Slashdot Mirror
8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey (trust.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Thomas Reuters Foundation: Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe, a survey on global threats found Wednesday. The survey of more than 8,000 people in eight countries -- the United States, China, India, Britain, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Germany -- found that 84 percent of people now consider climate change a "global catastrophic risk." That puts worry about climate change only slightly behind fears about large-scale environmental damage and the threat of politically motivated violence escalating into war, according to the Global Challenges Foundation, which commissioned the Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report. The survey, released in advance of this week's G7 summit of advanced economies in Italy, also found that 85 percent of people think the United Nations needs reforms to be better equipped to address global threats. About 70 percent of those surveyed said they think it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions -- specifically designed to deal with a wide range of global risks. Nearly 60 percent said they would be prepared to have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen.
I'm sure some will just claim you're just an anti-goverment nut, but taking a broad view, given we're talking an issue that affects the species, humans have through history gone from small tribes to large empires to nation states, and now we're tipping towards global organisation.
However, there's something very interesting in this sequence, and that's that the shift from empire to nation state was a reduction in authoritarianism, and a move towards more individuality.
Now, individuality is often criticised as the root cause of all the greed which drives overconsumption, which lead many to say we need a sort of Chinese communist regime where a central authority sets consumption limits, but there's an issue around, WHY did we historically move from empire to nation states?
And a simple answer ot that is the empires are unsustainable in the sense that they eventually become too big to govern. Authoritarianism collapses when there's too many people and the system is too complex to manage, whatever someone's best intentions may be.
So here's a thought: the globalised stage will be MORE individual, just that, the individual will be MORE intelligent, and as we continue to develop, the intelligence, knowledge, and compassion of each individual will increase. Just as most ordinary people now realise that racism is bad, and work to eradicate racism from their own minds, so too, gradually, we become more intelligent global citizens.
And the bad news is, there is no shortcut to that. If the world is really about to end in 20 years, well sorry, too late, people can only develop their individual compassion and intelligence at a normal pace, and if that's too late then that's too late. The alternative, as you say, is some sort of global authoritarian genocide, caused either deliberately or inadvertently.
We need to pursue the most effective technology solutions whilst human psychology catches up to a globalised world. That probably means lots of nuclear, whatever best form of tech that may take.
Ya kanny change the laws of physics and ya kanny change the human psychology any faster than it can grow naturally.
So learn to love your fellow dumb human and build lots of nuclear.
It really doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people see climate change as a real threat. As long as the top 1% keep earning billions of dollars off the status quo, and understand they will be protected from the effects, nothing is going to change.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Right, this survey found that 8 out of 10 people will lie to a surveyor. Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to. It's the same thing with every problem caused by a group. Everyone complains about traffic while moving further away from their workplace and not wanting to ride the bus or carpool.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Sorry, but when was Greenland green?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you "ready to make changes to your standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe"? OK, here we go.
We believe that the most likely reason for what seems an unnatural climate change is the huge amount of CO2 emissions provoked by humankind ('s industrialisation) during over the last 200 years. As far as you are willing to do all what is in your hand to minimise the impact of this likely-to-be-so-dangerous output of our modern society, I understand that you are ready to stop using:
- Any machine requiring combustion to run. Examples: all your vehicles (electrical or similar ones can run without generating CO2, although they have certainly generated some at different points like when being built, transported, repaired, etc.; they also generate CO2 indirectly via power plants as explained below), including the ones you use sporadically and/or transport gods which you use in any way (planes or ships) and even the ones used for your amusement (motor sports).
- All the industrial processes requiring some combustion and outputting goods/services which you consume at any point (directly, a big proportion of the current power plants; indirectly, all the remaining ones by relying on combustion-based processes at any point to complement their usual activity or as part of required manufacturing, transportation, etc. processes; note that the aforementioned electric vehicles are also generating CO2 indirectly via the way in which the electricity they need is generated). Forget about your clothes, your supermarkets, your computers, etc.
- Any scientific, research facility or study involving the consumption of relevant amounts of energy. You have to get rid of all the universities, research centres, big research facilities, etc.
-etc.
Let's assume that you do all this, that you also convince the whole humankind to join you and that we can reach a stage where the worldwide CO2 generation gets down to about the natural levels (= plants + animals + us generating just a bit more). In that case and by assuming that our theories are right (the climate variation isn't provoked by natural causes) how are you planning to remove all the additional CO2 generated so far? Perhaps this is already enough to provoke an inevitable catastrophe within the next years, who knows for sure?
I am a firm believer in each-single-bit-counts kind of approaches and also think that environment-concerned ideas are rarely a bad thing. A completely different story is building up a world of lies and misinformation where you can save the world just by buying a brand new car! Step by step, always in the right direction, but never falling for magical, crazily stupid or manipulating nonsense. Out of all the problems of our planet, CO2 generation is one of the less important ones simply because we cannot perform relevant changes on this front (or perhaps we could but don't really want). Sadly, most of CO2-concerned policies are promoted by commercial, egoist, short-sighted interests whose main goals are helping themselves rather than the planet.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Whether or not you believe humans are responsible for climate change, the evidence is clear that climate change is occurring. A great many of the follow on consequences of climate change are highly predictable and many of them are bad. As such, logically it is almost irrelevant whether or not humans are the driver of the change even though the evidence seems bullet proof that we are responsible. Either way it clear that it is happening and it is equally clear is something we need to plan for and quite likely attempt to mitigate. You don't have to believe humans are responsible for it to be logical for us to take substantial action on the problem. It's really no different in principle than a volcano erupting - we still have to take action to address the consequences.
Of course the sticky bit of the problem is that dealing with the issue requires human action which will come at a cost. The only (sort of) sane reason to not act to deal with climate change is because someone has economic self interest interest in ignoring the problem. It's understandable if not justifiable. There are of course a few illogical reasons why people oppose taking action the most notable of which seems to be tribalism. Thing is that whether people believe in it or not they will end up dealing with the problem sooner or later. The cost of dealing with it sooner is lower but human nature being what it is it's not clear if that will happen before there are some severe consequences.
The percentage of believers doesn't prove facts. It proves belief.
Missing the point. The point is that when enough people get behind an idea it becomes possible to take meaningful action. This is a political survey regarding the effectiveness of scientific communication. The science is what it is and this survey does not deal with the science. The debate is largely a political and economic one and this seemingly is ammunition in that debate.
And while the medieval warm period was, in fact, a thing (with parts, notably the coastal regions, of Greenland being rather greener than today)- it was so incredibly localized that it did not affect global average temperatures at all.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
In general the less educated Conservatives tend to believe that the whole Climate Change things is a conspiracy against economic development by the "business hating Liberals," while the more educated ones tend to discount certain aspects of the body of research, such as how much influence human activity has on Climate change or the severity of the effects of Climate change will have on the World, especially the United States. With the research getting stronger and stronger with each new study it will get harder and harder for them to keep up the facade that the research is just not convincing
I’ll believe global warming is a crisis, when the people who scream it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves.
Except that you recommended nuclear, which is one of the most expensive forms of energy we have. The new plant at Hinkley Point C is the most expensive object on earth and is guaranteed way, way above the odds for every watt-hour of energy it produces for its entire lifetime.
They had to promise all that because no-one would build it. In the end, the French are building it with Chinese money. In the UK.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You have been modded "Funny" but I think there is some insightfulness there:
"Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe,"
Oh really?
Last things first - there's that huge qualification that they would do it "if it would prevent future climate catastrophe". Most of us don't believe we have much if any impact at all. If I do have an impact, it's terribly insignificant.
And we'd make changes to our standard of living? Wait a minute there - are you talking about any major changes?
Because I can only do so much. I already do try to make as little impact on the environment as I can. If someone wants to suggest an easy way for me to do better I'm all for it, but I'm not going to inconvenience myself too much. It's too warm in here right now. I could open a window, but I'm gonna turn on the AC instead! Seriously.
But I recycle every soda can that I buy! Well, that's good but I can only recycle as much as I already am.
So I do think it's at least sort of fake. Most of us aren't going to do any more than we're already doing. I do care about the environment, but to be honest I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living. I like my car and my AC and I'm not going to stop buying things because they come with too much plastic packaging. (Would I really refuse to buy a product just because its packaging wasn't eco-friendly?)
Quite frankly, the only things I can think of to do that would be more eco-friendly are too much trouble for me to bother with or would have very little impact if any.
So while it's probably true that nearly 9 in 10 people say they would change their standard of living to save the planet I think it's "fake" to think that nearly 9 in 10 people would actually bother to make any significant changes to their standard of living.
What would I give up? Nothing.
I think it's more likely that nearly 9 in 10 people are either dishonest or aren't seriously considering a lower standard of living.
--
Or to put it in simpler terms....if you told someone they could save the planet if they just recycled their empty soda cans they'd probably do it, but if you told them they'd have to stop drinking soda they would laugh at you - not that recycling aluminum cans is going to save the planet but I do it anyway.
It would probably be better for the planet and definitely better for my health if I didn't drink soda in the first place, but screw that!
Survey questions are misleading.
Thinking global warming will not pose a serious threat in their lifetime. is different from being a climate denier.
Science is solid on that Global warming is real and man made and that it proposes a risk. However the science is less solid on the scope and rate. Also depending on the age of person asked a Lifetime would be a decade - 4 generations.
The pooling will need to combine many questions asked differently to really get a good view of the persons viewpoint.
So most people have a hard time separating climate from weather. So a 4 degree change in their weather doesn't seem like big deal. When winter is -6c vs -10c no big deal it is still cold. when the summer gets 34c vs 30c it is still very hot.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The main reason nuclear has been so costly isn't because the technology itself isn't feasible.
The extremely high costs have historically had a lot to do with politics, fear of nuclear energy, and contractors taking advantage of the fact that it's "scary stuff".
Almost every time a new plant is schedule to be constructed, it turns into a big battle with groups fighting against it and requires expensive site surveys, safety studies and more. (Well, perhaps not in Communist countries where the people don't really get any say-so anyway -- but safety seems to take a back seat to just getting something up and running anyway, in those situations - a la Chernobyl.)
Here in the U.S. - there has often been a lot of poor long-term projecting of energy needs, also contributing to high cost of nuclear plants. For example, the power plant not far from where I used to live in St. Louis, MO, Callaway County Nuclear plant, had a whole lot of issues in the past including no need to operate it at above 50% or so of its generation capacity because power demands just didn't grow as quickly as they anticipated when it was constructed. (I also recall some issues where construction materials for the cooling pipes didn't wind up meeting the promised standards, leading to an inability to run the plant at full power until that was redone.) It received the top safety rating for risk of damage due to an earthquake though, and is apparently running quite profitably today. That didn't stop a lawsuit in 2014 though, trying to prevent it from getting its operating license renewed, over new rules allowing above-ground storage of spent fuel after years of failed efforts to build a permanent national storage site in Nevada.
The people who keep arguing we should use other "renewables" refuse to recognize the fact that wind and solar power aren't "always on" power sources. You generate nothing after dark with solar, and the wind doesn't blow constantly at a good rate of speed. The work-around for that always revolves around ideas of implementing large storage batteries, which greatly increases the cost of those projects and reduces reliability. (Batteries are based on chemical reactions and they wear out. Refurbishing them amounts to gutting them out and rebuilding their insides, making that process almost equivalent to just manufacturing new batteries.)
...Algore, Leo, Obama, and all the other celebrity AGW champions jetting around the world Signalling their Virtue are ready to curtail their lifestyles.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I would avoid jumping onto the conclusions that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals.
That's because you fear reality's well-known liberal bias. Don't be scared, it's just a fact.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wrong. Fossil records do not have the resolution for which to compare rate of change. 100 year rate changes are smoothed by the resolution, so there is no way of telling if the current rate of 0.85c over 150 years is unique, however it most likely is not at all.