Goethestein posted:VoxNihili posted:Goethestein posted:the cool thing about global warming is that all the european or european-derivative societies (U$, Au-$tralia, Klanada, N€w Z€aland, $outh Afrikkka,) have climates such that they ultimately will be either moderately impacted or mildly helped by global warming so why should they care
half of the coastal cities are underwater: a moderate impact
the upper end of predicted sea level rise by 2100 is about two meters. this would be annoying but survivable for every US city other than maybe new orleans. manhattan and boston might have a rougher time of it but we're talking about 87 years to figure out levees, seawalls and pumping systems.
check out what 2 meter sea level rise actually looks like. it's really not that bad. http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/ the third world is going to get shit on a lot harder than us
VoxNihili posted:
and nothing of value was lost
Squalid posted:In places like the outerbanks NC local governments have already begun attempting adaption schemes for climate change like replacing bridges vulnerable to sea level rise and more severe storms with with ferry services. Naturally the rich beach house owners are making a big stink and we'll probably just keep rebuilding bridges regardless of the public cost all to protect the property value of a few hundred vacation homes hahaha
the oregon inlet and new hatteras inlet bridges will be the last ones built and they can't find the money to keep dredging the ferry channels. they've already killed the proposed mid-currituck toll bridge to get jew yorkers to their rental houses a couple hours quicker. all the state money's going to build new highways around raleigh and charlotte and the government doesn't officially acknowledge climate change or sea level rise any more
e: the actual local government's more concerned with agenda 21 and suing the park service to keep them from protecting birds on the beach
Edited by peepaw ()
i'm sure before mcrory's gone they'll get rid of cama as well just for good measure
Goethestein posted:pretty shitty but it ignores the point that we have the resources, capitaland technology to deal with and mitigate it but third world nations do not
the way economics works means we will be affected through multiple channels in some fairly devastating ways however we will technically be less affected through the measures for deciding that are a bit banal
Goethestein posted:pretty shitty but it ignores the point that we have the resources, capitaland technology to deal with and mitigate it but third world nations do not
we have the "capital and technology" to do all sorts of things but that does not mean that they will be done
fun fact: our coastal commission people put out a report indicating that much of the bay area would be flooded n the next 100 years and basically just trying to open up a discussion and issue recommendations. they were immediately attacked by business interests via aggressive ad campaigns, city interests over apparent threats to their power in areas that would be flooded, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS because they basically swallowed the business interests' characterization of the commission as power-hungry land-seizing jerks who would stop at nothing to advance their nefarious scheme of... something
anyway, bottom line is that we will probably suffer the fate that we most richly deserve, and by we, i mean those without enough money to jump ship without significant difficulty once the ship begins to take on water, so really only those without the capacity to have helped prevent this oncoming disaster will pay for it, while all those who forcibly prevented appropriate action will escape unscathed. capitalism marches on.
VoxNihili posted:Goethestein posted:pretty shitty but it ignores the point that we have the resources, capitaland technology to deal with and mitigate it but third world nations do not
we have the "capital and technology" to do all sorts of things but that does not mean that they will be done
fun fact: our coastal commission people put out a report indicating that much of the bay area would be flooded n the next 100 years and basically just trying to open up a discussion and issue recommendations. they were immediately attacked by business interests via aggressive ad campaigns, city interests over apparent threats to their power in areas that would be flooded, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS because they basically swallowed the business interests' characterization of the commission as power-hungry land-seizing jerks who would stop at nothing to advance their nefarious scheme of... something
anyway, bottom line is that we will probably suffer the fate that we most richly deserve, and by we, i mean those without enough money to jump ship without significant difficulty once the ship begins to take on water, so really only those without the capacity to have helped prevent this oncoming disaster will pay for it, while all those who forcibly prevented appropriate action will escape unscathed. capitalism marches on.
thats because it's an insignificant non-problem at the moment. i hope this has been helpful
Goethestein posted:VoxNihili posted:Goethestein posted:pretty shitty but it ignores the point that we have the resources, capitaland technology to deal with and mitigate it but third world nations do not
we have the "capital and technology" to do all sorts of things but that does not mean that they will be done
fun fact: our coastal commission people put out a report indicating that much of the bay area would be flooded n the next 100 years and basically just trying to open up a discussion and issue recommendations. they were immediately attacked by business interests via aggressive ad campaigns, city interests over apparent threats to their power in areas that would be flooded, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS because they basically swallowed the business interests' characterization of the commission as power-hungry land-seizing jerks who would stop at nothing to advance their nefarious scheme of... something
anyway, bottom line is that we will probably suffer the fate that we most richly deserve, and by we, i mean those without enough money to jump ship without significant difficulty once the ship begins to take on water, so really only those without the capacity to have helped prevent this oncoming disaster will pay for it, while all those who forcibly prevented appropriate action will escape unscathed. capitalism marches on.thats because it's an insignificant non-problem at the moment. i hope this has been helpful
could you PLEASE stop trying to comment on things you know nothing about. i know its your MO, but its getting tiersome
rising sea levels is at the moment a nothing issue. sea levels have raised six inches in the last century. of course nobody cares. your problem is that you don't understand that people believe what they want to believe. the normal members of the species don't want to think that their homes and businesses will be wiped out by a disaster that is in effect a denunciation of their lifestyle. you want to see glorious punishment for hubris and capitalism and think that somehow those selfsame people won't lobby the government for levees when the tide starts licking. but there is no justice in this world. the rich countries will always have better resources to mitigate problems than poor countries. they have the capital and technology to build infrastructure. they exist in latitudes less likely to be crippled by temperature increases. they have the locations and military power to keep out refugees. will it be annoying? sure. deeply damaging to the economy? probably. but we'll survive at least this century with our governments in power and our major cities intact, while the rest of the world spasms and burns. that's the way it's always been, why would this be any different?
Goethestein posted:that's the way it's always been, why would this be any different?
lmao
Even if you're going to go full leftard and say the cost doesn't matter, consider that carbon taxes are a regressive tax that will mainly impact the working class, and the economic loss from mitigation would mean less revenue for government services and healthcare, probably killing more people than you were trying to save.
Additionally, the main killer from global warming was supposed to be increased malaria activity. We now know the original parameters were off and global warming is actually eradicating mosquitoes and destroying their native habitat. Because malaria is a major killer in Africa, global warming could easily save lives if this continues.
The "doomsday" global warming scenarios usually extrapolate trends out to hundreds of years beyond available fossil fuel reserves so they're not even feasible.
Global warming will still cause refugee problems, and wipe out a lot of tourist resorts, but you shouldn't automatically assume that any means are justified to reduce it. Only Zizek makes that argument.
Edited by mustang19 ()
Goethestein posted:i had my watch set for that answer. empires, city-states or nation-states, the behavior is the same. you should be happy, honestly. as a nation totally above 45 degrees north, the UK will almost certainly benefit on the whole from global warming. better climate, better farming, maybe some dikes to build on the coastal cities but jolly good old spice
global warming is not a single structure phenemenon you absolute bell
Goethestein posted:people focus on temperature rise because it's objectively measurable and sea level rise because it's somewhat mathematically predictable, but nobody serious puts any real weight in climactic predictions. they can't predict the weather five days in advance but let me tell you with a straight face about what the jet stream over scotland is going to look like in 2089
global warming is not a single structure phenemenon you absolute bell
Goethestein posted:i had my watch set for that answer. empires, city-states or nation-states, the behavior is the same. you should be happy, honestly. as a nation totally above 45 degrees north, the UK will almost certainly benefit on the whole from global warming. better climate, better farming, maybe some dikes to build on the coastal cities but jolly good old spice
amoeba, gorillas, sphagnum moss. the behaviour is the same
jools posted:Goethestein posted:i had my watch set for that answer. empires, city-states or nation-states, the behavior is the same. you should be happy, honestly. as a nation totally above 45 degrees north, the UK will almost certainly benefit on the whole from global warming. better climate, better farming, maybe some dikes to build on the coastal cities but jolly good old spice
amoeba, gorillas, sphagnum moss. the behaviour is the same
pull back the camera far enough back and yes. your problem is in getting bogged down in minutae, not a "big picture" thinker, unfortunate
SovietFriends posted:a nuclear war is not a single structure phenomenon you absolute bell
i dont get what that means, because it seems like it kind of is. could you elaborate
Goethestein posted:jools posted:Goethestein posted:i had my watch set for that answer. empires, city-states or nation-states, the behavior is the same. you should be happy, honestly. as a nation totally above 45 degrees north, the UK will almost certainly benefit on the whole from global warming. better climate, better farming, maybe some dikes to build on the coastal cities but jolly good old spice
amoeba, gorillas, sphagnum moss. the behaviour is the same
pull back the camera far enough back and yes. your problem is in getting bogged down in minutae, not a "big picture" thinker, unfortunate
there is nothing but minutiae though. your philosophy of history is shit
Goethestein posted:people focus on temperature rise because it's objectively measurable and sea level rise because it's somewhat mathematically predictable, but nobody serious puts any real weight in climactic predictions. they can't predict the weather five days in advance but let me tell you with a straight face about what the jet stream over scotland is going to look like in 2089
hm, the trouble is that variations on the small scale are not necessarily indicators of overall trends, if only there were an enormous branch of mathematics about this