Yes -- climate change is slower but more thorough. However, in a carbon-reduced economy, it would be quite a while before most people experienced an economic recovery. The reason that economic recessions were short in the past is that the economy was expanding. In a shrinking economy (a permanent recession) there wouldn't be a recovery.

Only when we had devised a new low-carbon regime could the economy expand. It wouldn't be as robust an recovery as we have seen in the last couple of centuries.

However, in a carbon-reduced economy, it would be quite a while before most people experienced an economic recovery. — Bitter Crank

Well of course ‘economic recovery’ would be viewed in a different sense. What’s an economic recovery? I imagine the effects of climate change as imagined would be different from what we have now. This is a gradual global change in geography, economics, borders, population, etc. What would be required living under conditions like that? What would population numbers be?


Edit: either way the world will not be like it is now.

I think it would be worse than China. But if we want to brake CO2 emissions, it certainly can NOT be accomplished through slight efforts. I'm not enthusiastic about giving up my luxury-carnivore-comfortable lifestyle, but... what else can we do? Serious question: "What else can we do that achieve immediate reductions in CO2/methane, etc. output?"

We've pissed away 40 or 50 years of time that we could have been reducing our CO2/methane output and weren't. We don't seem to have another 40 or 50 years to screw around trying to decide what to do.

There is a lot of magical thinking going on. Oh, they will plant 25 trees to compensate for this flight to New York. How big do people think those trees are? 50 feet high? More like 1 or 2 feet high. It will take at least a decade before a successful tree will be big enough to absorb a significant amount of CO2.

Unless .... I daren’t say it.

Economic recovery would have most people employed in a probably radically reorganized system of production ad distribution. It would, of necessity, be organized for low CO2 output. So people would be working, basic needs would be met. The volume of economic activity would likely be much lower than it is now.

You might dare, but don't anyway.

[quote="Bitter Crank;356901"
]Economic recovery would have most people employed in a probably radically reorganized system of production ad distribution. It would, of necessity, be organized for low CO2 output. So people would be working, basic needs would be met.[/quote]

What do you imagine the psychological consequences would be to this happening in such a short time. I imagine huge consequences.

[quote="Bitter Crank;356901"
]Economic recovery would have most people employed in a probably radically reorganized system of production ad distribution.[/quote]

What sort of system, what sort of government, would be needed to enact this. Does it mean people may have to move to seek work? Would the government take control of the movement of people? Would you have to live in areas relevant to your work or position or family size?

Has anyone really thought about this new world we’ll create?

By which time, of course, it will be too late.
— Wayfarer

Too late for what? — Brett

Too late to prevent catastrophe, of course.

A new United Nations report paints a bleak picture: The commitments countries pledged to limit the climate crisis are nowhere near enough to stave off record-high temperatures. Delaying change any further will make it impossible to reach desired temperature goals.

The time for "rapid and transformational" change to limit global warming is now, the report says.

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) 2019 Emissions Gap report calls on countries to strengthen the commitments made in the 2015 Paris Agreement to stall climate change.

Current measures will not keep global temperature increases within the 1.5-to-2-degree Celsius range (a "safe" level to which temperatures can rise and not cause devastation, though 1.5 degrees is preferable), according to the report issued Tuesday.

Greenhouse gases reached a record high in 2018 with no sign of peaking, according to a World Meteorological Organization report released Monday. Carbon dioxide levels reached 407.8 parts per million, a unit used to measure the level of a contaminant in the air.

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than any point since the evolution of humans
At the current rate, temperatures are expected to rise 3.2 degrees Celsius (5.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, the UNEP report states.

The changes the UNEP suggests are extreme: To get Earth back on track to the 1.5-degree goal, countries must multiply their commitment level, or the level at which they pledge to reduce their emissions, five times the current rates outlined in the Paris accords.

That means global greenhouse gas emissions must fall at least 7.6% every year to remove 32 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Incremental change is no longer enough to stall off the potentially devastating effects of a changing climate, the report's authors write.

What the world needs now, they say, is "rapid and transformational action."

CNN

What do you imagine the psychological consequences would be to this happening in such a short time. I imagine huge consequences. — Brett

Probably for sure. I can foresee a lot of insecurity and despair over whether or not any of it will even work and for some, they may never get to see the fruits of their labour either through failure or a success so long-term they outlive it being recognised. However isn't this the price we all pay when fighting any form of injustice, be it small or great? William wilburforce, Abe Lincoln and others may have did their part to end the legal slave trade; but what about the practice of slavery? Its still alive, just illegal or subversively hidden in complex corporate policy designed to create hurdles in legal interpretation which creates hugely exploitative and detrimental working conditions with pitiful levels of normal pay nevermind hazard pay.

However the spirit of the justice we fight for everyday lasts as long as a human is alive who believes in justice and seeks to give this spirit the power to make us as safe as is humanly or technologically possible in all avenues of danger, be they from ourselves or from nature itself.

Incremental change is no longer enough to stall off the potentially devastating effects of a changing climate, the report's authors write.

What exactly are we contemplating? I’d like to hear specifics, not just that sea levels will rise, but what life would be like? Not all of us live near the sea, not everyone will be affected negatively by temperature rises. People will migrate, where?

Start here.

What the world needs now, they say, is "rapid and transformational action."

Even if this is the thing required I’m not sure if the cure is better than the disease. Can we handle such radical, quick transformation?

:up:
:up:

As I see it you got it just right, Brother Crank: that's uncommon, so well done!

Incremental change is no longer enough to stall off the potentially devastating effects of a changing climate, the report's authors write.

Are they devastating or not? We need to know what we’re dealing with. How do you deal with potential? How radical should our response be, in response to what exactly?

I already gave a reference above. Start there. Do some research.

Sorry it didn't open the first time so i went back. Thanks.

Brace yourself. Gave me nightmares, that piece, when it was published two years ago (the graphic, especially.) :groan:

This doesn't make any sense and just sounds like an excuse to be an asshole.

So what you guys are saying is we need to build a giant dome?

people will migrate to water and to cities that have prepared for climate change

Just what sort of consumption reductions would be necessary?

We would switch to a vegan diet, or at least a largely vegetarian diet. Meat/fish/crustaceans would rarely appear on the table.

We would stop traveling farther than we needed to get to work (if we still had a job) and back. We would use our feet, bicycles, or public transit to get there. We would forego leisure travel beyond the distance we could get to on our own two feet or by bike. Forego air and auto travel altogether.

We would buy no new clothing, shoes, furniture, gadgets, cars, houses, appliances, etc. We would buy food and an occasional replacement item for clothing that was too ragged to use (not just too familiar--too worn out).

We would live in warmer (in hot zones) or cooler (in cold zones) houses, within the limits of safety.

ETc. — Bitter Crank

Ahhh to have the simple life. If only humans weren't such complicated creatures. You have me convinced about what needs to happen.

So how do we structure effective arguments and give people meaningful narratives with which to fully comprehend the beauty and complexity of the sort of life we will need to lead in order to survive? I feel that here in the West some of us may have been too brainwashed by the fantasies of infinite economic growth here on earth and the ever maladaptive money cult we are all forced to take part in.

The worst thing is; what the west has to offer is access to the cornucopia of opportunity to succumb to all manners of temptation.

Common men like myself here in the west live lives that ancient Kings could have merely dreamed of while our siblings elsewhere still struggle for what we consider basics like running safe water and central heating and real locks on our doors, with our double or triple glazing and our foamy lattes and our mobile generators we call automotives. Mark Renton tells us all to choose life but the fucker never bothered to go into what kind of kife, but his disdain for life in my home country clearly speaks for itself and speaks to my feelings on the matter too. Choose the good life but dear god figure out what good is first. For me, that is the life of balance and seeking and contributing toward external balance.

Would you have to live in areas relevant to your work or position or family size? — Brett

Careful; while I do see the pragmatic placement of the populations of earth argument you are trying to build and agree with the need for the effort, try not to veer too close to the caste system or if you are make sure to ingrain it with equality and egalitarianism as well as fairness and justice. I'm sure you get what I mean though.

As for a segue into hope; have you noticed the phenomenon of people becoming much friendlier with one another during terrible weather and natural disasters? The shared plight of our dangerous existence here in the universe and its nature does have a tremendous power to bring people together in amazing ways. Surviving this is going to be a major part in our moral development I feel. I think humanity will survive but I hope it is able to survive in a maturer way than our ancestors could have.

All moral debate and argument will have been for naught if the only people to rise from the ashes of our world are the rich immoral elite who drove the world to this all for the purposes of the ever consuming "More".

The sheer shame that we have always been in Eden yet put up fences to its richest pastures will be unforgivable if these Elite win. Hopefully if that is the case they will one day know future generations of theirs scorn in the very least.

If a caste system is required that's fine but it has to be for everyone and everyone has to be identified or molded into the best contributing cog in the machine of life that they can be.

is global warming a challenge too great for humanity to handle? — Tim3003

Something that comes out of the climate change crisis is that we are not, after all, a global community. Scratch that one. We’re all states with our own interests.

Suddenly cultural differences really do matter.

Science has taken a blow to the head.

Any crisis will turn political.

We think we’re adaptable, but are we? The focus of the fight against climate change is rising temperatures, to stop or slow the increase. The culprit is carbon emissions. This is from an article Wayfarer posted:

“No plausible program of emission reduction alone can prevent climate change.”

But this from earth observatory.nasa.gov

“The levelling off (of heat) between the 1940’s and the 1970’s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War 11 ... The strong warming trend of the past three decades likely reflects a shift from comparable aerosol and greenhouse gas effects to a predominance of greenhouse gasses, as aerosols were curbed by pollution controls ...”

The rush to renewables, the politicking, the media sensationalism, the focus on reducing carbon emissions blinds us to other possibilities. Maybe we’re just punch drunk, but at some stage we have to be smarter.

So I don’t think the challenge is too great, but we won’t win it the way we’re doing it.

Careful; while I do see the pragmatic placement of the populations of earth argument you are trying to build and agree with the need for the effort, try not to veer too close to the caste system or if you are make sure to ingrain it with equality and egalitarianism as well as fairness and justice. I'm sure you get what I mean though. — Mark Dennis

I’m not suggesting we should do this. What I see is a totalitarian form of government because people will be required to do what is good for the state. Even now if you disagree with climate change you’re a pariah, in the future there will only be solutions, if you get my drift?

people will migrate to water and to cities that have prepared for climate change — Lif3r

That’s an interesting point.

States today can chose there own way to combat climate change. But how does a state prepare for living with climate change, what form could they take that makes them different from other states except for natural resources? Unless they do have a dome. And we know who would get to live in the domes.

fantasies of infinite economic growth — Mark Dennis

That's the problem, all right, and it is a fantasy. It's a sort of magical thinking.

In WWII, US production was reorganized for war production, whether the corporations owning the factories liked it or not. Rationing of staples (flour, sugar, butter, meat, oils and fats, gasoline, clothing, etc. was imposed. There was no automobile manufacture. There were "fat drives" (like bacon grease or lard, useful for making explosives), metal drives, and paper drives. Public transit (buses and trains) were very crowded because of the heavy use by 3-shift production schedules and troop transport. In the event of infectious diseases (TB, Influenza, Polio) quarantines were sometimes used; small pox vaccinations were not optional. The same thing happened in most other industrial countries.

Yes, people were frustrated at times by limited or no goods at all, There were strikes for higher wages, and the usual bitching and carping. None the less, hundred of millions of people around the world resolved to do what was necessary. It worked because the existential threat and the necessary preventive actions were clearly stated. Patriots grew some food in the back yard and reduced their consumption. In some countries, rationing lasted from 1939 to 1947 (and longer in some places).

I think that there are a 2 or 3 billion people who, if told the truth about global warming and if given clear behavioral options (like wearing shoes completely out before replacing them, buying a very limited number of clothing items per year, not eating meat, not flying, not driving, and so on) they would rise to the occasion

There are another 2 billion people, give or take, who are already effectively doing what we should all be doing because they are too poor to do otherwise. and maybe there are a couple of billion people whose reductions in lifestyle would be more limited.

People need to be told that rainforests like the Amazon, Central African, SE Asian, or NW American temperate rainforests are vital; that they are in danger of dying from destruction negative cascading effects; that they are being destroyed to grow palm for oil and soybeans to feed animals for meat. Dead rainforests produce very little oxygen, which we need to breathe. We can live without meat and palm oil (at least for a while).

People do make adjustments. Most toilets are far more efficient these days, whether people like the way they flush or not. People are much better at turning off unused lights than they used to be (individually and institutionally). They will make more changes and faster changes if they are told the truth about what will happen if they don't.

This sermon preached to the choir is now over.

If it's the fact of man-made global warming, please do it elsewhere. For this thread I take it as a given that it is chiefly man's activities and their increased CO2 emissions which have caused the problem. — Tim3003

I don't know exactly how you would specify "the problem". If you're referring to extremes in climate, those have been around long before man walked the Earth. Ice ages, periods of extreme drought and rain, periods of sea level rise etc. The Earth doesn't need mankind to produce such fluctuations at all. Currently the climate we're living in can hardly be considered extreme compared to situations in the past.

So I'll repeat my statement: climate change is a reality of life on Earth.

Give it up, troll. You might as well be peddling Moon landing conspiracies here.

It's odd that this question would be posted on a Philosophy forum. Whether human beings can stop--or slow--climate change seems to me to be a straightforwardly scientific or empirical question. — Jim Grossmann

This thread is under Politics & Current Affairs. Besides, the question I'm asking is not scientific or technical, it's more about will and vision. Are we as humans intellectually and morally equiped to deal with a problem whose effects take decades and whose costs are hard to forecast. We are very good at fire-fighting, but planning long-term is hard with our short-termist electoral systems. There has not been a problem like sudden global warming in the whole of human history and it seems to me our evolutionary journey as a species has left us ill-equiped to deal with it.

However, I wonder if all is not lost, because man's great ingenuity could yet mitigate the situation. As the climate chaos worsens there will be greater pressure to invest in carbon-capture schemes. If the danger (and the economic hit) becomes clear enough we approach a war situation - accepted by everyone, where it's 'all hands to the pumps'. Then maybe billionaires who waste their cash on pointless space tourism will start chasing kudos by building reflective satellites or carbon sequestration machines of some sort. The question is when this tipping point will be reached. It can't be before such imbeciles as Trump are recognised as unfit for office even by would-be supporters. Is that coming in 2020?