The climate. To panic or not to panic. That is the question.

This is not a total rebuttal of Elrocko's endless blog. It is, however, a place to state your slightly less frenzied opinion on the climate. Statements like "billions of people are fleeing for their lives" can be found on that thread. Hopefully calmer heads will prevail here.

There is no denying human activity has been detrimental to the planet. From annihilation of animals to extinction to overuse of natural resources, to destruction of our own environment, there are endless examples how bad human activity has been, in the past as well and the present day. We could spend a long time just listing the ways we have destroyed the world and most other species living in it.

The question at hand is will we soon (key word) pay the price with the deaths of millions, if not more, humans and will we, if not prevented from continuing to do so, bring about the death of humanity and the planet itself.

I think we will, in fact, make the earth inhospitable to all life, eventually. But how long would that take?

The statistics experts with their ubiquitous charts will show you how in just the past 150 years we have increased certain dangerous (?) gases a hundred fold or more. They say this is heating the planet ( but so far less than two degrees Fahrenheit ). They say, and have said for fifty years, that one more degree and it's too late to fix.

That's brings up two questions:

1. Why, every ten years or so, is the day of reckoning pushed farther away?

2. If, by the claims in the late twentieth century, it's already too late, where are all these people who are "fleeing for their very lives"?

Anecdotes are anathema to these panic prone climate folks but here goes a couple from my lifetime:

The beaches on the northeastern US coast were predicted to be gone by 2000. They're not.

The ocean was due to rise twelve inches or more by the same date. It didn't.

I'm not the only one telling stories like this so maybe if you add up all the anecdotal testimony it counts for something. Maybe.

Or maybe we should just blindly follow the instructions of the scientists, right or wrong. After all, they're the experts, right?

Things are being done to mitigate some of the damage humans have done. Some of it is meaningful and some of it is nonsensical. Solar and wind power is obviously less of a cause of pollution than burning coal. That's fairly easy to figure out. Electric cars are a question since they use toxic chemicals to build and take electrical energy to charge. The net value of a change to EVs may not be the great solution it is purported to be.

Then again taking your groceries home in a paper bag, while most of your groceries contain plastic packaging, seems like self-delusion. Besides aren't we told to save the trees?

Let's look at lifestyles. In the USA, ten year old kids have cell phones. Almost every single part of such a device is not only a pollutant but comes from industries that are heavy polluters. Will be we switching to wood phones soon?

Of course I'm being facetious but when taken as a whole, most lifestyles in developed countries consume a lot more environmentally unfriendly components than the family car. Houses have plastic siding and fences as well as plumbing. Roads are paved with asphalt and roofs are made of similar materials, both petroleum products. Concrete roads are worse. The industry that produces the product ranks high on the worst polluter list.

In any case, I'm sure the reduction in the use of fossil fuels will be some help if every country agreed. They don't. But that's another issue.

In my view, human activity has undeniably had a detrimental impact on the planet, causing habitat destruction, resource depletion, and environmental damage. While the extent and urgency of climate change may be debated, it is important to approach the issue with a level-headed perspective. Climate change is a complex phenomenon, and the specific outcomes and timelines can vary across regions and over time. While some earlier predictions may not have materialized in certain areas, it does not negate the broader reality of climate change and its potential consequences. Scientific understanding evolves over time, and projections may be refined as new data becomes available. It is crucial to acknowledge the global nature of climate change and work towards sustainable solutions through collective efforts involving governments, industries, and individuals.

Individual actions can contribute to a broader shift towards sustainability, even if they alone cannot solve the climate crisis. Transitioning to renewable energy sources, promoting energy efficiency, and advocating for environmentally conscious policies are important steps in mitigating the impacts of climate change. While certain technologies or lifestyle choices may have drawbacks or trade-offs, considering the net value and striving for overall reductions in environmental harm can still make a positive impact. International cooperation is challenging but essential, as global efforts to address climate change through agreements like the Paris Agreement are necessary for meaningful progress. It is crucial to foster informed discussions and seek a balanced understanding of the issue to collectively work towards a sustainable future.

Well stated and calmly at that. Thank you.

Now for a question:

Knowing what you know and have observed regarding all aspects of the issue, including agreements between governments and their actual fulfillments or not and the normal resistance to change inherent in most humans, what is your guess as to the future in, let's say the next one hundred years?

Predicting the future, especially over a long timeframe like the next hundred years, is highly uncertain and subject to various factors and unknown variables. However, based on the current state of affairs and existing trends, I would say in the next hundred years, the future of climate change will depend on the actions taken to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to its impacts. Without significant global efforts to reduce emissions, the Earth's climate will continue to warm, leading to more severe weather events and rising sea levels. Transitioning to renewable energy, implementing sustainable practices, and prioritizing adaptation and resilience measures are key steps to creating a more sustainable and resilient future. Technological advancements and changing societal attitudes can play a crucial role in shaping this trajectory, but collective action on a global scale will be essential to address the challenges posed by climate change.

i say dont panic,

also i got banned on the other one so idk ya might wanna ban me on this too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That wasn't really an answer. That was a dodge. Let me try again.

Knowing the proclivity of governments and humans in general are we going to see significant changes in actual activity to "save the world" or will we simple do as we always have and wait for the profit motive to do the heavy lifting?

For example, at the end of the nineteenth century it was clear that coal oil lamps were killing people. What saved us was ingenuity not government edict. From then forward the profit motive catapulted humanity in the developed world into the age of electricity.

Does the future hold the same? Do we wait until industry decides it's more profitable to create alternatives or do we bend to the will of science, whether or not we agree with their premise of imminent destruction?

Human activity has undoubtedly negatively impacted Earth. How long will it take to completely destroy it?

Let us say humans want to destroy Earth? They could do this in a heartbeat if they wanted to.

Now, obviously, this is not the case. We would like to keep the Earth running as long as possible, one assumes.

The question now is, people may accelerate the Earth’s demise, or they may try to slow it down. How real is this problem to people nowadays? If you get the right people, who are motivated enough, sure you can at least control the climate crisis (this also leads to the question, can this climate crisis be fixed, or just delayed?).

I think the earth will be around a few years yet, but what world leaders are doing now is not going to be enough.

Here is an example of the kind of lack of government activity in the US that leads me to believe they do not take the climate issue as seriously as it is claimed they should.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/June%202022%20DOE%20Solar%20Market%20Update.pdf

To summarize: Last year the US department of energy declared a shortage of solar panel supplies that would seriously effect planned upgrade for at least a year.

Now if the world is really at the cusp of destruction and every move we make is critical why was this allowed to happen? In WWII there was a critical need for transportation of war materials in the USA. The government nationalized the railroads. Nothing was going to hamper the war effort and the war wasn't even in the USA.

Yet here we are watching the world be destroyed and "Oh we don't have enough parts"? Seriously?

The governments who signed the Paris agreements and who otherwise "agree" with the need for immediate action are doing what governments always do: making promises they have little, if any, intention of keeping. Yet John Q. Citizen is being told he must sell his gas powered car and buy an electric one. Then the government is coming to take his gas stove.

The climate issue is real. The government posturing and environmentalists preaching is not only not helping. It's turning people off.

👍

What are some things that would effectively curb the climate crisis today?

Check the millions of articles on that, I'm sure you'll get an answer :P

According to some, it's too late. According to others, nothing being done is enough.

Knowing what you know and have observed regarding all aspects of the issue, including agreements between governments and their actual fulfillments or not and the normal resistance to change inherent in most humans, what is your guess as to the future in, let's say the next one hundred years?

I am not so sure about this world lasting 100 more years. I don’t find it incredibly likely.

The world will last until the sun burns out. Humanity on the other hand will need to adjust. And we already are but to the panic prone we are not doing it fast enough.

People don’t need to panic. Why? What can you do about the sun burning out?

In my opinion, the future response to climate change is likely to involve a combination of factors, including the profit motive driving innovation and the role of governments in setting policies and regulations. While the profit motive can incentivize the development of sustainable alternatives, government actions are crucial in providing a framework for change and addressing the urgency of the issue. Additionally, public awareness and societal attitudes can influence both industry practices and government decision-making, fostering a collective response to the challenges posed by climate change. The extent and effectiveness of these efforts will depend on the interplay between economic incentives, government actions, and public engagement.

You continue to say what should happen. What I'm asking is your position on what is likely to happen based on past experience/knowledge of human behavior.

In my opinion government actions on all fronts will continue to stall past any expected date of imminent destruction. Voter rejection of the expense required to combat CO2 output will continue to stifle corrective action by legislation. Petroleum products, oil and gas and even coal, will continue to be used by uncooperative governments seeking a place in the world growth curve. Industries presently growing slowly, like solar and wind power producers, will encounter continued headwinds due to product shortages and lack of land availability as well as shortage of supporting legislation.

The world will continue to warm, exceedingly slowly, past any predicted apocalyptic temperature. The doomsday date will be pushed ever forward into the future. Coastal communities and whole societies will relocate as necessary and new areas will be settled.

On a longer time frame, the earth will stabilize partly on it's own and partly due to industrial change and population reduction.

My timeline for all this is 100 to 200 years.

What do you mean there's no denying it? My entire life conservatives have denied it. When I was growing up, my conservative teachers in school presented arguments about why global warming either didn't exist or wasn't the fault of humans.

And after decades of fking around and getting everything wrong, you still want a say in how things should be done?

No. You're id|ots and you have been this way my entire life. You should be quiet and let adults handle things from now on. Mentally you are children.

Same as it's always been... people who know nothing about it have many loud and contrary opinions.