Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
24.7k

U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100. Economic modelling suggests this is the reality facing us if we continue emitting greenhouse gases and allowing temperatures to rise unabated.

2.5k comments
83% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
level 1

Call me old-fashioned but I care more about my kids/grandchildren dying horrifically than the financial costs.

level 2
1.8k points · 1 month ago

A lot of people still only think of the world in terms of financial costs. I remember when LEDs were coming out. The main concern? Cost. If you listen to a lot of climate change deniers the root of their denial is they believe it's all a lefty/soros plan to separate them from their hard earned greenbacks. Then it morphed into "it's cyclical", but it all comes from the same concern: they don't want the economic hit of reducing dependency on dirty energy.

I've explained to many deniers a very simple way of thinking about the whole thing: worse case scenarios if either side is wrong. If climate scientists are wrong, and nothing bad is happening, but we do everything we should do to mitigate climate change, literally the worst things to happen are that our entire world is more efficient, cleaner, and with much of the technology, designed to last longer and/or be recycled. Like there are really no downsides.

However, flip it and the climate deniers are wrong, worst case scenario: human suffering, economic catastrophic, and ultimately extinction.

Yet even that bare bones in your face look at it isn't enough to sway people who only see that the money.

level 3
1.0k points · 1 month ago

But what if they're wrong and we end up creating a better world for no reason?

level 4
492 points · 1 month ago

Don't worry, we'll tax the poor over it.

level 5

You've got my vote

1 more reply

87 more replies

level 4

Obviously we would tear down all the wind farms and burn them for energy.

2 more replies

level 4
41 points · 1 month ago

We're being tricked into building a better future for everyone's children! Dang it!

level 4

taps temple "Lefties can't comprehend this"

/s

level 4

More like, what if we are wrong and the current companies controlling everything lose power to new companies.

level 5

Oh no, that's so sad. Alexa play Despacito 2.

level 6

Now Playing: Despacito 2

Despacito 2 Counter: 569

| I'm a Bot | Blacklist | Programmer |

level 7
6 points · 1 month ago

Reddit is ridiculous.

That's probably why I'm here.

1 more reply

level 4

You’re thinking too far in the future, Zell. We at the company need to concentrate on our bottom line. Our next quarter. Thinking years, hell, generations in advance won’t make us the profits we sorely need. It’s a tulumutous market, Zell, and we can’t predict the future. So rather than fix the problem, we’ll suck the problem off until it dries up, then move on to the next profit generator and wash our hands of the whole thing. It’s just business.

(I believe the only way you will get the ones that mainly ruin the environment to clean up is if you make it unprofitable to do so, which would require a multilayered development of new technologies and strategies to make their market redundant (but trump said wind farms generate wind and hurt birds...), lobbying against them (hah nope, they’re better at that game than anyone on the greener side of things), boycotts on the corporate level (this basically never happens), and probably a few assassinations before they pass on their teachings to the next crop of multimillionaires (which is an extreme and abhorrently murderous option that brings us back into unethical ecoterrorism stuff).)

17 more replies

level 3
Competition is a force for evil56 points · 1 month ago

Yeah, the concept of "compensation" is also brought up. As in, the drunk driver mowed down their kid, so now they get "compensation" to the tune of X hundred thousand. As if that somehow helped.

Or "carbon credits", as if if you pay enough, it's fine to pollute away. You paid your credits!

level 4

The idea being that the extra money will give incentive for newer and cleaner technology to be implemented. Since the clean air act was passed, all kinds of new tech exists to make stacks remove co2 and soot for instance, but they arent installed bc there are no incentives to do so. It costs money to upgrade your factory and why spend it if its not cost effective? The carbon tax makes it so that it is. Eventually...

1 more reply

level 4

if you pay enough, your highly-polluting company would stop turning a profit. Meanwhile, company B is paying for very few carbon credits, greening their infrastructure, and is looking at a future monopoly on a formerly dirty business.

If high-carbon emitting industries are not changed by carbon taxes/credits, it just means the carbon price was likely set too low.

I agree with your sentiment though, often companies pay for something to wash away their sins. That said, carbon credits/taxes are the best solution to climate change.

level 5

wouldn't reducing carbon emissions be the best solution?

level 6

Yes but the government doesn’t own the companies, they can’t just make them go green. If they just set a goal and close companies that don’t meet it they will just move manufacturing to somewhere without the laws and sell the product here. The world still gets all that pollution. If you colloquial them into slowly becoming green while staying within your boundaries you can still regulate them and they get better over time. You want to push but not too hard.

level 7

Yes but the government doesn’t own the companies, they can’t just make them go green

There are these things called laws and regulations.

level 8
10 points · 1 month ago

Keyword "laws and regulations" not "bans" A lot of nations are becoming a capitalist society so it's impossible to ban any carbon emitting company.

level 9

You can tax imports from countries that don't follow cap and trade.

level 10

Not without violating a WTO or free-trade-agreement.

2 more replies

1 more reply

2 more replies

1 more reply

10 more replies

level 4
23 points · 1 month ago

Carbon tax/credits are about applying the moral/ecological costs to a company's bottom line. Sure rich companies will pay and change nothing, but at least there would be SOME incentive for them to behave responsibly. It's obvious their morals are extremely lacking, so it's better than nothing.

Like earlier commentor said: most people only think in $$, so these ideas do just that: put it in cash before it's cash that HAS to be spent in order to stay alive.

Though the flip side of that coin is, all some people think about is cash, so there is no way an arbitrary fee will be put in place, even if it's better than nothing.

level 5

"Rich companies will pay and change nothing."

That's not how companies work. They will make whatever decision is best for their bottom line - regardless of whether they are "rich" or not.

level 6

They will make whatever decision is best for their bottom line

Which means they will pass along the added costs to the customer.

level 7

Perhaps they will, but that is not the same thing as not changing what they are doing.

If their costs are going up either way but they can either pay 1X to fix the pollution problem or 3X in taxes/fines for not fixing it they will fix it.

level 8

Perhaps they will, but that is not the same thing as not changing what they are doing.

... passing along the cost to the consumer is not the desired change and it's effectively a regressive tax since it will affect low-income families the most. They are the ones that will be forced to change behavior. So noble.

5 more replies

1 more reply

8 more replies

2 more replies

3 more replies

level 3

All I ever wanted since about 1980 was a French-style atomic program. We'd be so very far ahead of the curve but for the anti-nuclear zealots.

level 4

I once looked up the reasons for several nuclear plants closing or not opening. A few were due to protests, and several closed amid protests. But the real cause in almost every case was cost. Nuclear is clean, but in the US we're short sighted so clean != money. Would you open a nuclear plant if you couldn't turn a profit?

On the other hand, maybe if there wasn't public resistance we could have used taxes or tax breaks to encourage nuclear power. That's a whole other debate though.

level 5
5 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

For the U.S., that simply wasn't true.

When we were building nuclear plants we operated on a regulated monopoly model. The states OK'd the nuclear plants and guaranteed a return on investment via the rates the states OK'd to go along with them.

Many, if not most, states have since separated regulated electric distribution (that comes with an implicit guarantee of profit as long as you're not total morons) and unregulated generation which has to bid for the rights to supply the regulated electric grid.

Nuclear fell out of fashion for political reasons (Three Mile Island) and cost over-runs (due to more stringent engineering, regulations, and oversight after TMI; overly optimistic projections to begin with; etc.). Once you lost the co-operation of politicians, might as well build the lower up front cost coal plants.

No need for tax subsidies what so ever in the regulated model -- the subsidies were built into the rates consumers paid by law.

1 more reply

level 4
21 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Nuclear Hot Take: US demand for fissile material did more harm to the nuclear power industry than anything Greenpeace ever managed.

Look up Operation Plumbob and consider that you could see some of these explosions from as far west as the California coastline.

Imagine the psychological impact of seeing a nuclear plume from your front door and consider what that did for support of the energy program. Consider, also, that the fissile-producing reactors were necessarily dirtier than fissile-free counterparts. So every new plant was seen as a footfall closer to nuclear apocalypse on multiple levels.

It's no coincidence that the hotbeds of anti-nuclear zealotry were in states like New Mexico, Colorado, California, and Nevada. These were the states that got to see the impact of nuclear testing up close and personal.

2 more replies

level 4

They’ve had to shut down reactors because cooling water is too warm. And there’s the 10,000 year pollution.

level 5
24 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

FYI, they only had to shut them down because the water was too hot going OUT of the reactor.
And environmental regulations, to protect wildlife. forbid it because heating the water up too much can cause algae blooms that choke out aquatic life.

There was zero risk of harm to the reactor and it could have kept operating no problems.

The only reason that problem exists is it had never been hot enough for long enough for it to matter.
And the fix is really simple, you build a couple of concrete cooling pools before dumping the water back in the waterways.

Oh and before anyone asks (there is always one) the water is not radioactive, you could drink it and be perfectly safe (from radiation at least, it may not have been clean water going in).

level 5
71 points · 1 month ago

10,000 year contained pollution though. I’m fine with choosing 1 square mile area that’ll be uninhabitable permanently vs. burning more coal and fucking up the entire atmosphere, or destroying massive swaths of ecosystems with dams.

level 6

We mostly already have it. It's called Yuca Mountain and it's in the Nevada desert. I believe they stopped or slowed the program after fears of water contamination.

17 more replies

level 5

Man, who cares about radioactive waste if it's stored properly. People don't seem to realize this but the earth is constantly leaking radon gas into the basements of hombres and it's the second biggest cause of lung cancer. That shit should be a much bigger concern than radioactive waste stored 15 km below ground in a bunker.

Edit: homes not hombres, but I'll leave it because that's the weirdest autocorrect my phone has ever done.

level 6
25 points · 1 month ago

Loved that. Thought it was purposeful. lol

level 6

Radon gas seeping into basements?

Like everywhere? Or is it concentrated in certain areas?

2nd biggest cause of lung cancer? I have never even heard of this.

Does it come up from the ground too? Or just into structures belowgrade? Caves?

So many questions....

level 7

Yeah I kinda thought the cancer statement was redditor BS. I looked it up, and turns out it wasn't BS: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/radon/radon-fact-sheet

3 more replies

level 7

It's pretty much everywhere, though some places have higher concentrations than others. It's caused by the decay of natural radioactive materials in the ground. Tends to pool in basements because there's no draft. Modern homes with basements usually have a blower installed to keep it from building up.

I just point it out because people like to freak out about the nuclear Boogeyman while ignoring the fact that naturally occurring radiation is more likely to harm them.

10 more replies

2 more replies

level 6

If nuclear waste was consistently stored 15km below ground that might be different. Humans do things for asinine and short-sighted reasons, however, so the reality is that it’s being stored in places like San Onofre right on the coast of southern California... doesn’t take a genius to see what a terrible idea that is in the event of earthquake and tsunami.

level 7

San Onofre was decommissioned five years ago and afaik it's not a storage area, it's just a plant.

level 8
11 points · 1 month ago

I believe all nuclear "waste" in the U.S. is stored on the site of the plant or former plant since there is no official repository to transfer it to.

Even the small "Yankee" reactors built in four New England states in the 1960s and decommissioned by the mid-2000s have to continue storing their spent fuel on each four sites instead of being allowed to consolidate to a single site -- so we have four decommissioned sites, each maintaining their own security, etc. Because you know we can't just cut through political, bureaucratic, NIMBY, and environmental bullshit to consolidate to a single site and reduce the risk of failure -- and I have no confidence Yucca Mountain will become operational, so in 40 years in New England we'll be up to seven separate sites we're paying to maintain security at, and seven sites that may fail security, that need to be audited, that need to go through five different state regulatory agencies to act as a backstop to Federal responsibilities, etc.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-songs-wastetransfer-20180205-story.html

"Waste" in quotes because I doubt in the 1950s anyone anticipated not recycling it (including into atomic bombs).

3 more replies

level 8
12 points · 1 month ago

I live not too far from Hanford WA, the most contaminated nuclear site in the US. (I think they still hold that title). I have met people with the "Hanford Necklace" aka thyroidectomy scar.

I agree with you that things need not be this way, but people's apprehension is well earned.

Better and safer technology exists, but it costs money. It may pay for itself in the long run, but I understand why people don't want to help fund a multibillion dollar plant when Hanford is still only 50 miles away.

2 more replies

2 more replies

level 5

This is exactly why I have a hard time accepting the *political* solutions to the *actual* climate problem. We are -- apparently -- in an existential crisis as a species, but if you suggest a solution that *might* cause problems for 10,000 years, you are told it's too dangerous. Even though we are all about to die.

1 more reply

level 5
11 points · 1 month ago

To be fair, there are many, many other options than the huge half-life element based reactors. If we had put in a ton of research, perhaps deuterium and similar reactors would be large-scale economical by now.

That said, there are plenty of even cleaner energy options, but we all know how much investment they get, too.

1 more reply

level 5
13 points · 1 month ago

And there’s the 10,000 year pollution.

Bullshit. When something has a half-life in the hundreds or thousand years it means it is not dangerous.

4 more replies

3 more replies

6 more replies

level 3

I have this discussion frequently with a friend of mine and this statement:

literally the worst things to happen are that our entire world is more efficient, cleaner, and with much of the technology, designed to last longer and/or be recycled

Is exactly where it ends up every time. He's not a denier, he's just a hard skeptic because to him, the evidence isn't sufficient enough.

level 4

Since he's not a climate scientist, the evidence is meaningless to him. He just believes what YouTube videos tell him.

It takes a special kind of person to think they know better than 99% of scientists, all because "they did their own research" by watching online videos.

level 5

Since he's not a climate scientist, the evidence is meaningless to him. He just believes what YouTube videos tell him.

It takes a special kind of person to think they know better than 99% of scientists, all because "they did their own research" by watching online videos.

ah, a Redditor

1 more reply

level 5

THIS! My god, the breathtaking arrogance it takes to convince oneself that you know better than the world's population of climate scientists.

When your ignorance is so profound that you don't even know what you don't know...

level 5

He just believes what YouTube videos tell him.

This is a false assertion and seems intentionally argumentative. But for the sake of discussion, he doesn't watch YouTube to get his information, he can barely operate a tablet.

level 6

Does he got to the library? Does he read newspapers? Does he form his own opinion based on critical thinking? Because the argument "not enough compelling advice" is a fallacy. When will there be enough evidence for him? How much does he need? 'Compelling' is just another way of saying "I just don't like this reality you're painting."

31 more replies

5 more replies

29 more replies

15 more replies

level 3

with much of the technology, designed to last longer and/or be recycled. Like there are really no downsides.

Yea but I'm making gangbusters over here selling oil and I got like 30 years left in my biological tank so fuck that /s

level 3
3 points · 1 month ago

with much of the technology, designed to last longer and/or be recycled. Like there are really no downsides.

You realize that's one of their downsides. How are they going to make money if everything lasts longer?

1 more reply

level 3
4 points · 1 month ago

You’re leaving out the opportunity cost. The changes you’re talking about will be expensive, and that will be felt by the poorest who depend on those dirt cheap prices.

161 more replies

level 2

The problem is, the people who are doing this to the environment don't give a rat's ass about your kids and grandkids.

1 more reply

level 2

Only if the costs are thrown at the poorest and the richest benefit from it endlessly as if slavelords dominating plebs in ancient Rome.

level 2

Right, but what are my profits -this- quarter?

level 2
10 points · 1 month ago

Money is what it's all about my man... Millions of years of evolution have prepared us to run on cash once the planet dies

level 2
10 points · 1 month ago

Call me skeptic but I really doubt the costs for boiling the planet will be as low as 23 trillion.

level 2
5 points · 1 month ago

I'm fairly certain that part of the $23 Trillion are healthcare costs due to higher risks in heat-related deaths (not to mention famine, deaths caused from hurricanes and flooding, increases in mosquito-transmitted diseases, etc...)

So yes, you should care about this

3 more replies

level 2

You can easily avoid that by not bringing kids/grandkids into the world.

level 3

/r/antinatalism

Save the world. Adopt the little stinkers that are already alive and need a family instead of making more.

14 more replies

level 3
10 points · 1 month ago

I agree with your statement, however, I don't find it fair that we even have to make this choice.

We should be able to have a family if we so choose, but the state of the earth in 20 years is looking dim so we have no choice but to not procreate.

level 4
7 points · 1 month ago

And the only people who would do that are the people who care and understand the consequences of climate change. Those too stupid or greedy will continue to have 15.6 kids which would make it even harder to fight back.

6 more replies

12 more replies

level 2

Can't worry about your kids dying in an apocalyptic hellscape of a world if you don't bring kids into a world rapidly becoming an apocalyptic hellscape.

5 more replies

level 2

Yeah, but Republican's tend to only care about money. So putting things into monetary terms may get them to actually give some semblance of a shit.

level 3

Republicans don't give a shit about the potential costs incurred decades in the future well after they're dead, though.

8 more replies

4 more replies

level 2

Yes, but the companies causing this and the politicians they pay would gladly murder you and everyone you love for a nickel, so we’re more likely to get something done by focusing on the cost/benefit analysis.

157 more replies

level 1

Whats $23 trillion in 72 years when all the coal companies can have 12k now? They're all gonna be dead anyway by then, they don't give a shit about that

level 2
326 points · 1 month ago

What the studies really need to show is that there is $23+ Trillion to be made in mitigating climate change... otherwise the 23T in costs is regarded as an input to current profits of our corporate overlords...

level 3
130 points · 1 month ago

Unless its 23 trillion to be gained next quarter it won't matter much.

1 more reply

level 3

This is the right way to go about it. Actually, environmentalists should start businesses today that solve problems of climate change that might not be here yet, but will be here in the near future. Probably sounds easier than it actually is.

level 4

Where would the environmentalists get enough start-up capital for such an ambitious project? Especially if there will not be an immediate payoff. Not to mention, the payoff would be completely based on speculation. It's just not a viable business model.

1 more reply

level 4

Not sure where you're from, but I live in a capitalist democracy, people are very much free to both start that change, or invest in it.

1 more reply

9 more replies

level 2

Everyone will be dead if the temperature rises 4 degrees.

level 3

I think the uber-rich will be fine in their bubble.

level 4

I think the uber-rich will be fine in their bubble the moon/Mars.

level 5

Hot Earth is still a more hospitable environment than either of those two.

level 6

Possibly, but why be on earth with all those poors

level 7

Easy access to cheap labor? Get your jollies by flaunting your wealth or exercising your power over the poors?

1 more reply

1 more reply

6 more replies

2 more replies

level 3

No they wouldn't. Raising the temperature by 4 degrees will kill millions, if not billions, of people and cause tons of problems but most of the human race is going to live through it.

level 4

Unless us increasing the average temperature by 4 degrees causes a methane burp of ocean cathrates just like what happened 110 million years ago.

Frankly. We don't have a clue what is going to happen. There are so many factors and possibilities.

level 5

Not enough people are aware of the clathrate gun.

level 5

You mean 250 million years with the great dying? Clathrate gun is just a hypothesis (a good one I think but not proven still)

level 6

21 more replies

12 more replies

level 2
10 points · 1 month ago

$23 trillion will be paid by the taxpayer not the 1%.

7 more replies

95 more replies

level 1
Comment deleted1 month ago(23 children)
level 2
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 3
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 4
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 5

Sounds likes the great philosophy of trickle-down oxygenation installed by the glorious overlord reagan

2 more replies

2 more replies

level 2
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 3
Comment deleted1 month ago(0 children)
level 4

There's no chance a refining practice will be sustainable for current consumption - in all likelihood it will only exacerbate the problem. As for a genetic manipulative solution, I don't see that happening fast enough and it will be incredibly difficult to implement in a sustainable manner again.

It's just a fact that animal agriculture is the leading cause of environmental damage. I'm only isolating for cow shit here. Animal agriculture does much more damage than that. The only viable solutions that I see are reduction in consumption and lab based meat.

1 more reply

2 more replies

9 more replies

level 1

Just think of how much GDP would be lost if everyone was dead? It would plummet!

5 more replies

level 1
103 points · 1 month ago

Let's express it in money because that is going to change things! Seriously.. that number, 23 trillion dollars... does that mean anything to the average person? I understand what the number represents in mathematical terms but as soon as you put a currency symbol behind it, it just loses all meaning for me.

level 2

It means that we would lose about 1 year's worth of economic output. So it's actually a pretty good deal to go full steam ahead and live with the fallout.

11 more replies

level 2

23T over 70 years means nothing to anyone. It is a pointless projection that doesn’t even achieve its sensationalist goal.

11 more replies

level 1
203 points · 1 month ago

But did they do an impact of the poor world countries economic loss by not industrializing ? Got a feeling might be more than US $23T.

Ergo, that’s where the fight is taking place.

level 2
121 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

This, people don't understand that there are a things that make switching away from fossil fuels very difficult (upfront costs and indeterminacy), especially for poorer countries. Hence why global fossil fuel consumption is expected to increase in the next few decades.

level 3
79 points · 1 month ago

Ooooh I don't feel so good

level 4

Yeah lets just add this prediction to the pile of reasons we are doomed..

level 3

Anyone know what the small dip around 2008 is from?

level 4

I’m assuming it’s from the 2008 Great Recession

level 5

probably less shipping and driving

1 more reply

level 3

I find it fascinating. These discussions always turn into blaming the increase in CO2 production on greedy US coal producers, like Gary Kohn is laughing maniacally from his boardroom as he orders another 1,000 tons of coal loaded into a furnace. Fewer turn it to the real source of CO2 production increases, which is usually administrators and businessmen in places like Ethiopia and Guyana constructing what may be the first power stations in an entire region, adding thousands to utility purchasing rolls.

To the surprise of what should really be no one, the US is actually in the middle of the CO2/GDP spectrum, ranking only 57th out of 195 in ratio of CO2 production per unit GDP. Most likely as green energy becomes more profitable, we'll see increasing conversion to solar panel and wind farms as a source of energy. If we're very lucky, the reduction in operating costs and startup capital will occur so rapidly that China will focus on green energy expansion, and India will go straight to green energy instead of using coal (India's emissions trend is looking like China's did 15 years ago). That's actually a pretty likely scenario.

level 4

You find it fascinating that people blame companies that run active disinformation campaigns about science of climate change?

1 more reply

2 more replies

2 more replies

level 2

you don't need to go through the steam turbine coal fired industrial revolution to get to electric cars and solar panels. you can just start at electric cars and solar panels.

level 2

$23T is just a little bit over 1 year of GDP. In those terms, it's actually pretty reasonable to keep going full steam ahead and deal with the consequences than to cripple the economy to prevent it from happening. Also, technology that can reduce/eliminate the biggest effects is already being developed, some ready for commercial application in the next 5 years.

level 3
36 points · 1 month ago

That’s global the $23T. The US is mostly unaffected per the study.

level 4

So, the world loses 1/4 of one year of economic activity (actually less, given how large the global economy will be in 2100)? That's a pretty paltry figure which, if remotely accurate, is no argument at all for vast new renewable investment.

level 5
45 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

In the linked article, the authors claim that $23 trillion will be 7% of global GDP in 2100.

This implies an annual growth rate of 1.8% globally between now and 2100. If we instead assume growth of 1.9%, then $23T would be 6% of 2100 GDP. If we have global growth of 2.5%, then $23T would be 4% of global GDP.

The model is extremely sensitive to assumptions about global growth rates over 83 years. That's a reason to not put too much stock in their numbers. I would imagine of I gave the paper a closer reading I could find other assumptions that give dicey outputs.

Edit: in the article they mention $23T, but if you read the abstract of the underlying academic publication, the authors cite a number of $17.5T. Also, the numbers mentioned in the text of the linked article do not match the numbers in the chart. There is a lot of sketchy shit going on with this article.

2 more replies

1 more reply

level 3

We will go full steam ahead and then build something ridiculous to mitigate it.

A 1000km2 space mirror a few mm’s thick at Lagrangian Point L1 could reduce incoming solar radiation by several percent. It’s estimated to cost several trillion, but if we go balls to the wall between now and then, it’s not exactly that unrealistic to spend the money.

I honestly think by 2100 we will largely have complete control of the climate. With super computers able to control the size of the space mirror to perfectly counter 20th and 21st century emissions. We won’t be adding more carbon then so will then enact a controlled strip of the carbon currently in the atmosphere back to safe levels.

Or we’ll all die a fiery death. Who knows.

level 4

That's a crazy thing to rely on for sure, but confidence in human ingenuity when forced by circumstances keeps me a healthy distance from despondence. We've never changed until forced to, but when we do we're pretty good at it.

1 more reply

10 more replies

level 3

Like what? What machines? Give me hope

level 4

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611369/maybe-we-can-afford-to-suck-cosub2sub-out-of-the-sky-after-all/

That's a 4x increase in efficiency in just a couple years. Furthermore, solar and wind are now the second cheapest form of totally unsubsidized energy (after nuclear, which is carbon neutral btw) That's why most third world countries are going straight to renewables, which actually is a huge variation from what most climate models predict (that in the future non-industrialized countries will pollute like current industrialized ones)

1 more reply

3 more replies

level 1

Won't entirely new industries and revenue possibilities also be produced by this awfulness?

level 2

We won't be able to grow green crops anymore .. instead, let me present a new product: "Soylent Green". Organic and fresh!

2 more replies

12 more replies

level 1
116 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

As individuals, we can help if we :

⚬ Conserve our resources & cut down on waste.

⚬ Eat less meat.

⚬ Drive low emission/electric vehicles.

⚬ Walk, bike, e-scooter, & take public transit more often.

⚬ Make our households more energy efficient.

& most importantly,

⚬ Stop buying products made by companies that are killing our planet.

Edit : Based on some of the redditor comments, I've added :

⚬ Have fewer children

⚬ Lobby the government

level 2
[deleted]
73 points · 1 month ago

Lobby the government because voluntary, individual action is not enough.

level 3
9 points · 1 month ago

Voluntary individual action has resulted in the US cutting emissions by 2% while the EU has increased emissions by 1.8% last year

3 more replies

level 3

I think if more people pushed to get a career that is considered green there could also be a large push. There is certainly the market right now, people just need to figure out which ones are booming right now.

level 4
3 points · 1 month ago

What careers/jobs exist that aren't contributing to the collapse of the biosphere? Maybe I'm just super cynical but I can't figure out a way to make money that also makes the future better for the world. I try not to spend much money either for the same reason.

3 more replies

level 3
4 points · 1 month ago

Bullshit. That's an excuse to not make positive changes in your life.

Eating less or no meat is easy as hell.

3 more replies

level 2
24 points · 1 month ago

I do all that. It's pointless if all my relatives and neighbours don't.

level 3

Lead by example. Do the right thing.

2 more replies

level 3

It's not pointless. It's pointessimal. Just a minor minor point, not void.

level 4
11 points · 1 month ago

Not enough to change the end result.

level 5

Yet.

Cant have that state of mind fam!

level 5
9 points · 1 month ago

Early adopters shape industries. This will function the same way. No one will do this en masse if there isn't already small groups of people doing and making it a socially acceptable lifestyle. You making the change now is more important than thousands making the change later because you will be paving the road for them to walk down.

2 more replies

level 5

Get out and vote. Encourage others to vote and educate them on the candidates and what they are representing. Support your candidates by voting them in to power to enact change. It’s the only way we can create legislation to tax the living fuck out of these dirty energy companies. Virtually forcing them to make dramatic change instantly or go under. Hard times we live in.

level 3
12 points · 1 month ago

Yes, but you are doing your part & that's all that matters. All that you do, however small, over the days & years, can really add up. You can influence a positive change in the world in the long term & your actions may just be the tipping point towards change in somebody else's life as well.

level 3
10 points · 1 month ago

Bullshit excuse to do nothing.

1 more reply

level 3

That’s actually a logical fallacy. I just can’t remember the name of it right now

1 more reply

level 2
11 points · 1 month ago

IMO these are moot unless government puts disincentive in the form of taxation. If I learned anything in economics class, is that people on macro scale don't give a fuck unless it affects them in a very direct and predictable way

2 more replies

level 2
19 points · 1 month ago

Amen! Also, tot having children, or having one less child, has a bigger impact than all of these combined!

level 3

If everyone just killed their kids, the problem would be solved.

level 4

Abortion has been legal for a while now, get to it!

level 3
[deleted]
9 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

That's right, the way to fix this isn't by stopping the corporations dumping metric tons of shit on the ocean, the ones pumping the atmosphere daily with toxic gas, the way to fix the planet is by making sure that the ones who care about climate change do not have kids. Seriously, how are you all so easily brainwashed? How stupid can you be?

level 4
3 points · 1 month ago

Do you think these companies are pumping the atmosphere full of toxic gas for fun? No, they are doing it to produce things. More people = increase in demand for things. Fewer people = less production of things. Stop having kids and take have some personal responsibility

5 more replies

level 3
2 points · 1 month ago

while I do not disagree, we're already going to have an issue when the millennial generation retires because the workforce supporting it will be fractions of the number of millennials retiring.

Granted, with automation and a changing world, that might not be a problem at all in the first place. But with the size of the millennial generation and the already dwindling desire to have kids among that generation, we're going to see quite the population drop in the US and Europe. Probably not in India and China though.

4 more replies

level 2

You forget to mention the most important point! Vote left, cause this anti environment shit only happens with the right.

level 2

That last point is basically summed up as - "stop buying products"

20 more replies

level 1

I'm gonna be honest... this is a negligible cost, relative to the economic growth and development that the world will have with more exploitation of fossil fuels, especially the third world.

level 2

That was my first thought. Only $23T over the next 72 years? Shit, that is a steal. The CBO just said that Medicare for All would cost $32T over the next 10 years. That is $230T (10 times!) over the next 72 years. If anything, this makes climate change not seem too bad, from an economic point of view.

level 3

They are estimating that the world wide cost due to climate change will be 23 trillion PER YEAR.

1 more reply

level 3

So, the entire point of the article was about how climate change is bad for the future economy, and they just proved the opposite?

4 more replies

1 more reply

level 2

When you consider farmers in the developing world will be experiencing fatal weather conditions by the end of the century with current emissions the real cost is way higher.

4 more replies

level 2

The article itself is stating at 4 degrees Celsius increase (assuming we reach that temperature by 2100), the annual cost is $23 trillion per year.

That would mean losing about 7% of projected global economy in 2100 on an annual basis due to climate change costs, not including projected costs of increased natural disasters (which according to the article they're still working on those projections).

4 more replies

level 1

This article is very ambitious to expect human civilisation will still exist in 2100.

level 2

82 years? I hope so

11 more replies

level 1

That is a shockingly low estimate. Current yearly GDP for the world is 78 trillion. Compounding at 2% for the next 82 years, it will be much, much higher in 2100. If climate change will only cost 23 trillion even if we literally do nothing to stop it, that doesn't seem like such a big deal.

10 more replies

level 1

I'm more concerned with the risk of billions of people evacuating the equator when it starts reaching 60C during summers. It'll be chaos.

level 2

Exactly.

Climate displaced migrants are going to be a tremendous problem for the west and northern developed nations.

I don't think the west is going to just roll over and allow everyone in. We can't support them.

It's going to get very, very ugly in Europe.

2 more replies

level 1

Call me pessimistic, but I believe we won't change shit...

1 more reply

level 1
[deleted]
22 points · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

Good thing the US is leading the world in CO2 emission reduction.

Edit: spelling

26 more replies

level 1

If we're all dead, who cares?

The realities of global warming go far beyond green paper.

level 1

Are these the same economists that claim we were going to go into a worldwide economic depression if we elected trump or maybe the ones that predicted the same if we passed tax cuts?

level 2
10 points · 1 month ago

I'm skeptical of any economic model with a horizon longer than two years. No financial and economic model can even predict five years, let alone eighty years. I want to see some sensitivity tables to see how much their "prediction" changes with a half a percentage fluctuation.

level 3

This is a large issue with climate change in general. I'm a full believer that humans are the cause of the increase in climate but to say how damaging it would be in the long run is impossible to tell right now. We are in a technological exponential curve right now.

level 2

What makes you think that recession isnt comming?

5 more replies

level 2
Comment deleted1 month ago(3 children)
level 3

We can only hope.

2 more replies

30 more replies

level 1

My question:

How does Russia's economy fare with the four degree increase?

6 more replies

level 1

Lol $23 trillion in 72 years is like a drop in the bucket honestly.

Also.. rising four degrees by 2100? I thought we were more concerned with like 0.1, 0.2 increases. 4 seems globally catastrophic.

1 more reply

level 1
91 points · 1 month agoGilded1

I'm can't stand how ignorant the global warming fanatics are in these threads

  1. All of these predictions assume that absolutely no technological advancements are made between now and the end of the century. This is stupid because the rate at which we are better able to adapt to our environment or use other energy sources is constantly going up. You have absolutely no concept of what the world of energy will look like in 20 years, but rest assured it will be several orders of magnitude more advanced than the garbage we have today.

  2. Those of you that believe oil executives start their morning off by murdering a baby endangered animal and squashing attempts at green energy are fucking idiots. Seriously. The first company that makes sustainable energy actually competitive with fossil fuels will have their hands on the most profitable IP the world has ever seen. These people are throwing unfathomable amounts of money at trying to make green energy work, and when it does the market will switch.

  3. Your solutions are not real solutions. If you eliminate every single car from the United States, the rest of the world makes up for that loss of emissions in under a decade. Your unenforceable, feel-good international decrees and accords accomplish nothing. Slightly reducing your personal footprint changes nothing. Buying a Prius and acting like a pompous, smug piece of shit because "it's better than doing nothing" is actually doing nothing. The only thing that will have any tangible impact will be a complete shift of energy resources, which will occur naturally when the market delivers green energy that doesn't suck. Artificially hastening the demise of "super evil big oil companies" only causes people to lose jobs and pay more for electricity.

  4. All of the global warming models have been wrong. I'm not saying it isn't happening. I'm not saying we aren't contributing to it. I'm saying that this issue is vastly more complicated than we're able to understand. Irreparably destroying the world economy without understanding the actual underlying issues is a fucking horrible idea.

level 2

Lmao the contradiction when bashing the prius driver for investing in the expanding and adapting market and financially rewarding innovation

1 more reply

level 2
  • guilded by Exxon

level 2
15 points · 1 month ago

Several orders (10 E x) more of efficiency or cost reduuction for energy production are not going to happen in the next 20 years. You dont work in that area, do you?

level 2

Corporations are simultaneously completely profit driven and will do anything possible to make money yet completely unable to predict basic industry and market trends - reddit

level 3

By definition, they are. There is no such thing as a non profit business.

1 more reply

level 2

4 is wrong. Several have been right. Usually happens when you have a few million to begin with.

3 more replies

level 2
25 points · 1 month ago
  1. The models since 70s has accounted for tech advancements. If you want to criticize people in this thread go ahead. But you show zero knowledge of the science involved with making these calculations.

8 more replies

level 2
25 points · 1 month ago

All of the global warming models have been wrong.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

level 3
26 points · 1 month ago

The models have been very accurate. This guy is a partisan moron or a paid for dissenter.

level 4

Sincere question. Which one?

level 5

Pretty much all of them.

Usually that "the models are inaccurate!" claim stems from a lack of understanding of uncertainties. I.e. if something has predicted a warming of (pulling a number out of my ass) 1.2 °C ± 0.5°C and then the actual warming turns out to be 1.7 °C, a certain set of people will cry foul because "it wasn't 1.2 °C like they predicted"...

1 more reply

1 more reply

level 2

3. Stranded assets. If oil companies don't sell all their oil reserves (assets) now they will lose money once regulation or technology makes oil irrelevant and unprofitable, in other words, unusable. Those oil assets will be stranded, and the oil company will have lost all its money. So oil companies have every incentive to keep us dependent on fossil fuels until they've run out of oil assets and made as much money as possible with fossil fuels.

But you are correct, they know what's coming, and so while they are pushing fossil fuels on the one hand, behind the scenes they are investing heavily into renewable energy so they can be ahead of the curve once fossil fuels are no longer profitable. They ain't dumb.

level 2

Oh come on. How big technological advancement was there in energy sources since 2000? You may think 20 years is a long time but is it really? We are already long past the tiping point of global warming and now we can only try to limit the damage done to the enviroment (great article about it https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html). PS: What is your source on 4th point? Because thats just straight bullshit

level 3

In central US wind turbines are producing power at half the cost of natural gas, primarily due to better structural engineering. In 2000 the most efficient solar cell sat at 32% efficiency. Current models can reach as much as 46% efficiency. We've also seen a large drop in solar costs from an increase in PV cell production, meaning the severe cost of adoption will be less of a factor.

forbes.com/sites/morganstanley/2017/08/02/renewable-energy-hits-global-tipping-point/amp/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3APVeff%28rev180813%29a.jpg?wprov=sfla1

level 2

Neoliberal_apologist.jpg

level 2
  1. 2. 4. I don't think you understand how scientific models work, nor the science behind climate change, nor world economics... Nor they solutions proposed... Pfff like where to even begin.... Read an ipcc report?

2 more replies

89 more replies

level 1
Comment deleted1 month ago(15 children)

15 more replies

level 1

Republicans in 2100: how could the Democrats let this happen????

level 1

The ones paying the most won't be the ones who caused the problems.

level 1
6 points · 1 month ago

Um, humans won’t survive a 4 degree increase. Corpse don’t give a rats ass about your economic models.

And a note on climate change because it doesn’t get said enough: it’s the animal food industry that’s doing the most damage by far. We all have the power to impact change. We affect industry and thereby government decisions with our purchase power and spending habits. If you’re afraid of what’s happening to the planet - and you super fucking should be - then think about how you spend your money, by local food, support companies that give a fuck about the environment, buy less junk, think about vegetarian/ vegan food options when possible. Every dollar spent is a vote, if you give your money to companies and industries that are culprits in climate change, then all you are saying is you accept this. We have the money, we have the power.

level 1
5 points · 1 month ago

but the global economy doubles in size every 20 years, so in reality the global economy by 2100 will be in total roughly 1,245,888 billions or 1,245.8 trillion or $1.25 quadrillion. That 25 trillion wouldn't even be noticed

1 more reply

level 1

The easiest way to stop this is if we reduce meat and go more vegan. No one wants to talk about that though

level 1

US greenhouse emissions dropped last year compared to an increase in Europe.

level 2

US emissions have plummeted since 1985. It didn't actually go away though. Just shifted to China. Which had as compound effect of increased transoceanic shipping emissions which are huge.

So instead of making cleaner manufacturing in the US we basically moved it all to China and added and have a pollution vector a huge boost.

53 more replies

1,250 more replies

Community Details

13.3m

Subscribers

4.8k

Online

Welcome to r/Futurology, a subreddit devoted to the field of Future(s) Studies and speculation about the development of humanity, technology, and civilization.

Create Post
r/Futurology Rules
1.
Rule 1 - Respect
2.
Rule 2 - Future Focus
3.
Rule 3 - Images
4.
Rule 4 - Petitions, Polls, and Fundraising
5.
Rule 6 - Comment Quality
6.
Rule 9 - No Duplicates
7.
Rule 10 - In Depth
8.
Rule 11 - Title Quality
9.
Rule 12 - Original Sources
10.
Rule 13 - Content age
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.