What if we stopped pretending the climate apocalypse can be stopped
David Zetland writes in his news letter for The one-handed economist:
“What if we stopped pretending the climate apocalypse can be stopped?” lines up almost exactly with what I’ve been thinking in recent years, i.e., that we’re not making any serious dent in GHG emissions and that it’s better to focus on local community and resiliency. One ironic manifestation of this thinking is that property values in Amsterdam (a city in a region that will be underwater in 50-500 years — the timing will be difficult) may rise rather than fall, as people crowd into a place that’s well run relative to other places that are physically safer but institutionally dysfunctional. How will your future play out?
Invest in sunscreen and swim fins and life preservers.
I would have to comment that most families who can afford to are already adapting.
As I roll through the more affluent areas in and around Houston something seems painfully obvious…where have the yards gone? Most of these homes are giant sanctuaries that house the living quarters, sleep quarters, gym, study, entertainment, and even air conditioned work spaces and garages. Too often I see houses built in the 50s and 60s being torn down, re-platted for larger yards, and then a giant 2 story home, or even 3-4 story town homes go up. People go from air conditioned house, to office, to story, and rarely spend any amount of time outdoors except if they camp somewhere exotic, hit the beach somewhere tropic, etc.
The other half are living in 1972-1984 apartments that have not been well cared for, or in homes and condo’s dating back at least 30 years. These homes do not benefit from low e windows, advances in roof technology such as radiant barrier, or even insulation and HVAC equipment that should be up to par. They can afford it because of the lack of maintenance and investment in the homes due to suburban sprawl and what I see as de-gentrification. Some of these areas are coming back, but the folks who live there are usually at that point on a fixed income, or otherwise can pay the upkeep and taxes.
The dichotomy already exists, and the people who can afford it are already making their homes an island on stilts, while the rest of folks who can’t afford it flood or bake in the hear and in need of government assistance now yearly as we have seen just yesterday.
The causes are still here and the effects more than obvious. Now we just need everyone to stop the Team Speak and wake up to reality.
Russians will all have the easy option to move north in their own country. Americans will have to illegally emigrate to Canada — at first — until it becomes obvious (to us) that we have to become one country. Europeans may have to explain similar to Russians as they move eastward and northward.
This may not be a joke. :-O
Haven’t figured out yet what the southern hemisphere is going to do.
Most of the petroleum will be burned. Most of the natural gas will be burned. These things are inevitable and will lead to a certain amount of warming probably exceeding the 2° C that we have been warmed about so mitigation is certainly something that any sane government should be working on, as well as every citizen with the means. The real issue is potential long term non linear absolutely catastrophic effects that are real possibilities if we don’t leave the bulk of the coal in the ground. It all comes down to the coal and keeping in the ground. That is why Trump and his crowd is so dangerous. It is as if somewhere were to come along and start a massive pro smoking campaign funded by the U.S. government. Insane.
“Focus on local community and resiliency” is going to be like trying to stop a whirlwind by shouting at it.
4 degrees centigrade increase, which I agree there is essentially no way we’re going to avoid, will desertify southern China, southern Europe, and the central United States.
“Forced migration” will be the absolute best case outcome.
But I think everyone who’s been keeping up with current governmental attitudes towards migrants in the US, the UK, and Europe knows that migration, particularly on those scales, isn’t going to happen peaceably. The prospective host countries aren’t permitting much lower levels of immigration today. Why should we presume they’ll be willing to shelter and absorb muvch higher numbers of refugees, under much higher levels of internal political upheaval?
Some if not most of the migrant populations will come from failed or no-longer-existent states. All they’ll be able to do is die, unless they simply overwhelm the border controls of the target states.
But the ones whose ruling elites are still somewhat intact, and able to command technology several decades in advance of our own, aren’t liable to be so helpless. Some of them will be able and willing to fight. And they won’t have many scruples about methods, because they won’t have ANY other feasible choices. To fail will be not only to die, but to watch their entire families and communities die right along with them.
That will mean not only war, but total war, the likes of which we have not seen since 1945. Under those circumstances, I am confident the Climate Wars will go nuclear and or biological very very quickly.
And that WILL kill technical civilization, and the species right along with it, even more effectively than it would have done in 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis) or 1983 (Able Archer panic).
Personally, I don’t think there’ll be a single human alive on the planet in 200 years’ time.