non-obvious problems that are not commonly understood.
It is a very hard problem, which is why I personally hate to see so many issues conflated under one slogan. Your point about species adaption is a fair one, however if we are going to consider absolute effects on biodiversity, direct human activity has already had a significantly worse effect.
> if we are going to consider absolute effects on biodiversity, direct human activity has already had a significantly worse effect
Do you have a source for this or are you just basing it on "common sense"
It does toe that Hans have primarily impacted species that tend to sit higher on the food chain. We have caused the extinction of more animals than plants. Rapid warming can kill of plants that can't move quickly migrate quickly enough to stay within the temperature ranges where they can survive.
It isn't just matter of spreading their seeds far enough (like the reforestation of New England), many plants rely on a prexistingnset of conditions created by the the presence of other species to be able to grow. When the required shifts get large enough there simply may not be enough time for those conditions to be established elsewhere before the temperatures in the current areas kills off the species.
Plants species (and animals like coral) serve as a critical component for many other species. It is quite conceivable that rapid global warming will lead to an extinction event that far exceeds anything that humans have managed to date.
Our understanding of ecological systems is still pretty limited and I don't think we can know for sure how bad it will be. I am personally hopeful that we can delevope terraforming techniques to assist with ecosystem relocation that can mitigate some of this.
I don't really have a source on that, although I'm also not aware of any particular species that are known to have been wiped out due to the current climate change. It is, however, fairly obvious that humans have had an enormous impact on pretty much every inhabitable part of the earth. Even without climate change, it's plausible that human activity will ultimately destroy most ecosystems.
>It is quite conceivable that rapid global warming will lead to an extinction event that far exceeds anything that humans have managed to date.
>When the required shifts get large enough there simply may not be enough time...
>Our understanding of ecological systems is still pretty limited
You've made a number of assertions here about ecology with no reference to research.
This is one of my main issues with the way climate change is presented - much is made of tipping points and the scale of the incoming catastrophe, but the fact is we simply don't know. Even if it is true that we have a low number of decades until irreversible catastrophe, what exactly can be done about that?
You are the one who made a strong assertion that the potential for extinction caused by rapid global warming is less than what humans have already caused.
I made relatively few assertions and the ones I did make are basic ecological science. I was pointing out that your strong claim was irresponsible given the plausible possibilities and our limited knowledge.
Not quite. I made the assertion that the ecological damage humans have already caused is much worse than that caused so far by current climate change. We both agree that predicting the further change in climate and its ecological impact is very difficult.
> I made the assertion that the ecological damage humans have already caused is much worse than that caused so far by current climate change.
Take a look again at what you are responding too and what you said, it is not at all clear that we're were contrasting past effects on diversity. Indeed, given the topic of the the prospective of rapid global warming causing it is unclear what relevency that point would have.
Would you please like to add data and evidence to add some substance to your words? It is not enough to just "say something" on the internet - you need to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.
It is true that the earth has already been warmer. We're reaching points that humans are never seen, though.
Second, the problem here is not only the total temperature variation but the speed at which the temperature is changing.
Think of the difference between a car going from 130 km/h to 0 km/h in 8 seconds, and a car going from 130 km/h to 0 km/h in 0.3 seconds. Not really endearing.
Understood, although we have no way to know if there have ever been similar events, as the geologic record is something of a low-pass filter.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say you find yourself in a car in the second scenario, with no known way to stop it. What would you do? I say this as a pragmatist - if we take the headlines at face value, and we only have ~10 years to avert a catastrophe, then the only realistic way to avert it is if 90% of the world's population spends that 10 years planting trees before killing themselves.
The earth isn't going to return to that state any time soon :) I posed it as an open question - given any particular rise in temperature, what is the total loss and gain of inhabitable land?
> First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.
> I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”
> All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.
Additionally, what is a “planetary state of emergency?” Like global martial law? Because if the tipping point theory is correct, that’s what we have to be talking about, right. It can’t just be a metaphor for “try harder to meet climate change protocols.”