• MrFagtron9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Spoiler alert: The civilization disrupting aspects of climate change are still decades out and the rich countries will probably be fine.

    They’ll be fine because they can afford the infrastructure projects and increased costs of energy and food.

    Now Africa, South America, the poorer Asian countries, tiny Pacific Island nations… Oh boy. I would not want to be a citizen there in 20 or 30 years.

    Eventually sea level rise will become a really big fucking problem, like for every single coastal city in the world, even the rich ones. Luckily none of us will be around to see that unless some sort of miraculous life extension technology becomes available.

    On the one hand I don’t like mentioning this because it gives the right wing ammunition to ignore climate change. But on the other hand some people have such existential dread about it that it’s damaging their mental health, they are really overestimating how damaging it will be in their lifetime in their rich country they live in.

    • Knusper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, I feel like this year in particular illustrates quite well that there are already very real impacts of climate change in rich countries, with Canada, Greece, Hawaii etc. burning. Which makes it worth to delay climate change as much as possible, even if we can’t or don’t want to stop it at livable levels.

      • MrFagtron9000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t have this both ways.

        When a magat in the Senate brings in a snowball and says that global warming isn’t happening because it’s snowing…

        “That’s weather not climate!”

        When there’s a wildfire somewhere…

        “That’s global warming!”

        We can definitively say that this year is the hottest year on record, but we can’t attribute individual forest fires or tornadoes or hurricanes to climate change.

        • Knusper@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The others already pointed out that there’s a global, rising trend of climate disasters. I would like to qualify:

          • This year did exceed everyone’s expectations. It’s the first year of El Niño after years of increasing temperatures, so while it didn’t come as a complete surprise, it could still be an anomaly.

          • If you ask climate scientists, they’ll tell you lots of climate change effects that could contribute to these wildfires, but yeah, ultimately, they’ll say they won’t know for sure until they’ve seen the following years.

          However, these are raging wildfires all around the globe, in regions that don’t normally have them and that aren’t linked to each other. At some point, it stops being “a wildfire somewhere” and starts to become a statistic.

          Surface-level ocean temperatures are significantly higher this year, globally, than in previous years. We can’t explain such a global increase without climate change. And obviously, warm water evaporates differently, leading to unusual weather patterns, leading to droughts, which increases the likelihood of wildfires.

          So, yeah, while the snowball is simply irrelevant to the topic, the wildfire statistic correlates with all our other statistics. You’d have to ignore a ton of evidence to not attribute the wildfires to climate change until proven differently.

      • Dorgel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Problem is also that there have always been catastrophes… Earthquakes, wildfires, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.

        Maybe in the past they should have also been attributed to climate change, but I don’t think the average human being can draw the distinction yet