1. Do something about climate change consequences? Or do something to mitigate it escalating further? The answer is both. Just continuing on as if nothing happens is not an answer. It will not "take its course". You think there's an end date to this? If we continue, the temp is going to rise further and then it's pretty much bye bye in a couple of centuries.

2. Best way to do it is to stop catering society to corporations who's profit relies on the continued use of that which escalates climate change. Maybe install a global financial model and fund that help companies who's goal it is to research and build sustainability and/or fight the change that is and has already happening, while putting financial pressure on everything that ignores the problem. A global tax on corporations who doesn't care about environmental destruction and let that tax money go straight into the R&D of solutions. An economy that push funding from the bad actors over to the good actors. On top of that raise awareness, fight for better education in school, ban social media algorithms that relies on a rage-bait attention-economy which leads to promotion of misinformation and disinformation and the degradation of the ability of critical thinking. Use heavy sanctions and tariffs against nations who do not comply with this global operation for solutions.

3. I don't think there are much philosophical implications of this. There is an ongoing problem that needs to be fixed globally. That's pretty much it. I think that any debate is part of people getting fooled into being zealots for powerful forces to debate something that fundamentally needs no debate. The problem with climate change is on the level of engineering, science, research, societal change in day to day behaviors, and with the resources and governmental funding of it all. It's a fact of the matter problem that needs a global collective of solutions. The philosophical questions may have to do with how to manage the societal consequences of solving these problems, but the ethics are pretty clear. Especially considering that the mild inconvenience of having to comply with helping this change for the better is far better than the destruction of entire communities and nations who's among those that will be affected the worst by these climate changes. On top of that, the work itself to change the world for the better will employ and give jobs to millions of people.

So I don't think it needs to be debated much. It's a huge global problem and the discussion should be primarily on what solutions that can be made to both mitigate escalation of the effects, and to stop the effects we are already seeing, and will definitely going to see in the future.

It will not "take its course". You think there's an end date to this? — Christoffer

In practical terms, no there isn't an end-date. In strict scientific terms, if we exhaust all available sources of CO2, then yes, the atmosphere's CO2 level will return to present day levels in about 100,000 years, with the cost of acidic oceans. The climate will go through an extreme spike in temperature that will last for a few thousand years. This is per David Archer, although I haven't seen him update his figures to account for fracking capability, so it may be off.

If we continue, the temp is going to rise further and then it's pretty much bye bye in a couple of centuries. — Christoffer

There are no scientists predicting that the human species won't survive the worst case scenario. Will civilization as we know it survive it? We don't know.

In practical terms, no there isn't an end-date. In strict scientific terms, if we exhaust all available sources of CO2, then yes, the atmosphere's CO2 level will return to present day levels in about 100,000 years, with the cost of acidic oceans. The climate will go through an extreme spike in temperature that will last for a few thousand years. This is per David Archer, although I haven't seen him update his figures to account for fracking capability, so it may be off. — frank

Sounds like a wonderful future for any species that thrives in such conditions. Not much for humans, and especially any human who like to have some nature left to enjoy. There might be some who want to live in grey boxes, half-suffocating through all the technology used to make life sustaining in these conditions. Like cosplaying astronauts on another planet for thousands of years. :party:

There are no scientists predicting that the human species won't survive the worst case scenario. Will civilization as we know it survive it? We don't know. — frank

"Bye bye" doesn't have to mean we go extinct. Only that anything we value of life today goes extinct. I don't think any rational human being in their right mind would prefer any worst case scenario if the option means mild inconvenience right now. On top of that, there are tons of changes to society that may even bring better conditions for people right now. For instance, the lowering of smog and particles in the air is linked to increased death and health issues. And even if you survive well in those conditions, just listen to people who goes to Oslo or Stockholm describing the experience of almost no air pollution in the city compared to something like New York. I remember when I was in New York the first time and the very first thing I noticed was how got damn disgusting the air is. Getting away from such smog is like being freed from being choked. Mitigating that is to both mitigate escalation of climate change, but also directly helping people directly, both in terms of health and in terms of just a better life quality in the cities.

Like... the question that should be asked should rather be; What do we gain of not doing anything? What do we gain by perpetuating everything that pollutes the air and speeds up climate change?

Some would argue that we gain economic growth, but do we really? Growth can't be sustained forever and there's actual growth in transforming the industry into sustainability as well, not to speak of the other innovations that can accidently come out of such research, similar to how we pushed the process of the moon landing, leading to a lot of innovations and inventions we today take for granted. And that was for a done for the reason of bragging rights.

Just think about how the need for better electric vehicles. It will require new battery technology, and that financial push may solve batteries for vehicles, but at a certain point it would transform how we use batteries overall, with gear that become smaller, more effective and have new functions, just because a new battery technology was invented.

I just see no point in not doing anything about climate change, to not fund research and innovation that mitigate climate change, or to not put pressure on industries that pollute our air and make our living conditions rather depressing. Like... why?

Sounds like a wonderful future for any species that thrives in such conditions. Not much for humans, and especially any human who like to have some nature left to enjoy. There might be some who want to live in grey boxes, half-suffocating through all the technology used to make life sustaining in these conditions. Like cosplaying astronauts on another planet for thousands of years — Christoffer

Could you share the sources of these kinds of predictions?

I don't think any rational human being in their right mind would prefer any worst case scenario if the option means mild inconvenience right now. — Christoffer

And here is the well known philosophical conundrum. No rational person living today will experience the worst case scenario. That scenario wouldn't come into existence until well after we're all gone. How do we put in place a solution to a problem that our descendants might have? You might say we aren't evolved to handle that kind of problem. We have no experience with it. We don't even know how to approach the question.

What do we gain of not doing anything? — Christoffer

The wise say, "First do no harm." Approaching the problem in a childish, semi-psychotic manner is a recipe for making things worse than they would be otherwise. It's better to start with a sober evaluation of the parameters of the problem. What are the long-range predictions? What sorts of efforts now would actually make a difference in the long run?

Could you share the sources of these kinds of predictions? — frank

You can just search further on possible scenarios for increased global degrees continuously going up.

And asking for sources is irrelevant because I'm no climate scientist, and I don't think you are either. But I trust what independent researchers arrive at in their scenarios and data. It's not a philosophical discussion, it's a scientific one. And climate change that's not mitigated will lead to extreme temperature.

Why do i need to cite any sources to entertain the idea that such a world would be fucking awful to live in? If it's even possible to do so for us. :chin:

It's like... I'm going to put you in a container and I'm going to put that in the sun so the temperature increases as well as change the composition of air vs co2 and pollutions, and then you are going to rate your experience after living there for a while compared to living outside of it. But before I do I will say that I think you won't like it... and then you ask me for sources on why you would have an experience I would consider awful. :brow:

No rational person living today will experience the worst case scenario. That scenario wouldn't come into existence until well after we're all gone. How do we put in place a solution to a problem that our descendants might have? — frank

If you're a depressed nihilistic teenager I'd see where you are coming from, but a responsible adult that isn't clinically a narcissist or a psychopath will have some inclination to care for the future. Especially those with children. I mean, my children's children might experience it, or their children and so on. At what point do I accept that my family going forward a couple of generations are far away from me temporally that I can say "I don't give a fuck"?

If I were in a position in which I need to care for myself or my loved ones right now in present time, then that is fine if in conflict with caring for the future; but that's a false dichotomy and it also doesn't matter. The problem with climate change is a global one that requires a change of a lot of things in society so an individual shouldn't really have to experience more than mild inconveniences around the changes necessary.

If you ask someone if they are willing to risk an absolute hell hole of a planet in the future just to not have to be mildly inconvenienced in the present and they answer yes, then I would simply call that person a fucking idiot who's uncapable of even the most basic moral thinking.

Why would the positive consequences of my actions and decisions today be any different if they happen right now somewhere else in the world, or if they happen temporally later? If I make, for instance, decisions today on what clothes to buy on the moral ground that I don't want to support child labor, then it doesn't matter that I don't witness the positive consequences of my moral actions, it has an effect on the world, on other people. Why would a temporal difference be different?

I really don't get the perspective that we shouldn't care about the future because we won't feel or experience the positive consequences. We have a moral responsibility to care, otherwise it's just nihilism and I don't really care for their viewpoint as it's just a dead end. There's no point in debating morals with a nihilist anymore than arguing with a brick wall.

How do we put in place a solution to a problem that our descendants might have? — frank

What? The consequence is predicted based on the science, exactly how it turns out is unclear, but there's no prediction that says anything other than "bad" in capital letters. And the solution is to make sure the scenarios doesn't happen at all or becomes mitigated enough to not reach critical levels.

Sorry, but this question seems to just ignore basic understanding of climate change overall?

You might say we aren't evolved to handle that kind of problem. We have no experience with it. We don't even know how to approach the question. — frank

This makes no sense whatsoever. What do you mean not evolved? We haven't evolved to type messages on a forum either but through the process of science and innovations in engineering we are able to do so. Just like we are able to produce pollutions that destroy the environment and the means to discover how bad it is and is becoming.

We have a lot of approaches. The only ones denying this are climate science deniers who simply don't understand the science but gladly comments on it like they do. They're unimportant and irrelevant as they're not rational enough to be relevant to the issues and researching solutions.

The wise say, "First do no harm." Approaching the problem in a childish, semi-psychotic manner is a recipe for making things worse than they would be otherwise. It's better to start with a sober evaluation of the parameters of the problem. What are the long-range predictions? What sorts of efforts now would actually make a difference in the long run? — frank

Climate scientists have already done this to death. The only ones who oppose the solutions or models are the ones who are uneducated science deniers and downright idiots, either clinically or psychologically skewed by echo chambers.


Sorry, but I thought this was supposed to be a new and more rational discussion on climate change, but I see it will just keep going in the spirit of earlier threads.

I'm not interested in continuing if this is the level the discussion is at.

I'm not interested in continuing if this is the level the discussion is at. — Christoffer

I second that. :up:

I second that. :up: — frank

The reason is that I don't find the questions being asked on the level of rational discourse that is apt for this time in history, or morally overall. We know enough, we need to do more and the ethics are sane. Anyone objecting to that are either uninformed, a nihilist or an egotist only caring for themselves. I'm not interested in entertaining such perspectives on this topic as I find them irrelevant, uninteresting and self-defeating. There's no point in arguing with ideals and ideas that have no meaning to anyone outside of themselves. Their lack of universal meaning or pursuit of universal meaning means they are irrelevant for finding answers that is of any importance to the collective of everyone.

Cool. Thanks for your input.

But I trust what independent researchers arrive at in their scenarios and data. — Christoffer

Please define what an "independent researcher" is.

I don't think any rational human being in their right mind would prefer any worst case scenario if the option means mild inconvenience right now — Christoffer

What Is The Right Price To Pay To Combat Climate Change?

For most Americans the answer is “Not much.”

How Americans view the challenge of climate change and what must be done to address it. In this section it discusses survey findings where respondents were asked how much they would pay on top of their monthly utility bill to combat climate change. The increments were $1, $10, $20, and $75 dollars. At a mere $1 only seven percent of respondents were more willing to pay this than not. — Robert Eccles

there are tons of changes to society that may even bring better conditions for people right now. For instance, the lowering of smog and particles in the air is linked to increased death and health issues. — Christoffer

Reducing pollution accelerates global warming. How do we solve this catch-22?

This article was published on 02 November 2023
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/11/02/reducing-pollution-accelerates-global-warming-how-do-we-solve-this-catch-22

Air pollution, a global scourge that kills millions of people a year, is shielding us from the full force of the sun.

Stripped of its toxic shield, which scatters and reflects solar radiation, China's average temperatures have gone up by 0.7 degrees Celsius since 2014 (note - this is since 2014, not since pre-industrial times).

This has triggered fiercer heatwaves, according to a review of meteorological data by news agency Reuters and confirmed by six leading climate experts.

The removal of the air pollution - a term scientists call 'unmasking' - may have had a greater effect on temperatures in some industrial Chinese cities over the last decade than the warming from greenhouse gases themselves, the scientists say.

They say efforts to improve air quality could actually push the world into catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts.

"Aerosols are masking one-third of the heating of the planet," says Paulo Artaxo, an environmental physicist and lead author of the chapter on short-lived climate pollutants in the most recent round of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), completed this year.

"If you implement technologies to reduce air pollution, this will accelerate - very significantly - global warming in the short term."

During heatwaves, the unmasking effect can be even more pronounced. Laura Wilcox, a climate scientist who studies the effects of aerosols at the UK's University of Reading, says a computer simulation showed that the rapid decline in SO2 in China could raise temperatures on extreme-heat days by as much as 2C.

Which scenario do you prefer?

1) - have air pollution and lower temperatures and kill millions of people a year

2) - have improved air quality and higher temperatures and potentially catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts and possibly kill billions of people

If you think I'm going to engage in a discussion with you, then you wasted a lot of digital ink and time.

If you think I'm going to engage in a discussion with you, then you wasted a lot of digital ink and time. — Christoffer

That's okay. I hope that you enjoy your clean air while you are suffering from catastrophic global warming.

One of the many solutions offered for global warming involved seeding clouds. It would be intentional pollution. It may still be on the table.

One of the many solutions offered for global warming involved seeding clouds. It would be intentional pollution. It may still be on the table. — frank

Any global solution to climate change requires international cooperation and funding. So the proposed solution is doomed from the start.

Seeding clouds may have other undesirable consequences. Seeding clouds above one country could have flow on effects to other countries. The other countries might not like that.

Some people will probably revert back to the stone age. People who are isolated will.

Some people will probably revert back to the stone age. People who are isolated will. — frank

If that ever happens then it would be long after I am dead. So I don't worry too much about it.

But I am optimistic that technology and/or AI will save us from reverting to the stone age. Of course, that assumes that AI doesn't enslave us or eradicate us first.  :scream:

But I am optimistic that technology and/or AI will save us from reverting to the stone age. — Agree-to-Disagree

It's just isolated groups that lose skills.

1. Should we try to do something about it? Or let it take it's course? — frank

Economic and business groups are starting to think yes. Some of us have been saying it for a long time.

A new report, commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce, estimates that climate-related extreme weather events have cost the global economy more than $2 trillion over the past decade.

https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/new-report-extreme-weather-events-cost-economy-2-trillion-over-the-last-decade/

If global warming is allowed to reach 3°C by 2100 from pre-industrial levels, cumulative economic output could be reduced by 15% to 34%, the report says, while investing 1% to 2% of cumulative GDP in mitigation and adaptation to limit warming to 2°C from pre-industrial levels would reduce economic damage to just 2% to 4%.

“Rapid and sustained investments in mitigation and adaptation will minimise the economic damages and come with a high return,” says the Executive Summary. “Mitigation slows global warming by cutting emissions; adaptation reduces vulnerability to the physical impacts of climate change. Investments in both must rise significantly by 2050 – 9-fold for mitigation and 13-fold for adaptation. We estimate that the total investment required equals 1% to 2% of cumulative economic output to 2100.

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2025/new-report-from-bcg-and-cambridge-on-climate-change-investment/

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/investing-in-climate-action

Wow. That's clear enough.

Money talks - the universal language.

Wow. That's clear enough. — frank

But Frank, who pays the costs and who gets the benefits?

Are they the same people?

If global warming is allowed to reach 3°C by 2100 from pre-industrial levels, cumulative economic output could be reduced by 15% to 34%, the report says, while investing 1% to 2% of cumulative GDP in mitigation and adaptation to limit warming to 2°C from pre-industrial levels would reduce economic damage to just 2% to 4%.

“Rapid and sustained investments in mitigation and adaptation will minimise the economic damages and come with a high return,” says the Executive Summary. “Mitigation slows global warming by cutting emissions; adaptation reduces vulnerability to the physical impacts of climate change. Investments in both must rise significantly by 2050 – 9-fold for mitigation and 13-fold for adaptation. We estimate that the total investment required equals 1% to 2% of cumulative economic output to 2100.

This will be a conservative estimate(which one would expect with an economic assessment), it won’t include shocks and breakdowns in societies, or unexpected weather and geological events. All of which will accompany the overall trend. Which in turn will increase in frequency, as the gap between the state prior to a human induced climate change and the current state becomes wider.

Do reports like this consider areas of sensitivity for population wellbeing. Such as fresh water and food supply? Because these can be greatly affected by destabilisation of weather patterns, even with the small temperature changes we have experienced so far. We have a large human population which requires fresh water and food daily, it won’t take much for this dependency to become strained. Desertification can happen quite suddenly in some regions resulting in the loss of large areas of productive farmland. Which seems to be happening in California at this time. Other areas can be susceptible to destabilised weather patterns, such as most of Europe at the moment.

What happens when there are water and food shortages. Destabilisation of populations and societies. Another likely development is societal collapse, political turmoil and the spread of warfare. Things we are already seeing in the continent of Africa.

Now when discussing mitigation and adaptation, are we assuming away these other risks? Surely if there is societal collapse, severe water, or food shortages in a country, this will reduce their willingness, or ability to make the changes required. If this were to start to happen in larger countries, it would have a more significant slowing effect on the progress of the required changes.

Then there are the political ramifications, states like the U.S. Brazil(until recently) and Russia have a drill baby drill policy. As a result of the increase in populism and authoritarianism in recent decades. Failed states won’t be mitigating, or adapting.

All in all it’s a rocky road ahead.

But Frank, who pays the costs and who gets the benefits?

Are they the same people? — Agree-to-Disagree

This touches on the philosophical conundrum I mentioned earlier. How do we plan for our children?

Some people plan for their welfare of their children and some don't.

who pays the costs and who gets the benefits?

Are they the same people? — Agree-to-Disagree

Old people like me will not benefit much; the young will benefit, and their offspring. People with money will have to pay, again that's not me, by and large. Poor people cannot do much mitigating, they are too busy starving and trying to get somewhere else where there might be food and water available. Rich people do not have these problems, they can just jump on their obscenely luxurious yachts and sail off to somewhere more congenial. People who have migrated to Mars will not be affected except that imports may become more expensive.

How do we plan for our children? — frank

When I read this question it made me wonder how many people don't have any children, and don't intend to have any. Would these people be highly motivated to leave the world in a state that is livable for the children that they don't have ( :grin: ) and their children's children, who will never exist ( :grin: ).

I did some searching on the internet and found an interesting study.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/blog/living-single/202205/why-so-many-adults-think-they-will-never-have-children

Here are some quotes:

The number of adults who do not have kids, and do not think they will ever have kids, is growing.

Toward the end of 2021, the Pew Research Center surveyed adults in the U.S., ages 18 through 49, who did not already have children and asked them how likely it was that they would ever have children. A similar survey had already been conducted three years earlier, in 2018.

In 2018, 37 percent said it was “not too likely” or “not at all likely” that they would have children someday. By 2021, that number had increased to 44 percent.

The adults who said it was unlikely that they would ever have children were asked why. The number one reason was that they just did not want to have children. More than half, 56 percent, said that. The younger adults (those below 40) were even more likely than the older ones (ages 40-49) to say that they just didn’t want to have kids: 60 percent, compared to 46 percent.

What are the implications of this on people's motivation to "save the planet" when they don't have any children (and possibly don't intend to have any). I realise that some childless people have nieces and nephews etc. and this may affect their motivation.

Yes. It's a challenge.

What are the implications of this on people's motivation to "save the planet" when they don't have any children (and possibly don't intend to have any). I realise that some childless people have nieces and nephews etc. and this may affect their motivation. — Agree-to-Disagree

I would think rather that people are disinclined to have children because they feel helpless to prevent the approaching disasters, rather than they are demotivated to act to mitigate the disaster because they do not want children. This is what I mainly hear from my daughters and their friends. But obviously, "Apres moi le deluge" is not a new sentiment either. It's a very ugly one though.

I would think rather that people are disinclined to have children because they feel helpless to prevent the approaching disasters — unenlightened

This is another quote from the study:

The reasons the men and women gave for why they would probably never have kids, even though they probably did want them, were:

- Medical reasons (19 percent)
- Financial reasons (17 percent)
- No partner (15 percent)
- Thinking that they or their partner were too old (10 percent)
- The state of the world (9 percent)
- Climate change/the environment (5 percent)
- That their partner doesn’t want kids (2 percent)

So this study found that only 5% of people gave Climate change/the environment as the reason why they would probably never have kids.

The reasons the men and women gave for why they would probably never have kids, even though they probably did want them, were: — Agree-to-Disagree

Well that's an interesting gloss. so they probably do want kids, but ... their position in the world, or the condition of the world is such that they do not want them.

But what is your answer to your own question in the light of this?