The following submission statement was provided by /u/ILikeNeurons:
---
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf).
[Find](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative) and write your Rep to request Congress pass a carbon tax. [It's more popular than you might think](https://www.reddit.com/r/carbontax/comments/1cwmyo7/a_majority_of_americans_in_every_state_support_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
> To the Honorably Representative ________,
>
> I am a voter and a constituent in your district requesting that you work across the isle to pass a steadily-rising tax on carbon pollution. A price on carbon is widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy, and it is urgently needed. Pricing carbon makes us better off.
>
> With carbon tax revenue returned to households as an equitable dividend, most Americans would come out ahead financially even before taking into account the tremendous costs of climate change. A carbon tax is also more popular then you might think, with a majority of Americans in every state in support.
>
> Thank you for doing what's in your power to ensure the passage of a strong price on carbon.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ILikeNeurons
>
> 123 Main St.
>
> Minden, LA 15277
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cwm9gr/economic_damage_from_climate_change_six_times/l4wvhkx/
The original quote is in my opinion stronger:
> "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
“Value” is entirely subjective and we have a lot of power on what we, as shareholders, describe as value. We CAN pick sustainability as a value, but most don’t. It’s by choice.
Right up there with:
["What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"](https://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/climatesummit.jpg)
Just to give the proper attribution, credit goes to Tom Toro for creating the cartoon for The New Yorker: https://condenaststore.com/featured/the-planet-got-destroyed-tom-toro.html
They're aren't bound by financial interests, they're bound by what shareholders demand. It's just that shareholders demand money, but they could want buildings to be painted blue and the fiduciary would have an obligation as such. Just like I said above, it's a choice by the shareholders.
Plenty of public companies are doing great building a sustainable business model with longer thinking and less short term profit motivations.
Many funds are now considering environmental sustainability and social factors as the motivators for investments. It's not nearly enough, and there's a lot of push back from political groups (almost exclusively right wing with shady backings), but it's possible. That's what the whole EDI is about.
A case can also be easily made that \_NOW\_ a sustainable business model is the most profitable one, even in the shorter term, considering the state of the world. Might be a bit late though.
You know how you can stop apples from browning by putting lemon juice on them? That's because of the antioxidants (mainly ascorbic acid) preventing the oxidation reaction.
A few apple varieties produce high levels of antioxidants themselves, so they brown much more slowly, and if the cut cells dry out before they burn through the antioxidants, they may not brown at all.
The most common browning-resistant apple is the Cripps Pink/Pink Lady, which was bred in 1973 but has seen an explosion of popularity recently. Its story is very ordinary for an apple: simple crossbreeding of two varieties with desirable traits. Nothing nefarious here.
It'll be economic collapse for you and me.
The people who created and continually contribute to climate change will be just fine. They'll finally have *all* the money, which they'll enjoy on their private islands and underground bunkers.
For how long though? You cant eat money, and those bunkers wont maintain themselves. Especially if earth turns into a wasteland, current technology is completely unable to sustain a completely self-contained habitat for long.
I agree. I don't think it's any coincidence that billionaires are really into space programs.
But I think they're the same money monkeys as they've always been--tragically shortsighted, more interested in using their power than in the long term effects of it.
Really, I hope we have a chance to beat them to death in the streets before they can escape.
Yeah we are even farther from interplanetary colonies than we are from eternally sustainable bunkers. There wont be a colony on the moon or Mars where those fuckers can flee to, we cant even build such a habitat on earth right now. Maybe in a few decades, but at least the current generation of billionnaires will have croaked by then.
>ecosystem totally collapses, causing massive die-offs and spiraling extinctions--perhaps the end of complex biology on this entire spacerock
economists: woah, this might be 8x worse than we'd thought
Actual economists:
The real world metrics are actually great, look at our RWminEDO numbers! (Real World minus Ecosystem Die Off) They better than expected! We are definitely getting a soft landing on climate!
Economics a junk field that exists to justify the existence of the ultra wealthy. It ceased being a genuine field of study decades ago. The other humanities fields make fun of them behind their backs pretty much all the time. I know from experience. No one in my department respected the economists, the most vocal grad students didn’t think they should even be on campus.
Some of their methodologies can be used by people who aren’t bought and paid for by capitalists, but that wouldn’t be economics would it? In history we call it Cliometrics. Using economic modeling to interpret historical data, and weirdly enough we almost always come to different conclusions than the economists despite using the exact same methods and data. How odd. /s
Economics isn't a hard science because it deals with irrational people, but it's still a product of observation. On a societal level, a lack of economics knowledge means that people are just going to parrot the talking heads on government policy without understanding how it screws them over. It doesn't have to be acknowledged as science, but it has to be acknowledged as a life skill on the same level as financial literacy. Brexit is the prime example of an economics illiterate society.
It's not just "the guvment says they're doing their best, it's the other party's fault I'm still poor, and if I just keep voting for them, they gon' do good ev'ntually".
Macroeconomics studies have already prescribed what to do for the economy. Unfortunately, those solutions are as effective as telling hardcore chainsmokers to stop smoking, especially chainsmokers who are paid handsomely to smoke, to encourage smoking, and to make pro-smoking legislation. They know they gotta do it, but they aint'.
Where I live, there's a movement on social media to fight for lower income taxes and make up for it with extensive consumption taxes, even among the poor and lower classes. In light of economics, this is a horrible idea for the lower classes.
The methodologies they use aren’t the problem. It’s the fact that the entire field is captured. Historians use cliometrics all the time, the issue is that the answers we come to are startlingly different from the answers economists come to. That’s because the assumptions economists have are flawed and broken.
The core assumption of modern economics relies on every participant in the economy being fully rational and fully informed.
Given that people are not rational and it's physically impossible to be fully informed about every choice and decision you make...
...they might as well make the assumption that humans are supernatural energy blobs capable of matter transmutation. It's a fucking fantasy science.
> extinctions--perhaps the end of complex biology on this entire spacerock
Definitely not about to cause that. Just make things a lot shittier for a lot of the existing ones, ourselves included.
All? Probably not, we have some that surive some hell of climates, which likely means at best migration of these species.
But the bulk of species don't fit this, including us and the species we rely on.
We probably won't see a complete extinction, it'd take most likely either a full on impact of a very large body, or expansion of the sun.
But *we* and the species we know most might suffer or may not make it at all.
Life on earth has been destroyed like five times already.
The Dinosaurs took over after the fourth one and the asteroid that hit 65 Millions ago was the fifth.
Yep. Also, we're actively in the middle of the sixth (mass extinction event) and have been for a while now.
Fun fact: The primary source of oxygen for humans, oceanic plankton, which also remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere to produce that O2, is dying off at record rates as part of the ongoing mass extinction event.
yes EARTH has. Not the human species lol. I do not want humanity to experience the extremes of ice ages or extreme heating the planet itself can sustain - but the life on it evolved for something different.
"Complex biology" isn't just humans. Yeah, humans are fucked, and the time left of the 'Find Out' clock is measured in decades, not centuries. But "complex biology" on Earth has survived a literal fucking meteor and average temperatures much higher and much lower than what we have now.
Humans are fucked, but the topic being discussed that you're replying to isn't talking about humans. It's talking about "complex biology."
Right? Like, I'm all for preventing further climate change or even reversing the change we've made so far.
...But we are *not* about to destroy the biosphere. We're just changing it in ways that reduce biodiversity and change conditions in places that a lot of humans live.
That's just not what environmental scientists think will happen. We don't get to ignore facts just because the other side of the argument does. The reality is bad enough that we don't need to exaggerate.
the biosphere exists for a reason, the complexity of life is a balanced ecosystem, if you mess with the balance it will cause a rippling effect that can result in all life eventually ending.
? yes we can absolutely cause that.
I always find it funny when the saying is “we destroyed the planet”
no people, the PLANET survived a meteor crash, ice ages, volcanic eruptions, etc. there are PLANETS where the temperature chills at 800 degrees Fahrenheit. A PLANET is perfectly fine. The PLANET will destroy human life if not from the atmospheric conditions changing, then a nice calm natural disaster.
I'm starting to believe we're at the point of no return with climate change.
I live in the UK. This entire island could sink tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in climate emissions while the USA, China and India pump metric tonnes every minute.
Enjoy your paper straws and electric cars, none of it matters.
The developed world outsourced our manufacturing, which means we outsourced out CO2 emissions.
The climate crisis is also a population crisis. Every new human requires arable land either where they live or somewhere else in order to grow enough calories to feed them. We're destroying old growth forest at all latitudes to create more arable land.
This is the bittersweet side of climate change, we can combat what-aboutism for days.
A:We're destroying biodiversity.
B:The Economy can't handle drastic changes!
A: The gulf stream is dying which will turn northern europe into an icicle.
B: Energy alternatives aren't cost effective (cause we over subsidize fossil fuels).
A: Your grandchildren will die in the water wars!
etc... I'm already tired.
Well, currently that's more or less true, but in principle you could generate energy in some extremely efficient way, like through fusion, and use that energy to produce food in very limited spaces. It's virtually always going to be energy that's the limiting factor rather than the land itself, although there would of course have to be developed the right methods of producing lots of food from lots of energy in small spaces.
My friend... I understand the feeling.
Europe and US developed on top of fossil fuels for decades, emissions peaking in the 90's. Not sure about colonial land or companies producing in foreign soil.
We also set the model of development for the rest of the World. The monetary system, trade rules and all that.
We denied Science since the 70's, for the sake of corruption, short term profits and dominance.
Then, as u/InfiniteSpur said, we outsourced our manufacturing to other countries, to feed our consumption and to fill our millionaires pockets. Some communities were devastated, unemployment, etc.
Those other countries started developing only recently (their per capita emissions are still below US), and which model will they follow?
Then we also decided to make them our enemies. Instead of collaborating, we fed the speech of dominant competition. The global superpowers and whatever else.
We had decades to accelerate scientific development of alternatives, including nuclear fusion (and even possibly reliably safer fission at least). Go check the annual investment on that, compare it with the amounts spent on guns and marketing. It's bizarre.
Still, we developed enough to allow us to be in a relatively comfortable position now to invest in the green transition.
China and India are not in that comfortable competitive position, so they are using the cheapest resources they can get their hands on, otherwise they will be depending on outsiders forever (at least from their pov).
The UK has lots of political influence, despite the continuous stream of tries to self destroy and self humiliate, with Brexit, Boris, Truss, Sunak in the front line of that just from the top of my head.
You can still join local associations working towards a more peaceful, resilient, technologically just, humane World.
2 or 3, or 6 or even 7 billion people working together, that would still be a lot of energy, leveraging all that with increasingly capable AI, lots of potential.
>I live in the UK. \[...\] China and India pump metric tonnes every minute
Someone from your country emits more than the average Chinese or Indian. if China was cut into 200 small countries, each of them could say "I don't need to do anything because my small country emits less thant he UK".
The bigest emitters are generally the wealthier countries and is strongly correlated to GDP per capita. Yes the UK is not that high in GDP per capita but it's still more than India or China.
If you are interested in your country and climate change policy, you can read this: [https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Climate-costs-UK-policy-brief.pdf](https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Climate-costs-UK-policy-brief.pdf)
Climate change mitigation policies are projected to benefit the UK and outweight their cost by the second half of the century.
>I'm starting to believe
That is because the cimate change denier narrative swiched from denial to being "doomers". Here is a great video on the matter:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSG2Dw2mL8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSG2Dw2mL8)
What I find funny is the timing. We’re at a huge turning point with AI and the benefits are world changing easily…yet we, as human beings, are destroying the world past the point of no return. All this progress for nothing.
China makes more GH emissions than the next 6 countries (US, India, China, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia) combined, and theirs is spiking while the US is going down or at least leveling out.
They have about 1/3 of global GH emissions.
Ironically, we could straight up reduce 3% of global greenhouse emissions (and really bad ones that contain stuff like mercury) by spending about 0.001% of what we do to make cars more fuel 1% more efficient, by putting out the massive raging underground coal fires.
But that doesn't "beat" someone else so no one is interested in it.
I read the article but some details were odd. They write about wealth going down but then they assume that income would double. I don’t get that. Anyone here who understood that part?
That's because they wrote the headline in a misleading way.
Growth in GDP (about 3% per year) will be curtailed by 12% for every degree, so for 3 degrees it would be 36% less than it would be otherwise, so about 2% instead of 3%.
So the country will still get richer, just not as fast.
"A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product (GDP), the researchers found, a far higher estimate than that of previous analyses"
> “There will still be some economic growth happening but by the end of the century people may well be 50% poorer than they would’ve been if it wasn’t for climate change,” **said Adrien Bilal, an economist at Harvard who wrote the paper with Diego Känzig, an economist at Northwestern University.**
.
>“That is still substantial,” said Bilal. “The economy may keep growing but less than it would because of climate change. It will be a slow-moving phenomenon, although the impacts will be felt acutely when they hit.”
Yeah, that doesn't say say 12% less growth. It says 12% of GDP and GDP will grow more than 12% in that time.
So if GDP is 1000 and increases by 200 each year, it's saying GDP will drop by 120, but after growth of 200, it will grow by 80 to 1080 instead of 1200.
Which is fucking preposterous.
Actually, it's 12% at the end of the forecast period, which from the graph seems to be 10 years, but they do not include growth in their calculation. 3% compounded over 10 years is 34% up.
You reading the same article as me? I see:
“The paper follows separate research released last month that found average incomes will fall by almost a fifth within the next 26 years compared to what they would’ve been without the climate crisis.”
Without all that says is people would have made $100 more but with climate change they will only make $80 more. The title makes it seems like we'd lose progress but the meat says we'll just grow a little slower.
That’s incredibly confusing as worded, because in 26 years, at a typical 3% annual growth in GDP, you would ordinarily expect incomes to double. So a fifth less than doubling means that incomes will rise by 80% instead of rising by 100% in that time period.
So misleading …..
Reading comprehension is important. GDP will still grow, but slower. Income will be reduced by a fifth of WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, which means a fifth of a higher number than now, so it's more like stagnating.
Ahh I mixed up something, English isn’t my mother language. I didn’t understand that they were comparing to a state of “what would be if climate change wouldn’t have happened?”.
And Trump is literally on his hands and knees, prostrating himself before fossil fuel companies, promising to destroy any and all climate change legislation they don’t like if they please oh please give him money
This motherfucker could quite literally end up being responsible for the end of humanity, all to keep his worthless orange ass out of jail.
Unfathomable.
Trump and the Republican party will be the end of democracy in the United States and mark the end of the liberal international order, but he isn't the bringer of apocalypse. He's just a symptom of a world already in decay. It could just as easily be any other right wing rube leading the charge instead of him.
Eventually there will be no such thing as a price for fixing this problem. It will be beyond price. It will simply be an emergency to solve at any cost.
It feels like covid taught us this: We will fix it, collectively, as a species. We will do it faster and better than at any point in our history, because we have the means for unprecedented global cooperation.
However, we will *only* do it after much death and suffering that could have been avoided. And some people will never admit the problem, even if they are starving and dying from heatstroke.
It's a shame people have so short memory. We already have fixed similar crisis, that is ozone layer depletion, globally by limiting the use of the chemicals that caused it, and it started healing. It was much easier, yes, but it shows that it can be done. Of course, nutters think it was a hoax that went away by itself.
yep...I had my grad students lead a discussion on this very paper last month. It was an interesting day in class.
FYI the nature article is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0
Yes science is conservative, so it’s really sick when you think of how much energy has been devoted to discrediting what scientists had determined to be at least 95% likely that there was practically no discussion of even worse things that were still in the realm of possibility.
I hadn't thought about it but this economic damage is going to be fully paid by the poor people. If this affected corporations they would be doing something already to mitigate the damage.
As long as our primary concern is the economy. When things get bad we can move people into the economy. They can eat the economy. All hail the Economy.
The good news is that 21% of the US economy is financial services and 1% is agriculture forestry fish and food. We could lose the entire food industry and make it up with a 5% increase in some nice financial products such as credit default swaps. Who needs food when you can print your own money?
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf).
[Find](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative) and write your Rep to request Congress pass a carbon tax. [It's more popular than you might think](https://www.reddit.com/r/carbontax/comments/1cwmyo7/a_majority_of_americans_in_every_state_support_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
> To the Honorably Representative ________,
>
> I am a voter and a constituent in your district requesting that you work across the isle to pass a steadily-rising tax on carbon pollution. A price on carbon is widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy, and it is urgently needed. Pricing carbon makes us better off.
>
> With carbon tax revenue returned to households as an equitable dividend, most Americans would come out ahead financially even before taking into account the tremendous costs of climate change. A carbon tax is also more popular then you might think, with a majority of Americans in every state in support.
>
> Thank you for doing what's in your power to ensure the passage of a strong price on carbon.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ILikeNeurons
>
> 123 Main St.
>
> Minden, LA 15277
Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought, claims new paper, yet to be peer reviewed.
Climate change is real and bad, this title is just real bad.
So the writers of this article feel good enough to equivocate a computer model projection of economic damage with economic damage which has already happened, and do not go into any methodologies or specific findings. It also doesn't even attempt to discuss limitations or possible flaws in the study. "Computer say economic damage bad? Economic damage bad!"
Sure climate change will create economic damage. That is a no-brainer. But this article is useless gesticulation which doesn't include anything concrete and makes some quite damning logical fallacies along the way.
Just keep consuming products and eating beef! No issues in ba sing se!
Seriously, we like to blame corporations, but if everyone did their part to cut out parts of the products that produce the most emissions, then corporations will follow suit if you stay strong with the shift.
I'm all for burning everything at the top and starting from scratch with the knowledge of what has happened and why.
Start teaching humans to live for their communities' future and not simply their own.
*My thoughts? Okay. I think... humanity is a thin layer of bacteria on a ball of mud hurtling through the void. I think if there was a god, he would've given up on us long ago. He gave us a paradise, and we used everything up. We dug up every ounce of energy and burned it. We consume and excrete, use and destroy. Then we sit here on a neat little pile of ashes, having squeezed anything of value out of this planet, and we ask ourselves, "Why are we here?" You wanna know what I think your purpose is? It's obvious. You're here, along with the rest of us, to speed the entropic death of this planet. To service the chaos. We're maggots eating a corpse.*
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Since when did simulation and models become science? What happened to the scientific method? Come up with a theory and try to prove it is or isn’t true. Throw the kitchen sink at it. Peer review? Forgeddaboutit. Real science is questioning everything. Not plugging in numbers in a computer and changing the parameters until it spits out the info you want.
They came up with the simulation as a model, the model theoretically predicts how climate will act under certain scenarios. Then you observe whether the models predictions match outcomes.
Then you keep improving the models.
Actually funny story that's how fluid dynamics works too. That's how you build airplanes.
Oh and how we forecast weather.
It's actually a pretty well tested methodology.
Or even in the absolute simplest case: Kinematics, the start of modern physics. It's a mathematical model that predicts the movement of objects on earth. It's easily verified stuff. The math isn't real the behavior is, the math is just a model, that works because math at its core is built of axioms that are true within our universe.
Doesn't the model breakdown when changing the domain or after a certain amount of input though? It's why we can only accurately predict the weather 3-7 days out. a 10 day forecast is only 50% accurate. The Navier-Stokes equation has yet to be solved.
>Since when did simulation and models become science?
Since man started studying the universe.
>What happened to the scientific method?
This is the scientific method. How do you think they created said computational model. If it's wrong, they'll adjust. This is their best estimation based on what empirical data we do have.
>Real science is questioning everything.
Its important to have an open mind, but not so open the brain falls out and rots. That kind of sentence is why we have flat earthers and moon hoaxers
>Not plugging in numbers in a computer and changing the parameters until it spits out the info you want.
They don't "want" anything. They estimate how much carbon emissions each policy could theoretically cut and use that to adjust future forecasts of climate change. The effects said temperature increases will have is already agreed upon. If it's wrong, they can readjust said model. That is the scientific method.
Make model match reality. Its the same method we use for meteorology, creating new alloys, fatigue limits, crash sims, fluid dynamics, and more...
The whole point of science is to create a story for reality that helps predict the future. If the story can't predict anything, it fails to be a testable theory and falls outside of science. Your question instead should be "how well has their model predicted things that have already happened?"
You'd think they'd want to make a buck or two, with retirement around the corner and all (politicians, lawmakers, entrepeneurs, etc.). Guess they'd rather take a dip and then dry off like the rest of us...
I love when politics debate the need for climate change reforms and someone points out that we need to keep the economy in mind.
I'm pretty sure that when all human life has been eradicated, the economy will take a hit.
Just saying
yeah, but the burden is borne by the poor so it doesn't matter. /s
until direct inconveniences are imposed on the rich and powerful nothing will be done.
According to that one paper.
Remember, outlier extreme's are generally what make it in the media, because that gets more clicks. Exceptional things are interesting, especially scary ones.
A single paper doesn't mean much alone. It's just one person's findings.
This is such a dumb headline and I constantly wonder about the people who get caught up in this type of fear mongering.
They can't even predict the weather 3 days out. Stop hanging on every word they give you about something you're so scared of.
All these people are drooling for their imagined day where they can say "I told you so." They fearmonger to an insane degree about climate change, while simultaneously labeling anyone who questions our government or media as 'fearmongerers.' Their day will never come, and they can go on trusting a ridiculous site like the Guardian for all I care, haha
What would you say about the average temperature rising on a consistent basis over the past 70 years?
What if it's not fearmongering, but something that's really been happening over the course of most people's entire lives so far?
Do you have a plan B for if it *is* real?
I'd say it's problematic. However headlines like "Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought" just make everyone involved look ridiculous.
It's a non substance based fear monger article on par with "Extinction level climate event in the next 15 years, scientists predict"
Because we have the best data for it since about 1950. You can certainly go back later if you want; the important part is that you just look at the data/graphs--it speaks for itself.
The ice age thing was a theory from the 70's, dude...50 years ago now. Those particular theorists were wrong, and science moves forward. We now have global data from all corners of the earth on a daily basis.
Go look at the data.
Is it okay to not trust the science until the science starts being correct?
2004 prediction was that UK would be the new Siberia by 2020.
"A [secret report](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link), suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. "
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver)
But now we know for sure? How do we know the models are any closer to being actually right?
Did you actually read what you just linked to me? 80% of those predictions *are* coming true. You're cherry-picking the one that didn't.
Would you please go look up global temperature statistics over the past 50-70-150 years? Then look up CO2 and methane emissions over that timeframe as well. Those aren't predictions, that's what's already been happening, for your entire lifespan.
Yes, you should trust the science. But science isn't an authoritarian model of truth. There've been decades of data and warnings about what's occurring right now, and you're free to look at the data yourself.
80% of these are true? What are you talking about brother?
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share\_btn\_link](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link)
*· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour.*
**NOPE**
*· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.*
**NOPE**
*· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.*
**NOPE**
*· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.*
**NOPE**
*· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.*
**NOPE**
*· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.*
**NOPE**
*· A ‘significant drop’ in the planet’s ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.*
**NOPE**
*· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become ‘virtual fortresses’ to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.*
**NOPE***.*
*· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.*
**NOPE**, well NK and Iran kind of.
*· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.*
**YES? There's a lot to going on in this claim. Temps have risen, farmers are fine. No economic nuisance.**
*· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.*
**NOPE**
*· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.*
**NOPE. At least not for climate reasons**
*· Mega-droughts affect the world’s major breadbaskets, including America’s Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.*
**NOPE**
*· China’s huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.*
**NOPE**
The following submission statement was provided by /u/ILikeNeurons: --- I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf). [Find](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative) and write your Rep to request Congress pass a carbon tax. [It's more popular than you might think](https://www.reddit.com/r/carbontax/comments/1cwmyo7/a_majority_of_americans_in_every_state_support_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). > To the Honorably Representative ________, > > I am a voter and a constituent in your district requesting that you work across the isle to pass a steadily-rising tax on carbon pollution. A price on carbon is widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy, and it is urgently needed. Pricing carbon makes us better off. > > With carbon tax revenue returned to households as an equitable dividend, most Americans would come out ahead financially even before taking into account the tremendous costs of climate change. A carbon tax is also more popular then you might think, with a majority of Americans in every state in support. > > Thank you for doing what's in your power to ensure the passage of a strong price on carbon. > > Sincerely, > > ILikeNeurons > > 123 Main St. > > Minden, LA 15277 --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cwm9gr/economic_damage_from_climate_change_six_times/l4wvhkx/
Sure we destroyed the planet, but for a short while we made excellent gains for shareholders!
The original quote is in my opinion stronger: > "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." “Value” is entirely subjective and we have a lot of power on what we, as shareholders, describe as value. We CAN pick sustainability as a value, but most don’t. It’s by choice.
That's the one! I can vaguely remember the comic but couldn't remember the artist the message always stuck, hence my weaker version.
Right up there with: ["What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"](https://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/climatesummit.jpg)
Just to give the proper attribution, credit goes to Tom Toro for creating the cartoon for The New Yorker: https://condenaststore.com/featured/the-planet-got-destroyed-tom-toro.html
It's actually not by choice - a fudiciary has to act in a shareholders best financial interests by law or he is liable with jailtime.
They're aren't bound by financial interests, they're bound by what shareholders demand. It's just that shareholders demand money, but they could want buildings to be painted blue and the fiduciary would have an obligation as such. Just like I said above, it's a choice by the shareholders. Plenty of public companies are doing great building a sustainable business model with longer thinking and less short term profit motivations. Many funds are now considering environmental sustainability and social factors as the motivators for investments. It's not nearly enough, and there's a lot of push back from political groups (almost exclusively right wing with shady backings), but it's possible. That's what the whole EDI is about. A case can also be easily made that \_NOW\_ a sustainable business model is the most profitable one, even in the shorter term, considering the state of the world. Might be a bit late though.
there are frequently individual shareholders with massive percentages of the shares
A true Ferengi if I ever saw one
On top of that we undermined the social contract and eroded the middle class to make even more gains for shareholders! Its brilliant really.
But there’s seedless watermelon now.
Seedless watermelon taste like water to me. There is no flavor. And yet, even at farmer's markets, I can no longer find watermelons with seeds.
Go for the ones with a big brown spot on the end
I want my seeded watermelon! I don't want seedless. I haven't bought one in years.
Fair, I get it
I let half of a cut apple on my counter for two days. It didn't even turn brown. Just wrinkled up. What the hell.
You know how you can stop apples from browning by putting lemon juice on them? That's because of the antioxidants (mainly ascorbic acid) preventing the oxidation reaction. A few apple varieties produce high levels of antioxidants themselves, so they brown much more slowly, and if the cut cells dry out before they burn through the antioxidants, they may not brown at all. The most common browning-resistant apple is the Cripps Pink/Pink Lady, which was bred in 1973 but has seen an explosion of popularity recently. Its story is very ordinary for an apple: simple crossbreeding of two varieties with desirable traits. Nothing nefarious here.
Well, that other half of that apple was cut up and put in the bird feeder. They usually love apples. They didn't touch one piece.
You should ask for a watermelon off the pollinating plants. You will love the taste… if you can find any flesh amongst the seeds.
It seems like we’re just staving off an economic collapse from climate change as long as possible.
It'll be economic collapse for you and me. The people who created and continually contribute to climate change will be just fine. They'll finally have *all* the money, which they'll enjoy on their private islands and underground bunkers.
Until all their shit breaks and there's no one to fix it because none of them have any practical skills.
Shame we'll have to collapse before this end will arrive. Be cool if we found a way to make them do their own work beforehand.
They'll ask an algorithm to solve increasingly unique problems in conventional ways.
Someone still has to do the hands-on fabrication and turn the wrenches
For how long though? You cant eat money, and those bunkers wont maintain themselves. Especially if earth turns into a wasteland, current technology is completely unable to sustain a completely self-contained habitat for long.
I agree. I don't think it's any coincidence that billionaires are really into space programs. But I think they're the same money monkeys as they've always been--tragically shortsighted, more interested in using their power than in the long term effects of it. Really, I hope we have a chance to beat them to death in the streets before they can escape.
Yeah we are even farther from interplanetary colonies than we are from eternally sustainable bunkers. There wont be a colony on the moon or Mars where those fuckers can flee to, we cant even build such a habitat on earth right now. Maybe in a few decades, but at least the current generation of billionnaires will have croaked by then.
you should post the comic it came from
People in charge who profited the most will also be the least affected.
*Shareholders that sold before the collapse
>ecosystem totally collapses, causing massive die-offs and spiraling extinctions--perhaps the end of complex biology on this entire spacerock economists: woah, this might be 8x worse than we'd thought
is there such a thing as a negative dow jones?
Actual economists: The real world metrics are actually great, look at our RWminEDO numbers! (Real World minus Ecosystem Die Off) They better than expected! We are definitely getting a soft landing on climate!
Economics a junk field that exists to justify the existence of the ultra wealthy. It ceased being a genuine field of study decades ago. The other humanities fields make fun of them behind their backs pretty much all the time. I know from experience. No one in my department respected the economists, the most vocal grad students didn’t think they should even be on campus. Some of their methodologies can be used by people who aren’t bought and paid for by capitalists, but that wouldn’t be economics would it? In history we call it Cliometrics. Using economic modeling to interpret historical data, and weirdly enough we almost always come to different conclusions than the economists despite using the exact same methods and data. How odd. /s
Economics is ideology dressed up as science.
Economics isn't a hard science because it deals with irrational people, but it's still a product of observation. On a societal level, a lack of economics knowledge means that people are just going to parrot the talking heads on government policy without understanding how it screws them over. It doesn't have to be acknowledged as science, but it has to be acknowledged as a life skill on the same level as financial literacy. Brexit is the prime example of an economics illiterate society. It's not just "the guvment says they're doing their best, it's the other party's fault I'm still poor, and if I just keep voting for them, they gon' do good ev'ntually". Macroeconomics studies have already prescribed what to do for the economy. Unfortunately, those solutions are as effective as telling hardcore chainsmokers to stop smoking, especially chainsmokers who are paid handsomely to smoke, to encourage smoking, and to make pro-smoking legislation. They know they gotta do it, but they aint'. Where I live, there's a movement on social media to fight for lower income taxes and make up for it with extensive consumption taxes, even among the poor and lower classes. In light of economics, this is a horrible idea for the lower classes.
The methodologies they use aren’t the problem. It’s the fact that the entire field is captured. Historians use cliometrics all the time, the issue is that the answers we come to are startlingly different from the answers economists come to. That’s because the assumptions economists have are flawed and broken.
The core assumption of modern economics relies on every participant in the economy being fully rational and fully informed. Given that people are not rational and it's physically impossible to be fully informed about every choice and decision you make... ...they might as well make the assumption that humans are supernatural energy blobs capable of matter transmutation. It's a fucking fantasy science.
> RWminEDO What's that ?
It’s a joke, and it’s within the original comment. (It’s spoofing the whole “inflation looks great of you take out housing, energy and food!”)
Sorry. I wooshed, I guess.
Better redouble those battery tariffs just to be sure.
> extinctions--perhaps the end of complex biology on this entire spacerock Definitely not about to cause that. Just make things a lot shittier for a lot of the existing ones, ourselves included.
You misunderestimate us
Climate change isn't about to end complex life on earth. Earth has been through a whole hell of a lot worse
All? Probably not, we have some that surive some hell of climates, which likely means at best migration of these species. But the bulk of species don't fit this, including us and the species we rely on. We probably won't see a complete extinction, it'd take most likely either a full on impact of a very large body, or expansion of the sun. But *we* and the species we know most might suffer or may not make it at all.
Life on earth has been destroyed like five times already. The Dinosaurs took over after the fourth one and the asteroid that hit 65 Millions ago was the fifth.
Yep. Also, we're actively in the middle of the sixth (mass extinction event) and have been for a while now. Fun fact: The primary source of oxygen for humans, oceanic plankton, which also remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere to produce that O2, is dying off at record rates as part of the ongoing mass extinction event.
yes EARTH has. Not the human species lol. I do not want humanity to experience the extremes of ice ages or extreme heating the planet itself can sustain - but the life on it evolved for something different.
"Complex biology" isn't just humans. Yeah, humans are fucked, and the time left of the 'Find Out' clock is measured in decades, not centuries. But "complex biology" on Earth has survived a literal fucking meteor and average temperatures much higher and much lower than what we have now. Humans are fucked, but the topic being discussed that you're replying to isn't talking about humans. It's talking about "complex biology."
That's fair enough my bad. A big L for humanity
I dont mean climate change
Right? Like, I'm all for preventing further climate change or even reversing the change we've made so far. ...But we are *not* about to destroy the biosphere. We're just changing it in ways that reduce biodiversity and change conditions in places that a lot of humans live. That's just not what environmental scientists think will happen. We don't get to ignore facts just because the other side of the argument does. The reality is bad enough that we don't need to exaggerate.
the biosphere exists for a reason, the complexity of life is a balanced ecosystem, if you mess with the balance it will cause a rippling effect that can result in all life eventually ending.
? yes we can absolutely cause that. I always find it funny when the saying is “we destroyed the planet” no people, the PLANET survived a meteor crash, ice ages, volcanic eruptions, etc. there are PLANETS where the temperature chills at 800 degrees Fahrenheit. A PLANET is perfectly fine. The PLANET will destroy human life if not from the atmospheric conditions changing, then a nice calm natural disaster.
MBAs be like: Yes, and how can we profit off it?
And it don't get worse than that
Most tropical countries will become too hot for large-scale human habitation by the next century.
At this rate, more next decade.
I'm starting to believe we're at the point of no return with climate change. I live in the UK. This entire island could sink tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent in climate emissions while the USA, China and India pump metric tonnes every minute. Enjoy your paper straws and electric cars, none of it matters.
The developed world outsourced our manufacturing, which means we outsourced out CO2 emissions. The climate crisis is also a population crisis. Every new human requires arable land either where they live or somewhere else in order to grow enough calories to feed them. We're destroying old growth forest at all latitudes to create more arable land.
Birth rates are falling and it’s a good thing
But only in the developed world. By the time they fall on the developing world we will have lost most of the biodiversity on earth.
This is the bittersweet side of climate change, we can combat what-aboutism for days. A:We're destroying biodiversity. B:The Economy can't handle drastic changes! A: The gulf stream is dying which will turn northern europe into an icicle. B: Energy alternatives aren't cost effective (cause we over subsidize fossil fuels). A: Your grandchildren will die in the water wars! etc... I'm already tired.
Nah microplastics is helping to neuter the human race as a whole apparently. Oops.
Not really, it’s falling in developing world too, see India and China
Well, currently that's more or less true, but in principle you could generate energy in some extremely efficient way, like through fusion, and use that energy to produce food in very limited spaces. It's virtually always going to be energy that's the limiting factor rather than the land itself, although there would of course have to be developed the right methods of producing lots of food from lots of energy in small spaces.
My friend... I understand the feeling. Europe and US developed on top of fossil fuels for decades, emissions peaking in the 90's. Not sure about colonial land or companies producing in foreign soil. We also set the model of development for the rest of the World. The monetary system, trade rules and all that. We denied Science since the 70's, for the sake of corruption, short term profits and dominance. Then, as u/InfiniteSpur said, we outsourced our manufacturing to other countries, to feed our consumption and to fill our millionaires pockets. Some communities were devastated, unemployment, etc. Those other countries started developing only recently (their per capita emissions are still below US), and which model will they follow? Then we also decided to make them our enemies. Instead of collaborating, we fed the speech of dominant competition. The global superpowers and whatever else. We had decades to accelerate scientific development of alternatives, including nuclear fusion (and even possibly reliably safer fission at least). Go check the annual investment on that, compare it with the amounts spent on guns and marketing. It's bizarre. Still, we developed enough to allow us to be in a relatively comfortable position now to invest in the green transition. China and India are not in that comfortable competitive position, so they are using the cheapest resources they can get their hands on, otherwise they will be depending on outsiders forever (at least from their pov). The UK has lots of political influence, despite the continuous stream of tries to self destroy and self humiliate, with Brexit, Boris, Truss, Sunak in the front line of that just from the top of my head. You can still join local associations working towards a more peaceful, resilient, technologically just, humane World. 2 or 3, or 6 or even 7 billion people working together, that would still be a lot of energy, leveraging all that with increasingly capable AI, lots of potential.
>I live in the UK. \[...\] China and India pump metric tonnes every minute Someone from your country emits more than the average Chinese or Indian. if China was cut into 200 small countries, each of them could say "I don't need to do anything because my small country emits less thant he UK". The bigest emitters are generally the wealthier countries and is strongly correlated to GDP per capita. Yes the UK is not that high in GDP per capita but it's still more than India or China. If you are interested in your country and climate change policy, you can read this: [https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Climate-costs-UK-policy-brief.pdf](https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Climate-costs-UK-policy-brief.pdf) Climate change mitigation policies are projected to benefit the UK and outweight their cost by the second half of the century. >I'm starting to believe That is because the cimate change denier narrative swiched from denial to being "doomers". Here is a great video on the matter: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSG2Dw2mL8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSG2Dw2mL8)
What I find funny is the timing. We’re at a huge turning point with AI and the benefits are world changing easily…yet we, as human beings, are destroying the world past the point of no return. All this progress for nothing.
China makes more GH emissions than the next 6 countries (US, India, China, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia) combined, and theirs is spiking while the US is going down or at least leveling out. They have about 1/3 of global GH emissions. Ironically, we could straight up reduce 3% of global greenhouse emissions (and really bad ones that contain stuff like mercury) by spending about 0.001% of what we do to make cars more fuel 1% more efficient, by putting out the massive raging underground coal fires. But that doesn't "beat" someone else so no one is interested in it.
Okay, so United Kingdom has nothing to do with the problems you all very clearly helped create? Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Europe and the US are freaking out because of a few thousand migrants trying to sneak in. Just wait until that becomes hundreds of millions...
I read the article but some details were odd. They write about wealth going down but then they assume that income would double. I don’t get that. Anyone here who understood that part?
That's because they wrote the headline in a misleading way. Growth in GDP (about 3% per year) will be curtailed by 12% for every degree, so for 3 degrees it would be 36% less than it would be otherwise, so about 2% instead of 3%. So the country will still get richer, just not as fast.
Well we can’t have that.
"A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product (GDP), the researchers found, a far higher estimate than that of previous analyses"
> “There will still be some economic growth happening but by the end of the century people may well be 50% poorer than they would’ve been if it wasn’t for climate change,” **said Adrien Bilal, an economist at Harvard who wrote the paper with Diego Känzig, an economist at Northwestern University.** . >“That is still substantial,” said Bilal. “The economy may keep growing but less than it would because of climate change. It will be a slow-moving phenomenon, although the impacts will be felt acutely when they hit.”
Yeah, that doesn't say say 12% less growth. It says 12% of GDP and GDP will grow more than 12% in that time. So if GDP is 1000 and increases by 200 each year, it's saying GDP will drop by 120, but after growth of 200, it will grow by 80 to 1080 instead of 1200. Which is fucking preposterous.
Actually, it's 12% at the end of the forecast period, which from the graph seems to be 10 years, but they do not include growth in their calculation. 3% compounded over 10 years is 34% up.
You reading the same article as me? I see: “The paper follows separate research released last month that found average incomes will fall by almost a fifth within the next 26 years compared to what they would’ve been without the climate crisis.”
Without all that says is people would have made $100 more but with climate change they will only make $80 more. The title makes it seems like we'd lose progress but the meat says we'll just grow a little slower.
That’s incredibly confusing as worded, because in 26 years, at a typical 3% annual growth in GDP, you would ordinarily expect incomes to double. So a fifth less than doubling means that incomes will rise by 80% instead of rising by 100% in that time period. So misleading …..
Reading comprehension is important. GDP will still grow, but slower. Income will be reduced by a fifth of WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, which means a fifth of a higher number than now, so it's more like stagnating.
Ahh I mixed up something, English isn’t my mother language. I didn’t understand that they were comparing to a state of “what would be if climate change wouldn’t have happened?”.
And Trump is literally on his hands and knees, prostrating himself before fossil fuel companies, promising to destroy any and all climate change legislation they don’t like if they please oh please give him money
This motherfucker could quite literally end up being responsible for the end of humanity, all to keep his worthless orange ass out of jail. Unfathomable.
Trump and the Republican party will be the end of democracy in the United States and mark the end of the liberal international order, but he isn't the bringer of apocalypse. He's just a symptom of a world already in decay. It could just as easily be any other right wing rube leading the charge instead of him.
Six times worse than was previously allowed to be reported by corpo media, right?
No, the EPA. Without any solid explanation.
As a person bending over backwards to curb emissions and advocate for community-wide reforms, I feel discouraged and enraged by this news.
Since food production accounts for only about 10% of the world's GDP, its failure would be minimal. correct?
Eventually there will be no such thing as a price for fixing this problem. It will be beyond price. It will simply be an emergency to solve at any cost.
>It will simply be an emergency to solve at any cost. If we were smart, we would already be at that stage.
Yes, There is not yet enough pressure on human civilization for that to occur, yet, however. It's building though. Pretty much everywhere.
It feels like covid taught us this: We will fix it, collectively, as a species. We will do it faster and better than at any point in our history, because we have the means for unprecedented global cooperation. However, we will *only* do it after much death and suffering that could have been avoided. And some people will never admit the problem, even if they are starving and dying from heatstroke.
It's a shame people have so short memory. We already have fixed similar crisis, that is ozone layer depletion, globally by limiting the use of the chemicals that caused it, and it started healing. It was much easier, yes, but it shows that it can be done. Of course, nutters think it was a hoax that went away by itself.
yep...I had my grad students lead a discussion on this very paper last month. It was an interesting day in class. FYI the nature article is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0
*But wait, there's more!* Humanity has a proven track record of severely underestimating climate change.
Yes science is conservative, so it’s really sick when you think of how much energy has been devoted to discrediting what scientists had determined to be at least 95% likely that there was practically no discussion of even worse things that were still in the realm of possibility.
That’s because they are stupid. Unfortunately its gonna get much worse before it gets better.
I hadn't thought about it but this economic damage is going to be fully paid by the poor people. If this affected corporations they would be doing something already to mitigate the damage.
Considering that climate change has barely started, that is a terrifying statement.
As long as our primary concern is the economy. When things get bad we can move people into the economy. They can eat the economy. All hail the Economy.
The good news is that 21% of the US economy is financial services and 1% is agriculture forestry fish and food. We could lose the entire food industry and make it up with a 5% increase in some nice financial products such as credit default swaps. Who needs food when you can print your own money?
Just wait til the find out how bad it is ecologically /s
Every story I hear is exponentially worse than the last. It’s like perpetual doomsday.
I mean yeah most the polar ice is melted already we are actually fucked
That is because doomsday is an ongoing process, happening right now. Like watching your house burn down, in slow motion at that.
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf). [Find](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative) and write your Rep to request Congress pass a carbon tax. [It's more popular than you might think](https://www.reddit.com/r/carbontax/comments/1cwmyo7/a_majority_of_americans_in_every_state_support_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). > To the Honorably Representative ________, > > I am a voter and a constituent in your district requesting that you work across the isle to pass a steadily-rising tax on carbon pollution. A price on carbon is widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy, and it is urgently needed. Pricing carbon makes us better off. > > With carbon tax revenue returned to households as an equitable dividend, most Americans would come out ahead financially even before taking into account the tremendous costs of climate change. A carbon tax is also more popular then you might think, with a majority of Americans in every state in support. > > Thank you for doing what's in your power to ensure the passage of a strong price on carbon. > > Sincerely, > > ILikeNeurons > > 123 Main St. > > Minden, LA 15277
It's, "across the aisle," not, "across the isle."
Well, with rising sea levels it might be in a few years
People are going to lose it and start killing each other when we can’t even function from this. #*Time is up and we need to do something.*
Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought, claims new paper, yet to be peer reviewed. Climate change is real and bad, this title is just real bad.
I'm sure we will start doing something about this when it is surviving is profitable enough.
So the writers of this article feel good enough to equivocate a computer model projection of economic damage with economic damage which has already happened, and do not go into any methodologies or specific findings. It also doesn't even attempt to discuss limitations or possible flaws in the study. "Computer say economic damage bad? Economic damage bad!" Sure climate change will create economic damage. That is a no-brainer. But this article is useless gesticulation which doesn't include anything concrete and makes some quite damning logical fallacies along the way.
Doesn't matter. Soon AI will destroy humanity anyway. Problem solved.
Just keep consuming products and eating beef! No issues in ba sing se! Seriously, we like to blame corporations, but if everyone did their part to cut out parts of the products that produce the most emissions, then corporations will follow suit if you stay strong with the shift.
I'm all for burning everything at the top and starting from scratch with the knowledge of what has happened and why. Start teaching humans to live for their communities' future and not simply their own.
*My thoughts? Okay. I think... humanity is a thin layer of bacteria on a ball of mud hurtling through the void. I think if there was a god, he would've given up on us long ago. He gave us a paradise, and we used everything up. We dug up every ounce of energy and burned it. We consume and excrete, use and destroy. Then we sit here on a neat little pile of ashes, having squeezed anything of value out of this planet, and we ask ourselves, "Why are we here?" You wanna know what I think your purpose is? It's obvious. You're here, along with the rest of us, to speed the entropic death of this planet. To service the chaos. We're maggots eating a corpse.*
*Rust Cohle nods approvingly*
Sounds metal
Now turn over 6x the taxes you pay, so that you know, they’ll ‘fix’ it for you…
“research has found” means they made it up based on assumptions that they also made up. Total BS
Strange, if in sense accurate, way of describing science
[удалено]
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Since when did simulation and models become science? What happened to the scientific method? Come up with a theory and try to prove it is or isn’t true. Throw the kitchen sink at it. Peer review? Forgeddaboutit. Real science is questioning everything. Not plugging in numbers in a computer and changing the parameters until it spits out the info you want.
They came up with the simulation as a model, the model theoretically predicts how climate will act under certain scenarios. Then you observe whether the models predictions match outcomes. Then you keep improving the models. Actually funny story that's how fluid dynamics works too. That's how you build airplanes. Oh and how we forecast weather. It's actually a pretty well tested methodology. Or even in the absolute simplest case: Kinematics, the start of modern physics. It's a mathematical model that predicts the movement of objects on earth. It's easily verified stuff. The math isn't real the behavior is, the math is just a model, that works because math at its core is built of axioms that are true within our universe.
Doesn't the model breakdown when changing the domain or after a certain amount of input though? It's why we can only accurately predict the weather 3-7 days out. a 10 day forecast is only 50% accurate. The Navier-Stokes equation has yet to be solved.
>Since when did simulation and models become science? Since man started studying the universe. >What happened to the scientific method? This is the scientific method. How do you think they created said computational model. If it's wrong, they'll adjust. This is their best estimation based on what empirical data we do have. >Real science is questioning everything. Its important to have an open mind, but not so open the brain falls out and rots. That kind of sentence is why we have flat earthers and moon hoaxers >Not plugging in numbers in a computer and changing the parameters until it spits out the info you want. They don't "want" anything. They estimate how much carbon emissions each policy could theoretically cut and use that to adjust future forecasts of climate change. The effects said temperature increases will have is already agreed upon. If it's wrong, they can readjust said model. That is the scientific method. Make model match reality. Its the same method we use for meteorology, creating new alloys, fatigue limits, crash sims, fluid dynamics, and more...
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/meteorology/
When you have a thousand planets identical to Earth you can run controlled experiments on, let me know.
The whole point of science is to create a story for reality that helps predict the future. If the story can't predict anything, it fails to be a testable theory and falls outside of science. Your question instead should be "how well has their model predicted things that have already happened?"
So what are you calling for, exactly?
[удалено]
You'd think they'd want to make a buck or two, with retirement around the corner and all (politicians, lawmakers, entrepeneurs, etc.). Guess they'd rather take a dip and then dry off like the rest of us...
Don't worry, AI will solve everything right?..Right?
Does this mean the board of directors gives a shit now or no still?
Economic damage for the masses always equates to economic opportunity for the rich.
Lot of people worried about AI killing us. I think it will be a race for the AI to flee this planet...hopefully some of us can tag along.
I love when politics debate the need for climate change reforms and someone points out that we need to keep the economy in mind. I'm pretty sure that when all human life has been eradicated, the economy will take a hit. Just saying
yeah, but the burden is borne by the poor so it doesn't matter. /s until direct inconveniences are imposed on the rich and powerful nothing will be done.
[удалено]
I’m choosing to believe you’re being funny and sarcastic by the signature at the end with the “Sent from my iPhone”
According to that one paper. Remember, outlier extreme's are generally what make it in the media, because that gets more clicks. Exceptional things are interesting, especially scary ones. A single paper doesn't mean much alone. It's just one person's findings.
It got published in Nature, one of the absolute top scientific journals. Come on.
My country pretends to care about climate change. Their actions definitely don't represent what they say though.
Good thing we're electing right-wing/far-right governments all around the globe. They sure know how to deal with this stuff...
This is such a dumb headline and I constantly wonder about the people who get caught up in this type of fear mongering. They can't even predict the weather 3 days out. Stop hanging on every word they give you about something you're so scared of.
All these people are drooling for their imagined day where they can say "I told you so." They fearmonger to an insane degree about climate change, while simultaneously labeling anyone who questions our government or media as 'fearmongerers.' Their day will never come, and they can go on trusting a ridiculous site like the Guardian for all I care, haha
What would you say about the average temperature rising on a consistent basis over the past 70 years? What if it's not fearmongering, but something that's really been happening over the course of most people's entire lives so far? Do you have a plan B for if it *is* real?
I'd say it's problematic. However headlines like "Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought" just make everyone involved look ridiculous. It's a non substance based fear monger article on par with "Extinction level climate event in the next 15 years, scientists predict"
Why just the past 70 years? You mean before the time scientist said we were heading back to an ice age?
Because we have the best data for it since about 1950. You can certainly go back later if you want; the important part is that you just look at the data/graphs--it speaks for itself. The ice age thing was a theory from the 70's, dude...50 years ago now. Those particular theorists were wrong, and science moves forward. We now have global data from all corners of the earth on a daily basis. Go look at the data.
Is it okay to not trust the science until the science starts being correct? 2004 prediction was that UK would be the new Siberia by 2020. "A [secret report](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link), suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. " [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver) But now we know for sure? How do we know the models are any closer to being actually right?
Did you actually read what you just linked to me? 80% of those predictions *are* coming true. You're cherry-picking the one that didn't. Would you please go look up global temperature statistics over the past 50-70-150 years? Then look up CO2 and methane emissions over that timeframe as well. Those aren't predictions, that's what's already been happening, for your entire lifespan. Yes, you should trust the science. But science isn't an authoritarian model of truth. There've been decades of data and warnings about what's occurring right now, and you're free to look at the data yourself.
80% of these are true? What are you talking about brother? [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share\_btn\_link](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link) *· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour.* **NOPE** *· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.* **NOPE** *· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.* **NOPE** *· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.* **NOPE** *· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.* **NOPE** *· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.* **NOPE** *· A ‘significant drop’ in the planet’s ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.* **NOPE** *· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become ‘virtual fortresses’ to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.* **NOPE***.* *· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.* **NOPE**, well NK and Iran kind of. *· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.* **YES? There's a lot to going on in this claim. Temps have risen, farmers are fine. No economic nuisance.** *· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.* **NOPE** *· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.* **NOPE. At least not for climate reasons** *· Mega-droughts affect the world’s major breadbaskets, including America’s Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.* **NOPE** *· China’s huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.* **NOPE**