this is usually an interesting discussion to have, and there are a lot of interesting questions to ask in this field–so let’s ask and talk about a few. feel free to answer as many as you want, or ask your own of people in the comments. here are two groups of three that i think are good to start:

  • Do you suffer from anxiety about climate change and its effects?
  • Have you ever made significant individual lifestyle choices because of climate change?
  • Have you ever thought of leaving where you live because of potential future climactic effects? Have you actually moved already because of them?
  • Do you think the world can limit global warming to 1.5C or 2C? Where do you think we’ll “level off” in terms of warming–especially if you don’t think we’ll meet either of those goals?
  • What do you think of proposed technologies like carbon capture? Do you think they’re useful, or a technocratic waste of time? Can they be viably used at large scale on any reasonable timeframe?
  • Do you support something like climate reparations either now or in the future? Do you think such a thing is even viable?
  •  Daedalus   ( @Daedalus@beehaw.org ) English
    2•1 year ago
    1. Not really ‘anxiety’ yet, more of ‘concern’ and ‘interest’. There may be anxiety later if we turn into tornado country.
    2. Yes. I don’t have and will never have a car, I don’t replace appliances until they are destroyed/unrepairable, I avoid stuff that looks nice if I can’t justify it.
    3. No. But I live in one of the more ‘resilient’ areas. May change in future.
    4. We’re still increasing the rate we’re adding CO2 (though this will change soon), so no, we’ll not limit it below 2C. There is no political will for a drastic WW2-style effort to go carbon-zero in a short time (even if it’s technically achievable). Temperatures will keep rising until CO2 levels actually start decreasing, and there may be more positive feedback effects (methane, water) that will make them rise beyond that point. I don’t think we’ll level off below 4C. If positive feedbacks kick in, the limit is unpredictable, may even be 8C. We will be able to reverse either of those (unless we go full Venus), but at an extreme human cost in the latter case.
    5. Absolutely useful, as a part of the solution. People often say we shouldn’t do this, we should do that, (solar, nuclear, reforestation, carbon capture, less cows, geoengineering etc.) - you can’t have everyone do one thing and you shouldn’t have all your eggs in one basket - we need to do everything at once (well, I don’t think geoengineering is a good idea anytime soon). Of course CCS should not be used as an excuse to emit carbon elsewhere (see also: biomass, biofuels). If we get hit by positive feedback effects, we will need to be drastically carbon negative - and for that, CCS (or geoengineering) is needed (reforestation only works until you, uh, reforest everything).
    6. Yes, but not as described on said post - we need support for worst-hit countries, and refugees from those countries (this may include moving entire populations in case of small island nations). I don’t support giving money to large semi-fascist regimes like China (and increasingly India) unless it involves directly supporting ways to replace their carbon-based economies. It will not happen and we will pay for the consequences. I.e. I don’t support ‘climate justice’ here, I support ‘stopping climate change’.