|
Where will these sanctuaries will get the infrastructure to feed, house and provide sanitation for all of the new arrivals from? What you're talking about when you talk about moving to escape climate change isn't moving to an idyllic agrarian society in the country that is self sufficient and everyone just gets along. It's a sprawling tent city full of hunger and disease.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
I think focusing on the arctic ice and the impact of thousands of gigatons of methane going into the atmosphere and the fact that this will happen literally within a few years instead of "probably not in your lifetime" that I've been hearing will get you a lot more support than speaking about general climate change. The attitude that no one will listen is extremely dangerous, people have not been loud enough and part of why is because they've already accepted that there's nothing that can change it. We need to amass as much support as possible as soon as possible, even if it's fruitless, even if people have been trying to do it for years, that just means we need to try that much harder and fight every step of the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Is carbon capture feasible as a way to slow global warming, if we some how magically got our total mobilization of the world's economies situation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
deathbysnusnu posted:Is carbon capture feasible as a way to slow global warming, if we some how magically got our total mobilization of the world's economies situation? Nobody knows. Maybe, maybe not. Best not to gamble with the fate of the world, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
If I can offer a different tack (and I'm by no means the bringer of great news) I'd like to throw a little lifeline to everyone feeling completely despondent as a result of this election, this thread and continued inaction. 1: The fact that you are reading this means that you are aware of this issue to a degree that most people around you aren't. That at the very least buys you a head start. The bad poo poo isn't starting tomorrow, you have plenty of time to personally adapt to the change and do your utmost to safeguard yourself and your familiy. I certainly am going to make it significant priority for my next decade to find and exploit all my available options for ensuring food security, safety and renewable, low-impact living. I'm going to invest in off-the-grid technology, which is really seeing some amazing new stuff these days, and looking into all kinds of stuff in terms of low impact low maintenance agriculture, animal husbandry and technologies that make it a lot easier, cheaper and less subsistence-level drudgery-like to produce food. As far as "prepping" goes, I don't really see it like that. I see it as an attempt to live more eco-friendly for me and mine, and I consider the ease of mind this buys me as a worthwhile effort regardless of the possibility of it maybe being unneccessary. I like the concept, so even if by some techno-wizardry we avoid the problem, I'm not going to regret having done something I enjoy regardless. To that end, I'd like to suggest people sharing links, ideas and groups that do stuff like aquaculture hydroponics, renewable energy for your house, small scale gardening and horticulture. Again, not to turn this into some kind of prepper thread, but to let people who are reading this who are worried and sad see some interesting or fun things they can get active and interested in. It's better to be allowed to do something and have some sense of useful direction and stuff to get into, rather than fretting at home over the inevitable doom over several decades. Seriously, there's a lot of really interesting stuff out there, and the worst thing that can happen is that you waste some effort making delicious home-grown tomatoes. This, pretty much; SavageGentleman posted:So to sum up the future - "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold". Dazzling Addar described a very likely scenario with a long descent, in which human cultures shaed many layers of complexity and unfortunately also many citizens during several centuries. Only you know, pragmatic and measured, and not dumb. At the same time, I'm obviously going to keep voting green, trying to get more active and live greener. Doing one thing doesn't preclude you from getting active in your community, finding friends who are also into sustainability, robust systems of agriculture and decentralization. I'm not talking some hippie bullshit either, just pure pragmatism (you'll need friends because no man is ever an island) and it'll make it easier to make a political impact, either local or bigger, once you have people behind you. Anyone want to discuss their own plans going forward? I'm sure this site has a lot of resources posters itt might not be aware of, even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Please start a survivalist thread if you'd like to discuss that. Avoiding climate mitigation is the opposite of what this thread is for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Yeah, I think he's off the mark. The NSIDC graphs for arctic and antarctic sea ice don't match his at all. So the graph Beck posted is of dubious veracity? Why are people still panicking about it ITT
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:So the graph Beck posted is of dubious veracity? Why are people still panicking about it ITT Because area and extent are two different measurements, lookie here: Uncle Jam posted:Seriously? They are measuring two different things. It is even in most of the simple FAQs!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:Here's some good news, yellowyams. Canada is mostly empty right now. Permafrost being the main reason people don't live much further north than the US-CA border. I really hope the Canadian government of 2030+ will find a workable solution for integrating millions of immigrants from a failing, yet still super militarized Southern neighbour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Is there anything we can do to make the ocean a bit colder around certain areas? The ice is being melted by warm waters isn't it? And I assume those waters didn't use to be as warm so it wouldn't be too catastrophic to try to change that would it? I feel way in over my head with science stuff so this is probably completely unreasonable, simplified and stupid but I want to think of something.  I think the ice melting thing should take a big priority right now because of how dramatic it just got.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
brakeless posted:Because area and extent are two different measurements, lookie here: Okay thanks, so the area the ice is occupying is normalish but it's suddenly full of holes. That does suck
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:Is there anything we can do to make the ocean a bit colder around certain areas? The ice is being melted by warm waters isn't it? And I assume those waters didn't use to be as warm so it wouldn't be too catastrophic to try to change that would it? I feel way in over my head with science stuff so this is probably completely unreasonable, simplified and stupid but I want to think of something. You can't make something colder without making something else hotter, and the issue right now is that the entire globe is too hot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You can't make something colder without making something else hotter, and the issue right now is that the entire globe is too hot. Then what can we do about the ice? This is only going to accelerate more rapidly as time goes on, we have to do something right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:So the graph Beck posted is of dubious veracity? Why are people still panicking about it ITT They measure two totally different th-- e:fb
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:Then what can we do about the ice? This is only going to accelerate more rapidly as time goes on, we have to do something right now. Honestly the ice melting in greenland is much worse than the western antarctic or the arctic melting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Honestly the only big picture action I can see that's doable in the near future is paint every ceiling and road white. It actually seems like a Trumpian solution in a way, overly simplistic, big showy infrastructure movement. Optimistic estimates suggest that if the worlds 100 largest cities used white roofs and concrete roads we'd buy 10 years of time. Could give us time to upscale nuclear and maybe even do crazy stuff like atmospheric carbon capture plants if the world suddenly starts to panic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:Then what can we do about the ice? This is only going to accelerate more rapidly as time goes on, we have to do something right now. About the ice currently pocked with holes and sub-glacial flows, probably nothing. We've locked in too much warming. But it can always get worse. Significantly. You need to push for a zero-carbon world as fast as you can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
SavageGentleman posted:I really hope the Canadian government of 2030+ will find a workable solution for integrating millions of immigrants from a failing, yet still super militarized Southern neighbour. Fallout was right were annexing you deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Please start a survivalist thread if you'd like to discuss that. Avoiding climate mitigation is the opposite of what this thread is for. What? Run that by me again, people are disallowed to speak about green sustainable living itt and about working with the local community to affect local and national policy on climate change? How do you equate greener living and horticulture gardening with survivalism? How is getting involved with groups and your community about climate change "avoiding climate mitigation", whatever that means?  Did Trump melt your mind or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
SavageGentleman posted:I really hope the Canadian government of 2030+ will find a workable solution for integrating millions of immigrants from a failing, yet still super militarized Southern neighbour. The Language Police of Greater Quebec will keep the idiot Americans in line with a mixture of fear, ruthless efficiency and a fanatical devotion to Bill 101. Forever_Peace posted:Your solution is a good one, but waiting isn't going to make it happen. There's no Pearl Harbor of global warming. No singular event to galvanize a population. I don't disagree, I certainly don't want to argue for inaction. However we need to be realistic and acknowledge the difference between major and marginal emission reductions. Local actions are worthwhile and necessary, but can only ever be marginal. To stay under 2C warming we needed major action, specifically national governments needed to proactively recognize the danger that global warming posed and co-ordinate to address the collective action problem that is carbon emissions. It's clear that this didn't happen, and Trump's election is just the tombstone on any sliver of hope to stay under 2C and minimize the risk of runaway warming processes. The takeaway is that our society is probably not capable of the major effort needed to proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy on the basis of the scientific consensus re global warming. We probably need a direct threat to instigate a crisis where the normal democratic process breaks down and drastic action becomes possible, a Pearl Harbor-type event like Miami or NYC flooding (again). Progressives need to be ready to seize the moment when the crisis occurs and make it clear that a zero-carbon economy is the only way to address the threat. Ideally this happens early enough that we can prevent some of the apocalyptic scenarios people like posting here, and for that humanity frankly needs to get a bit lucky. 2016 is guaranteed to be the warmest year on record by a large margin, that might be an effective rhetorical club going forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What? Run that by me again, people are disallowed to speak about green sustainable living itt and about working with the local community to affect local and national policy on climate change? How do you equate greener living and horticulture gardening with survivalism? How is getting involved with groups and your community about climate change "avoiding climate mitigation", whatever that means? Sorry, I didn't mean to sound confrontational. Perhaps I'm not clear on what you meant. I'm responding to the sentiment that personal climate adaptation is a reasonable response to global warming (as opposed to global climate mitigation). There's a growing isolationist utopian contingent among the nihilist left, including the accelerationist that you quoted: "Greer does not really advocate 'green wizards' to become vocal climate change activists during the next decade". Isolationist utopias aren't an answer to anything. What's the plan here for the entire world's ocean biomes? For the billions of people in India and China who don't have the choice to become survivalists? For your own descendants - are they meant to spend forever locked in the "Z for Zachariah" community you create as the rest of the world burns? You may think that moving off the grid isn't incompatible with climate advocacy. And maybe that's true. But you can't argue that it certainly adds more inertia to the people who understand the problem best. You realistically think you'd travel a few hundred miles to join that climate march or speak at a city council meeting? That you'd skype in to the meetings of groups trying to move their cities and states towards zero carbon as fast as possible? That you'd still feel the same urgency and vitalism if you had your own family comfortable and tended to with those delicious tomatoes? I'm not saying survivalism isn't a valid (or potentially useful!) interest. I'm saying it isn't the same thing as climate mitigation. And so it belongs in a different thread. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I don't disagree, I certainly don't want to argue for inaction. However we need to be realistic and acknowledge the difference between major and marginal emission reductions. Local actions are worthwhile and necessary, but can only ever be marginal. To stay under 2C warming we needed major action, specifically national governments needed to proactively recognize the danger that global warming posed and co-ordinate to address the collective action problem that is carbon emissions. It's clear that this didn't happen, and Trump's election is just the tombstone on any sliver of hope to stay under 2C and minimize the risk of runaway warming processes. Even if this is correct (which I don't necessarily cede), wouldn't trying to build the society that would proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy be a way forward without having to wait for a Pearl Harbor that might never arrive? The AIDS crisis - a Pearl Harbor if there ever was one - didn't all of a sudden end homophobia. It took decades of ceaseless efforts by a new wave of activists to get gay marriage. But when it clicked, public opinion changed on a loving dime. It was unprecedented. That is what progress is going to look like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I'm responding to the sentiment that personal climate adaptation is a reasonable response to global warming (as opposed to global climate mitigation). Why can't it be both?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
So it seems like a societal collapse is inevitable within the next decade or two. I always thought I could make it through any situation, but my girlfriend, possibly soon to be wife, is a type 1 diabetic. She can't make it without insulin, and one day I will probably have to watch her die before her time. This poo poo is beyond depressing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Even if this is correct (which I don't necessarily cede), wouldn't trying to build the society that would proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy be a way forward without having to wait for a Pearl Harbor that might never arrive? I agree, we need to try to proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy. My point is empirically it doesn't seem like we're going to seriously move to a zero-carbon economy without a major crisis spurring us. We had a clear scientific consensus and path forward in the early 1990s and simply failed to act. However we should absolutely put in the work now to make this transition easier when the "crisis" does occur. Maybe we make this transition so easy that a crisis isn't actually necessary, but I'm not holding my breath. edit: my posts might be coming off as low-content. I think my major point is that progressives need to be ready to push a radical carbon-reduction agenda if an opportunity presents itself. Alarmism and lying will be totally warranted, as it turns out we live in post-fact society anyway. Ideally our elected representatives will already be receptive to this kind of message, in the US you'll likely have to wait at least 4 more years before that's possible. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Sorry, I didn't mean to sound confrontational. Perhaps I'm not clear on what you meant. Alright, I get you. I'm not saying that though, because you're right, a personal response as a solution to climate change will never be as effective as national/international policy. What I am saying - especially the people coming into this thread with a feeling of hopelessness and despair - is that it's okay to have personal goals and preparing for the future yourself, in terms of your own effort to adapt to climate change. Because we are locked in for certain effects for sure. I want to give people something to do if they are feeling hopeless, and make sure they know they have years to adapt their own personal circumstances, so they don't need to panic and go all sadbrains. At the same time, I think people could use that interest in groups of likeminded people (and I'm not talking about hippie communes here, pragmatic living remember?) to generate a base of enviro-friendly political opinion that can get local communities that eventually add up to big numbers concerned and active about climate change. Because right now, even with all the warning signs, people are ignoring the gently caress out of the problem. If a large portion of your community starts working together on these kinds of things, it brings it down to a local "oh-poo poo-people-are-doing-things-this-is-actually-real" level. So it's a win-win, as I see it. Peace of mind from personal adaptation coupled with renewed energy for talking to people and working with people in terms of combatting climate change. Isolationism would be the exact opposite of this, in fact. What I don't know, is A: much about it at all, B: how to get a community engaged in sustainable living/robust local communities C: the hows of the best ways to prepare for a future with more extreme weather and less food security while we shift public opinion towards a mitigation industry. And I figure, what's the worst that can happen if green living becomes a trend? Maybe it'll start changing attituted making pollution and consumerism socially unacceptable in the broad sense, which you have to admit would go a long way towards helping. Anyway, it's a positive possibility to think about for all the doomsayers and the people who are terrified of climate change. Certainly more productive than fear paralysis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I agree, we need to try to proactively move to a zero-carbon emissions economy. My point is empirically it doesn't seem like we're going to seriously move to a zero-carbon economy without a major crisis spurring us. We had a clear scientific consensus and path forward in the early 1990s and simply failed to act. However we should absolutely put in the work now to make this transition easier when the "crisis" does occur. Maybe we make this transition so easy that a crisis isn't actually necessary, but I'm not holding my breath. Empirical how? What's the evidence that climate change is more intractable of an issue than gay marriage was 20 years ago? I'm not saying it can't be, or even that it isn't, but I'm surprised to hear you say that there is persuasive empirical evidence for it already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What? Run that by me again, people are disallowed to speak about green sustainable living itt and about working with the local community to affect local and national policy on climate change? How do you equate greener living and horticulture gardening with survivalism? How is getting involved with groups and your community about climate change "avoiding climate mitigation", whatever that means? Personal survivalist and local green action are different. You can put in effort here to intentionally blur lines, and to an extent it'll be valid, but the difference between sincerely asking how to defend a fallout shelter and grow an algae farm ought to be clear. Don't pretend your first post on this was as flowery on community action as your second post would have us believe. It was confrontational
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Empirical how? What's the evidence that climate change is more intractable of an issue than gay marriage was 20 years ago? I'm not saying it can't be, or even that it isn't, but I'm surprised to hear you say that there is persuasive empirical evidence for it already. If you're being serious about this and not just trolling look into research about "wicked problems" and then "super wicked problems" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem Essentially, and yes there has been empirical research done, Time is running out. No central authority. Those seeking to solve the problem are also causing it. Policies discount the future irrationally. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I understand how dire the problem is. That's precisely why the doomsdayers are cowards. This is a fight over every tenth of a degree, because the impacts of each cumulative one are enormous and unspeakably horrendous. You don't get to unplug and and refuse responsibility to future generations, to the developing world, and to the rest of life on this planet because it requires a little hard work. Imagine looking your friends and family in the eye 50 years from now and trying to explain that you were too cynical or too lazy to do anything. Don't take this personal, but that's hogwash. Ecology doesn't work according to linear gradients, it works according to tipping points. Heck, most things biological and chemical do. Tell a piece of paper the difference between 451.1 and 451.2 degrees. It doesn't care. Functionally speaking, the reason why the doomsayers are right, and are not cowards, is because now that we've moved into "4.1c is better than 4.2c" it really is a too late moment. And changes put into place now will be overridden and reset by the dramatic responses to catastrophic change in the future. Incremental success was great and sensible back when we were assuming the same political and climate regimes moving forward but it's clear we can no longer assume that, so who cares if the USA outlaws coal tomorrow considering the USA will likely be forced into dramatic shifts in the way it deals with everything in a decade or two? And trebly that for China and India.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Empirical how? What's the evidence that climate change is more intractable of an issue than gay marriage was 20 years ago? I'm not saying it can't be, or even that it isn't, but I'm surprised to hear you say that there is persuasive empirical evidence for it already. Meaningful climate change mitigation is going to impose drastic changes to everybody's way of life whereas something like gay marriage legislation does not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Empirical how? What's the evidence that climate change is more intractable of an issue than gay marriage was 20 years ago? I'm not saying it can't be, or even that it isn't, but I'm surprised to hear you say that there is persuasive empirical evidence for it already. When predicting the future course of society the word "empirical" is of course going to be used very loosely. However your question kind of answers itself, climate change was absolutely an issue ~24 years ago and if anything it's even more intractable today. There's already been one big experiment where the world came together, acknowledged that climate change was a problem and agreed action should be taken (the Kyoto protocol). It was a test that we collectively failed, and it's evidence that we aren't going to seriously deal with the problem until we're forced to (ie the effects become too catastrophic to ignore, a crisis). Maybe we get it together over the next 4-8 years, I'd just point out that one of the world's major emitters per capita just came out of an election where climate change wasn't even an issue. If anything the candidates were fighting to assure that they'll be the ones to best protect coal/pipeline jobs. edit: Xeom posted:So it seems like a societal collapse is inevitable within the next decade or two. I always thought I could make it through any situation, but my girlfriend, possibly soon to be wife, is a type 1 diabetic. She can't make it without insulin, and one day I will probably have to watch her die before her time. Sometimes this thread goes a little too far into gloom and doom territory. Outside of a methane clathrate-gun situation or PT extinction event, western societies are unlikely to collapse within our lifetime. There's just too much surplus production, especially if Americans reduce their consumption closer to the world average. Cities flooding are the big problem, but that will happen relatively slowly. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
People don't put climate change at the top of their concerns because it's almost always been talked about as a very slow process that probably won't kill us in our lifetimes. This has just changed to a time-span of within a decade and people don't realize it, this is a better time than ever to inform people about this, and an imminent disaster is very different from a far-off threat so don't dismiss it like nothing will happen. If people are loud enough it will at least start a more visible conversation and more people can join in. People would not be talking about 2020 like there will actually be a presidential race if they knew about this. That's why I'm really urging everyone to try to send this info to someone with a lot of followers, the more this is talked about the better.Nocturtle posted:
It would have been slowly if it had kept at the same pace it had been declining for years, but that chart shows the pattern no longer holds now that there are holes in the ice, and it will only get quicker from here, the methane calthrate situation is going to happen and within only a few years if not by next summer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:It would have been slowly if it had kept at the same pace it had been declining for years, but that chart shows the pattern no longer holds now that there are holes in the ice, and it will only get quicker from here, the methane calthrate situation is going to happen and within only a few years if not by next summer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Personal survivalist and local green action are different. You can put in effort here to intentionally blur lines, and to an extent it'll be valid, but the difference between sincerely asking how to defend a fallout shelter and grow an algae farm ought to be clear. Don't pretend your first post on this was as flowery on community action as your second post would have us believe. It was confrontational They sure are, super glad I specified that I was not talking about prepper stuff or survivalism in my very first post. You call it blurring the lines, I call it "all of the above". At this point, it's reasonable to suggest people think about sustainable living which is also low-resource, low-impact food secure living. We are allowed to answer the question "what is to be done" with "do for yourself and get involved locally" seeing as no gigantic anti-climate change movement seems to be spawing on the national/international level for people to jump on. gently caress off with this bullshit. I know full well it's all going to poo poo, and sooner than we thought. Instead of wallowing in despair, maybe people would like to read about stuff other people are doing to live sustainably? Maybe, we can loving do whatever the gently caress we want to prepare for what's very likely to be the future at the same time as we get involved with environmental activism, voting green and changing minds however we can? Why can't this go hand in hand, why does this have to be either/or with you? Do we need a different thread called "Climate Change: What is to be Done by you personally?" for this? Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:Here's some good news, yellowyams. Canada is mostly empty right now. Permafrost being the main reason people don't live much further north than the US-CA border. I have the opportunity to try to get some land at the great Lakes but would it be best to invest in Alaska instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
SavageGentleman posted:I really hope the Canadian government of 2030+ will find a workable solution for integrating millions of immigrants from a failing, yet still super militarized Southern neighbour. This isn't going to happen. I can't believe I'm the one saying this, but things aren't going to get that bad and definitely not by 2030. The US isn't going to collapse. It's going to suck and a lot of people who are grasping at the idea that rich, developed nations will be fine are wrong, but there aren't going to be mass migrations from the US within the next few decades. I'm pretty much a broken record on this point, but if you live in the US the most likely impact on your life is going to be economic and it's going to be slow and you're never going to get to point to specific events and say "yes, climate change is to blame." Part of what makes climate change so challenging to explain is that you can only say that a particular event was made more likely by changes in the climate, not that climate change was a direct cause. If you want to actually prepare then just save more money than you normally would. Buy less poo poo. Assume that this is what the good times look like and that you potentially won't be as well off 20 years from now as you are now. Learning to be more self sufficient is great, but you aren't going to be forced into subsistence farming and the global economy isn't going to vanish. Thinking that the world is going to end and that you might as well live it up now is a terrible decision because a recognizable world will still be here in two decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
bef posted:I have the opportunity to try to get some land at the great Lakes but would it be best to invest in Alaska instead? How good are you at fighting REALLY hungry polar bears?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This isn't going to happen. I can't believe I'm the one saying this, but things aren't going to get that bad and definitely not by 2030. The US isn't going to collapse. It's going to suck and a lot of people who are grasping at the idea that rich, developed nations will be fine are wrong, but there aren't going to be mass migrations from the US within the next few decades. I'm pretty much a broken record on this point, but if you live in the US the most likely impact on your life is going to be economic and it's going to be slow and you're never going to get to point to specific events and say "yes, climate change is to blame." Part of what makes climate change so challenging to explain is that you can only say that a particular event was made more likely by changes in the climate, not that climate change was a direct cause. I desperately want to believe you because this thread has sapped my will to live. I'm almost sad I ever decided to open this thread when I heard about Trump's new climate administrator. But you're right that we shouldn't stop fighting. Try to use less power, save more money, and somehow hope for a magic bullet. But at the same time we should inform people even though they might not want to listen, I guess. It's very depressing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:20 |
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:Here's some good news, yellowyams. Canada is mostly empty right now. Permafrost being the main reason people don't live much further north than the US-CA border. I was born, raised and live in Canada. I, and other members of my faimly, have spent a lot more time in some of these sparsely populated areas than a lot of Canadians, let alone a lot of Americans. I have some bad news for you, duder, a lot of that land is a combination of rocky hills and (currently frozen) endless bogs and most of the land that's currently frozen year round is actually more useful frozen than it will be when it has thawed. Don't let the countless thousand trees fool you, the boreal forest canopy hides a landscape that, well, isn't really good for anything unless you want to mine nickel. Canada isn't Plan B for North America when global warming really picks up the pace. I wish it were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:34
|
|
