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.
While I fully agree with climate change being a catastrophic risk, a global organization with enforcement power will immidiately become the most valuable target for lobbying in the world.
I believe we'd see such an organization effectively ruled by the very interests it's set to regulate within a few years at most.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
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.
Trump, plus a good percentage of the US population, which means the ratios must be much higher in the other countries surveyed in order to average out to 80% overall. According to Gallup, just 42% of Americans "Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime." Obviously that's not exactly the same thing as "catastrophic risk" with no time constraint, but it's frankly lower than I expected.
Pew has a more lengthy survey which does a detailed breakdown of views by political affiliation. Here's one aspect I found intriguing:
One thing that doesn’t strongly influence opinion on climate issues, perhaps surprisingly, is one’s level of general scientific literacy. According to the survey, the effects of having higher, medium or lower scores on a nine-item index of science knowledge tend to be modest and are only sometimes related to people’s views about climate change and climate scientists, especially in comparison with party, ideology and concern about the issue. But, the role of science knowledge in people’s beliefs about climate matters is varied and where a relationship occurs, it is complex. To the extent that science knowledge influences people’s judgments related to climate change and trust in climate scientists, it does so among Democrats, but not Republicans. For example, Democrats with high science knowledge are especially likely to believe the Earth is warming due to human activity, to see scientists as having a firm understanding of climate change, and to trust climate scientists’ information about the causes of climate change. But Republicans with higher science knowledge are no more or less likely to hold these beliefs. Thus, people’s political orientations also tend to influence how knowledge about science affects their judgments and beliefs about climate matters and their trust in climate scientists.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Methane is a hugely valuable resource. What blows my mind is how many people are leaving that money on the table. Methane from farms is zero-impact, because it comes through a renewal cycle, not from fossil fuels. If you put all your manure in methane digesters, you can generate a fuck-ton of power from it, and as a bonus, what comes out of the digester is a lot less nasty to dispose of.
Methane - 8% of greenhouse emissions, x86 times the impact of CO2 (Yes, that makes is a significantly bigger problem than CO2).
Methane induced warming is measured by "CO2 equivalence", so the number you are quoting is already multiplied by the potency.
There is 200 times more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere.
Methane has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere, so it is not as much of a long term problem. Methane is 86 times as potent, but has a potency factor of 34 over a century.
Last year, the world emitted 36B tons of CO2, and about 0.25B tons of CH4, equivalent to about 8B tons of CO2 in 100-year warming potential. So methane is a serious problem, but far less than CO2.
Methane emissions are declining in most 1st world nations, mostly because of better wellhead equipment, but also because of declining beef consumption.
Methane emissions are rising in less developed countries, mostly because of rising meat consumption. Taxes on beef may be able shift consumption to chicken or pork, but are unlikely to be politically feasible on a wide scale.
Methane emissions by country.
CO2 emissions by country.
Disclaimer: I don't eat meat, so don't blame me.