How do you think global warming will play out?

[Egbert]

Nobody knows for sure whether the planet will overheat and kill us all or maybe we will reverse it and all live happily ever after.

I figure it is a bit of a stab in the dark trying to guess how warming will play out.

I figure at some stage our civilisation will completely collapse if we can not end the global warming. It may start with mass famine from harves failures thus triggering disorder on an unprecedented scale. When that collapse comes virtually all of our pollution will cease. That may be enough to stop the warming and perhaps enable millions of people to survive and perhaps rise again to have another crack at overheating the globe.

Your thoughts gentlemen?

[Thoth]

Global warming will get bad but will be reversed by the effects of Nuclear Winter.

And the cockroaches will inherit the Earth.

[BeBMan]

Climate change is as much of a hoax as covid and can easily be dealt with if we build a wall that will be paid for by the Mexican Antifa donating a sum of 750 bucks, provided it is delivered by a contagious person without mask and gloves to the White House.

In other news it is safe to say that a horde of zombies is basically forming a flesh mob.

[Kidlicious]

Nobody knows for sure whether the planet will overheat and kill us all or maybe we will reverse it and all live happily ever after.

I figure it is a bit of a stab in the dark trying to guess how warming will play out.

We know that it's neither one of those things, unless the globe stops warming. If it keeps warming like it is then the world economy will grow a little slower. That's it, nothing for Hollywood movies or to poop in the streets for.

Population decrease will be a much bigger problem.

[Berzerker]

Nobody knows for sure whether the planet will overheat and kill us all or maybe we will reverse it and all live happily ever after.

I figure it is a bit of a stab in the dark trying to guess how warming will play out.

I figure at some stage our civilisation will completely collapse if we can not end the global warming. It may start with mass famine from harves failures thus triggering disorder on an unprecedented scale. When that collapse comes virtually all of our pollution will cease. That may be enough to stop the warming and perhaps enable millions of people to survive and perhaps rise again to have another crack at overheating the globe.

Your thoughts gentlemen?

There is a theory the black death killed off enough people beginning around 1347 AD to reduce slash and burn agriculture as forests reclaimed the land. This drained the atmosphere of CO2 causing the start of the little ice age (1350-1850+). A similar but less severe cold snap followed the Justinian plague around 550 AD. Sunspot activity declined too and volcanism increased during this period furthering the cooling.

The only fear I have is rising sea levels, much of Florida was under water during a warmer period 130-115kya. The one plus - aside from warmer weather - is most of the land is in the northern hemisphere and much of that is too cold for crops. Another downside of warming is methane leaking out from permafrost escalating the warming. But if you look at temperature graphs for the last 30 million years (or more), we were much warmer but starting around 2.5 mya we entered an ice age.

Another theory says nearby supernova flooded our system with cosmic rays enhancing cloud formation thereby cooling off the world. Frankly the world is better off warmer with less fresh water locked up in ice sheets. We need that H2O circulating, more rain means more water replenishing water tables.

[Aeson]

1999 appears to have been the tipping point where we changed from global greening to global browning. Basically CO2 fertilization effect + planting initiatives < deforestation + vapor pressure deficit. Without a coordinated worldwide effort to completely change 5 billion hectares of agriculture to nature mimicking mostly plant based regenerative tree and perennial systems, and rewilding of most of it, it's all downhill from here for the next few thousand years until nature reaches a new equilibrium.

All species have their own tolerances, a vanishingly few are well understood. Already many species have gone extinct and in some cases entire ecosystems are collapsing. Human civilization's tolerances are not well understood, having only been tested in the relatively stable holocene. It's a global game of Russian Roulette.

Looks like we are on course for the 6th mass extinction to carry on unabated as sociopaths in the public and private sectors compete on who can extract the most wealth from our global life support system.

Tech solutions (direct carbon capture, aerosol injection, reflective glass on the ice caps/in space/floating in ocean, ocean fertilization, etc) will bring great profits to billionaires as the masses suffer extreme weather events, crop failures, resource wars, novel diseases and tropical disease expansion, and xenophobic political extremism fueled by mass refugee crises (Syria x 100). The tech solutions (except perhaps fusion if we get there) will all prove to have unintended side effects worse than the disease, or at best enable increased looting of the environment for a short time.

Ultimately loss of Arctic sea ice, collapse of corals, Amazon and Congo rainforests ceasing to be rainforests, and aquifer depletion will do in any chance to support billions of humans. It will still be far easier to support life here than on Mars. Once depopulation happens nature will slowly heal over millennia. Perhaps ready to be exploited again by the progeny of the survivors someday.

[Kidlicious]

No Green New Deal?

[giblets]

Europe, North America and Australia will go nuts and elect far-right governments that promise to keep the waves of refugees out.

[Aeson]

No Green New Deal?

Bernie's GND might have made a difference. Still not enough for even the US though, and not global.

At best Biden will bring a gutted corporate version that heavily focuses on socialism for tech and industry. He's already flipped in support of fracking.

It will be like getting Obamacare instead of universal healthcare.

[Kidlicious]

Bernie's GND might have made a difference. Still not enough for even the US though, and not global.

At best Biden will bring a gutted corporate version that heavily focuses on socialism for tech and industry. He's already flipped in support of fracking.

It will be like getting Obamacare instead of universal healthcare.

It's interesting to me how the Democrats want to finance the recession from the pandemic and have a big lockdown. It's not centrally coordinated, but the plan seems to be lock everything down, putting a lot of people out of work, and throw all kinds of money all over the place. I don't know how that works because people can't spend money on things if no one is working. But the economy isn't doing as bad as I thought it would be. Do you think they can implement the Green New Deal and keep everyone happy with fiscal spending, or will people want their jobs back?

[Aeson]

First of all, Trump allowed the lockdowns by declaring a national emergency and opting for a state by state piecemeal response rather than putting together a coordinated national response.

A sane policy would have been a 14 day quarantine for all people coming into the US starting in Feb if not earlier, with contact tracing, and then limited lockdowns where necessary, masks and social distancing with business as usual otherwise. New Zealand and Vietnam did this to very good effect. Still would have hurt economically, but nowhere near as bad as what we got. With how treatments have improved such a policy would have likely saved 150k or more American lives. (And potentially up to 400k by the time this is all said and done.)

Ds are at fault for mismanagement in several states and cities. Rs in some. Many Rs and some Ds are at fault for misleading the public on the danger and safety precautions. Trump is at fault for all of it, and on top of that entirely to blame for the complete lack of control at the border. (Ironically where his own platform and base would have found a purpose.)



Second MMT is something both parties have fully embraced so long as it benefits them and their donors. Both oppose the idea for helping the commoners.

Need a war in Iraq? Libya? Syria? Magically $trillions are available.

Need to buy back votes after your trade war ruins industries? Anything you need...

Need a tax break for the rich? Easy enough to drop revenue and print (or... sell treasuries the Fed will QE back, open the discount window, drop rates to nothing, etc) the difference.

How about a stimulus to give you time to bail out of the stock market before the crash? $trillions appear.

But spending money to save and improve lives (universal healthcare) or try to save us from ecological disaster ... we can't afford that!

[ricketyclik]

Printing money and splashing it about is not MMT. Related, I'll grant you.

[Aeson]

Bernie's GND came with a jobs guarantee. There are a vast number of jobs that can be created in addressing climate change. Full employment is easy if the gov wants to do it. (Corporate interests won't want to allow it as it gives labor more negotiating power.)

I think it would be better to have a homestead guarantee funded with an environmental fee/dividend and profit sharing to pay back the cost over time. It should be more palatable to the right and could replace most forms of welfare (including less obvious welfare like farm subsidies). It also would address labor concerns, giving all workers in all industries negotiating strength.

By homestead guarantee I mean citizen would be entitled to enough land (either public or privately purchased) to have a self sufficient regenerative homestead, materials and education would be provided to set things up in an ecologically sound way. Funded by a tax on environmental damage (drilling, mining, paving, emitting C or pollutants, land use change away from natural, etc) allocated by improvement and maintenance of the health of the homesteads property. With profit sharing on excess produce. Coops with infrastructure and machinery for processing, shipping, marketing output.

Make agreements with other countries for land for those willing to relocate. Tropical degraded land is where the most environmental gains can be made, and where land can be most productive and profitable. Also where investment of conjured money will most benefit the general welfare of humanity.

[Kidlicious]

Every left-wing extremist government guarantees employment. That just means the government will spend a lot of money creating jobs. It never seems to be good for most people, although it keeps people happy enough not to overthrow the government usually.

They will force people off of their property at gun point and move people around. People aren't going to be happy about that. They will make some people happy giving them land but many people are going to get really pissed off.

[Kidlicious]

First of all, Trump allowed the lockdowns by declaring a national emergency and opting for a state by state piecemeal response rather than putting together a coordinated national response.

A sane policy would have been a 14 day quarantine for all people coming into the US starting in Feb if not earlier, with contact tracing, and then limited lockdowns where necessary, masks and social distancing with business as usual otherwise. New Zealand and Vietnam did this to very good effect. Still would have hurt economically, but nowhere near as bad as what we got. With how treatments have improved such a policy would have likely saved 150k or more American lives. (And potentially up to 400k by the time this is all said and done.)

Ds are at fault for mismanagement in several states and cities. Rs in some. Many Rs and some Ds are at fault for misleading the public on the danger and safety precautions. Trump is at fault for all of it, and on top of that entirely to blame for the complete lack of control at the border. (Ironically where his own platform and base would have found a purpose.)



Second MMT is something both parties have fully embraced so long as it benefits them and their donors. Both oppose the idea for helping the commoners.

Need a war in Iraq? Libya? Syria? Magically $trillions are available.

Need to buy back votes after your trade war ruins industries? Anything you need...

Need a tax break for the rich? Easy enough to drop revenue and print (or... sell treasuries the Fed will QE back, open the discount window, drop rates to nothing, etc) the difference.

How about a stimulus to give you time to bail out of the stock market before the crash? $trillions appear.

But spending money to save and improve lives (universal healthcare) or try to save us from ecological disaster ... we can't afford that!

The reason for a state by state plan is to force local areas to lockdown unnecessarily. That way places like weren't forced to lockdown. Each state was able to adopt its own lockdown strategy according to its needs. It seems to be a bad option for blue states though since Democrats like to keep their boot down on people's necks for as long as possible.

But the Green New Deal will put many people out of work for sure. If you don't know that you are delusional. So I was asking you if you think just giving people money is going to work and keep people happy.

[Aeson]

The reason for a state by state plan is to force local areas to lockdown unnecessarily. That way places like weren't forced to lockdown. Each state was able to adopt its own lockdown strategy according to its needs. It seems to be a bad option for blue states though since Democrats like to keep their boot down on people's necks for as long as possible.

But the Green New Deal will put many people out of work for sure. If you don't know that you are delusional. So I was asking you if you think just giving people money is going to work and keep people happy.

State by State hodgepodge is absurd given that border control and interstate commerce is Federal. It needs to be coordinated at the Federal level to be effective.