When people say they support something to pollsters its often difficult to capture their depth of support. Most people would say they like chocolate ice cream but asked if they would be willing to forfeit $100 for a chocolate ice cream cone would pass on the ice cream.
On paper most people would like something to be done about climate change. But their depth of support is equally shallow as is there support for chocolate ice cream. It sounds nice to protect the planet for future generations, to avoid the severe damage to infrastructure and our homes and businesses that increased severe weather is to impose on them.
People like climate change action if it’s free to them and has no impact on how they live their lives. Slap a few solar panels on your roof, scrub your plastic bottles before tossing them in the blue bin, drive your Prisus to Wally World. But not so much if it means much higher energy bills, less reliable electricity, more restrictions on driving, less low cost products at the store and fewer jobs.
I think many on the left are correct to diagnose climate change as a serious problem. But they are quite happy to live as life of fiction, pretending that the solutions are zero cost – or just a big bill they can dump on the rich.
One thing I really despise is climate change activists who have decided on what their ideal target for climate change would be, and that we must meet those ends, by using any means possible. You’ve certainly heard the logic, “we must limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, to ensure a livable climate and therefore must do the following…”
That’s assuming there is only definition of a livable climate, and that there should be no debate on how clear or polluted we want our environment to be. It also is a form of ends justifying the means, rather then taking into careful consideration the means and how they relate to the ends. A higher climate target such as 2 or 3 or even 5 degrees Celsius global temperature mean might be entirely realistic when we consider the costs of the most aggressive plans for climate change.
I think a better plan would be to take a look at current technology and what people desire from existing energy services like motoring, electricity, and heat, and see what improves can be made to the system in a realistic time period. We should take a hard look at the likely climate outcomes, and see if this motivates society to step up it’s game — but keep everything in context. Rather then choosing an unrealistic climate goal of 1.5 degrees for a livable climate, I think we should look at the unlivable climate we are moving towards, work to adapt society to the changing climate and take reasonable steps to promote conservation like increased fuel efficiency, more renewables.
Last year was the hottest ever recorded, according to temperature data going back to 1850. And it beat the previous record by a wide margin, according to new data released by the European Union's weather and climate monitoring agency, Copernicus.
2023 beat out 2016, the previous leader for hottest recorded global average temperature, by nearly two-tenths of a degree Celsius (about four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit), according to the E.U. data. The high average temperatures reflected record-high ocean temperatures globally and were exacerbated by a strong El Ni?o climate pattern.
Global temperatures last year were nearly 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average global temperatures in the late 1800s, when humans first began emitting large amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels like coal and oil.
The numbers are in, and scientists can now confirm what month after month of extraordinary heat worldwide began signaling long ago. Last year was Earth’s warmest by far in a century and a half.
Global temperatures started blowing past records midyear and didn’t stop. First, June was the planet’s warmest June on record. Then, July was the warmest July. And so on, all the way through December.
Averaged across last year, temperatures worldwide were 1.48 degrees Celsius, or 2.66 Fahrenheit, higher than they were in the second half of the 19th century, the European Union climate monitor announced on Tuesday. That is warmer by a sizable margin than 2016, the previous hottest year.
… how it enables unscrupulous politicians enormous powers to operate the state as will benefit themselves and their in-group.
Martial law is hardly an unfamiliar concept to a country at war. During every active war, civil liberties and rights – even those delimited in the constitution are limited. Climate change destroys infrastructure with massive floods and fires, puts human life at risk. It brings out the military to restore order and rebuild destroyed infrastructure.
There is an enormous need to build climate friendly and hardened infrastructure in a short period of time. If it’s not built proactively, it will be built reactively after the existing infrastructure is destroyed by climate change induced storms. Areas that aren’t taking serious action now will be taking more action faster later on.
Rushed action by government means curtailed civil liberties, environmental protection undermined, corruption and waste. There is going to be a lot of that when we address climate change – not just the modeling but climate change effects to infrastructure and economy as a whole.
We must do more not only to slow emissions growth and reduce it but also harden our infrastructure now while it’s still cheaper to do and avoid more costly emergency damage repairs. Climate change is going to be really bad – they’re no stopping the serious damage we’ve done to the planet already – but we can take steps to limit the pain and protect our democracy and necessary infrastructure.
