To tackle climate change, Italy provided what is considered by some a superbonus to homeowners to make specific renovations. That’s right, Italy reimbursed home owners 110% to upgrade their homes in a way that helps the environment. That prompted some to ask: ‘Why so generous?’. One reason? It resulted in a “surge of green home renovations” which is great for Italians and great for the climate.
Look, people know that something has to be done about climate change. People are also motivated mainly by their own self interests. Take advantage of that by offering generous benefits for people to change. We need to use every tool at our disposal, from alternate energy to alternative uses of energy, and more. Now is not the time to quibble about the price: that time is past. Now is the time to hurry things up. Throwing money at a problem can often do that. Italy showed it.
The world is full of extreme events that can wipe us out. Case in point, this: When the Mediterranean Sea Dried Up. If you are not familiar with the story….
About 5.9 million years ago, due to a combination of tectonic movements and changes in climate, the Mediterranean Sea mostly dried up for over 600,000 years. The Messinian salinity crisis may have raised global sea levels by as much as 33 feet and decreased the salinity of the world’s oceans, raising the freezing point. And then, much more suddenly, it was refilled in less than two years in the Zanclean Flood.
The Zanclean Flood, like the Chicxulub meteor that killed off the dinosaurs, are two reminders that the planet we live on can be subjected to extreme events that can kill off many of us without really harming the planet itself. have no doubt that this is going to be true of global warming as well. Perhaps even a nuclear war. We can be removed and the planet will continue to operate without us.
The world is more hostile to us than we let in. We are only making it worse with dangers such as nuclear weaponry and climate change. We need to be striving to increase our chances of survival, not decrease them. There are enough forces in the universe that can destroy us.
(Image By Paubahi – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20096173)
Forget what Steven Mnuchin said about Greta Thunberg needing to study economics before offering climate change proposals. That was an asinine thing for him to say.. But read that article in the Washington Post for the ideas. They spoke to an economist about climate change and how economics comes in and it’s worthwhile for that.
People might argue that we need to do something about climate change, but we can’t afford it. If you want to argue back, the article can help.
Lloyd Alter makes the case here: Boosting Buffalo as a climate change haven | TreeHugger
I have to admit that Buffalo is primed for people who will try to escape both the effects of climate change and do so in a way that doesn’t cost them a fortune. Buffalo will offer all of that. But so do other Rust Belt cities. It will be interesting to see which if any of them truly do see a resurgence as climatic problems plague other cities. I’m hopeful for Buffalo that it is one of them.
Yes, nuking a hurricane is a bad idea. (duh.) There are better ideas,
but as Vox explains, even those are prone to problems. For example…
In one of the most infamous attempts to slay a hurricane, Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir led a US military experiment in 1947 to seed Hurricane King with ice in hopes of sapping its vigor. The storm at the time was sliding away from the United States and losing strength.
In an excerpt in the Atlantic from his book Caesar’s Last Breath, author Sam Kean explained Langmuir’s idea: Growing ice in the eye of the hurricane would make the eye grow wider and collapse the storm. But Hurricane King didn’t respond as expected. “To everyone’s horror, it then pivoted — taking an impossible 135-degree turn — and began racing into Savannah, Georgia, causing $3 million in damage ($32 million today) and killing one person,” Kean writes.
So yeah, it’s no small thing to stop hurricanes. But given that climate change may make things worse, it could be worth it.
Eating meat is a significant contributor to global warming. I knew this, but the chart above and the article below really drove this home. As the Soviet Union was collapsing, people in that region started eating less meat. The result was a drop in carbon emissions. Now imagine if that was replicated worldwide for many years.
There’s actions we can take to attack global warming. Eating less or no meat is one of them. For more on this, see: Soviet Union’s collapse led to massive drop in carbon emissions
I think this will become true, and not just in India: Are parts of India becoming too hot for humans? – CNN.
Already we have parts of the world barely inhabitable due to extreme weather. Think of Antartica on one hand, and the Sahara desert on the other. Soon places in India will join them. Other parts will become inhabitable for different reasons: extreme weather and flooding.
If you want to understand the challenge of dealing with climate change, then read this: Climate change and the 75% problem | Bill Gates.
There are things you can do in your own day to day to reduce your contribution to climate change. But in the bigger picture, much larger changes have to happen. And soon. You can contribute there too, by supporting politicians and companies and other organizations that are working to make big positive changes.
You can’t do it alone, but every thing you do move us in the right direction. We are cutting out coal. We are getting energy efficient. We are eating more of the right things. Many many things are being done that help, and much more can be done to improve things. Keep up the good work, and work hard to avoid complacency and despair.
I see that leftists are calling for radical measures to fight climate change. I have a few issues with this:
- You have to be careful for what you wish for. When they talk about radical measures, they are likely thinking that the line of what is radical is where they get to draw it. I don’t think this is true. To me, radical is things like geoengineering. Or nuclear proliferation. Leftists should not assume they get to draw the line as to what radical is. And leftists should not be surprised if they don’t like what they ask for.
- Some of this seems to be a way to score points against centrists and rightists. It may be true that centrists and rightists have bad solutions. They are not bad solutions because they are associated with anyone of a certain political stripe. They are bad because they may not be enough.
Everyone involved with dealing with climate change should
- work very hard to promote new and better ideas and solutions for climate change
- be as persuasive as possible, especially for those more moderate than themselves
- be very humble when it comes to thinking you know what is right
Obviously this is not the easy a thing to solve by any stretch, and the tradeoffs are significant. Worse still, the solutions involve humans and all their flaws as well as science and technology still in development.
I personally believe it is too late already and that:
- there is going to be global devastation with many coastal cities being destroyed over the next 20 years, despite any advances in policies or technology.
- there is going to be such severe weather in the next two decades that global warming and climate change will be the main political topic affecting everything, and there will be a surge in advances in response to this.
- there will be feedback in terms of population decreases, new technologies, new policies, and planetary unknowns. This feedback will result in climate change stabilizing.
- there will be positive gains to be had from global warming and climate change but that they will not be known for sometime.
Thanks for reading this. Feel free to disagree. Just not on twitter, or I will block you.