Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Has Made the Weather Better For Most In US -- For Now (latimes.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article on LA Times: Since Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970s, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S.. But it won't always be that way, according to a new study. Research shows Americans typically -- and perhaps unsurprisingly -- like warmer winters and dislike hot, humid summers. And they reveal their weather preferences by moving to areas with conditions they like best. A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago. "Virtually all Americans are now experiencing the much milder winters that they typically prefer, and these mild winters have not been offset by markedly more uncomfortable summers or other negative changes," writes Patrick Egan, a political scientist at New York University, and Megan Mullin, professor of environmental politics at Duke University. However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, 88% of the current population will live in areas where the weather is less pleasant than it was before. The paper does not predict how changing weather patterns will influence migration patterns over the coming century.
Well it has been recognized for a while. That Global Climate change will have areas which benefit from it and those that will not.
For the most part, and why it is hard to call people to action, is that we as humans are rather adaptable to climates, so while our long term environmental food cycles and water cycles are affecting a lot of life in the world. We as humans are not so affected. Attempts in the past to try to exaggerate the effects on humans (Images of NYC flooded so you can only see the top of the statue of liberty) May mobilize some, but it also turns a lot of people away, as these potent images, which turn out to be false, discredits the more realistic problem.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well it would be simpler if the Americans forced themselves by electing a government that will do it
You're talking about a country that has laws that allow this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
Under Idaho's 1972 "Child Protective Act," parents are immune from prosecution for any charges - including involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide - if they depend exclusively on faith healing.
Good luck with that...
the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much
Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.
If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?
There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years. But I'd be happy to be surprised.
Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make. Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.