Anybody care about climate change around here?

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/25/2183371/-Climate-Change-A-recent-paper-in-the-journal-Nature-warns-of-a-major-change-in-Ocean-Currents

Short read about "the" oh shit event possibly happening soon.  The likely results are understated however.

This study assumes current policies are maintained. Which means that by aggressively pursuing policies to reduce green house gases like CO2 and methane we would be able to stall or even prevent a shutdown of the AMOC. We can accomplish these reductions if we as a society summon the will and political power to put them in place over the objections of greedy individuals and corporations.

Too bad 30% of this country's population is deadset against us ever being able to accomplish this.

The analysis in the link provided says that since we the people do not control the political process we have much less power to fix this than we think we do. Based on 50 years of watching Congress not do what we the people support that seems about right.

https://neuburger.substack.com/p/stranded-assets-and-our-climate-future

“These are not canaries in the coal mine,” Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies noted. “The canaries died a long time ago.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/30/2184172/--These-are-not-canaries-in-the-coal-mine-the-canaries-died-a-long-time-ago

I'm reading the book "The Ministry for the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson.  Pretty sure Obama recommended this book on one of his lists.  It is 100% about climate change.

It's pretty detailed in how climate change COULD be handled, it's just seemingly way out of reach for us at this stage though.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/25/2183371/-Climate-Change-A-recent-paper-in-the-journal-Nature-warns-of-a-major-change-in-Ocean-Currents

Short read about "the" oh shit event possibly happening soon.  The likely results are understated however.

This study assumes current policies are maintained. Which means that by aggressively pursuing policies to reduce green house gases like CO2 and methane we would be able to stall or even prevent a shutdown of the AMOC. We can accomplish these reductions if we as a society summon the will and political power to put them in place over the objections of greedy individuals and corporations.

Too bad 30% of this country's population is deadset against us ever being able to accomplish this.

The problem is, even if the industrialized nations today moved to accept climate science and completely stall carbon output, all the fossil fuel resources would move to the next country on the list, all the 3rd world, etc, would use it to industrialize and we'd be burning just as much, if not more. The literal only way we could accomplish this and keep the trend going is to monetize not using carbon. We'd all essentially have to pay these less industrialized countries not to use oil indefinitely.

We could probably do that but it would take all of our industry to share in the profits much much more evenly and spend the rest to fund this. Tragedy of the commons, there will always be "cheaters" as long as it stands the possibility to pay off. If we don't use it, they surely will, unless they stand to make more by not using it.