Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government Science

8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey (trust.org) 384

Posted by BeauHD from the family-feud dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey More

8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey

Comments Filter:

  • But President Trump goes (Score:4, Funny)

    by RotateLeftByte ( 797477 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @05:01AM (#54482815)

    Fake News. La-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you.

    • Re:But President Trump goes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by taiwanjohn ( 103839 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:01AM (#54483165)

      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, [gallup.com] 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 [pewinternet.org] 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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Dorianny ( 1847922 )
        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 ha

        • Let me help (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:46AM (#54483409)

          Most political AGW "fixes" involve taxing CO2, not methane. Methane produced mostly by farmers, who lobby heavily, and are in Iowa the first presidential caucus. If you are interested in winning elections and don't care about solving AGW you need to not admit methane is a bigger problem, which is what liberals do.
          Taxing CO2 is taxing the middle class, which to liberals is perfectly acceptable. As the DNC has shown, screw the middle class and lose the "blue wall". Instead of admitting they hate the working class they come up with "Its the Russians" when they lose.

          Now that the reason they tax the wrong things is covered, lets see what happens with that tax money... It goes to Solyndra, which ended up producing nothing of value and was split up and sold off in pieces. However they did donate heavily to Obama's election. Along with Fisker Auto (not even an American company, but owned by Al Gore), and A123 again who heavily donated to the DNC and was sold off to China.

          So looking at how the DNC deals with AGW, they tax people who they think aren't likely to hurt them in elections, and give that tax money to people who help them get elected and don't seem to care if it helps with AGW at all.

          Put me down as the guy who looked at the solutions put into place to solve AGW and noticed it doesn't actually help but is a money scheme for the DNC instead.

          • Re:Let me help (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mellon ( 7048 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:18AM (#54483595) Homepage

            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.

            • James Burke (creator of the "The Day The Universe Changed") covered a lot of the issues with methane back in a 1990 TV program called "After the Warming:"

              http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11... [nytimes.com]

              which the farming and petroleum industry worked vigorously to discredit because both create or leak large amounts of methane into the environment as side-effects/externalities/pollution of their profit making businesses.

              Looking up info on that program now provides more links to FUD spun by industry groups than accurate inf

        • Re:But President Trump goes (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:02AM (#54483885)

          I would avoid jumping onto the conclusions that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals. The larger correlation is that liberals will live more in Urban Areas, while Conservatives live in Rural areas. In these different areas, their world view is different. In Urban areas, a strong government is an overall positive, as there are services that need to be provided, and with a lot of people working closely together, a strong rule of law and regulations is needed for that area to function. In rural areas they are more left to fend for themselves, there tax money is going to places where they will see no benefit, and there is a culture if you have a problem you need to solve it yourself. So such regulations proposed by the government seem like an overall negative.
          Now both areas have highly educated people, and less educated who will vote for whatever party. In urban areas the Poor are often under educated and vote liberal because government is trying to prevent them from dying, as the city environment can prevent them from living off the land and being able to fend for themselves. In rural areas, the poor who have resources to fend for themselves, doesn't need rules and regulations trying to stop them from doing what they need to do to live.
          Conservatives seem to rule corporate higher management, and even modern farmers you need to be just as technical savvy as a Silicon Valley tech worker. These people have those degrees, but because they are working commercial they tend not to flaunt them as much. While in urban areas, there are more colleges and universities, and government agencies, where people will need the education status to help push their agendas.
          Now in terms of Science. Liberal groups have seemed to reject science that says "This product is safe" (GMO, Vaccines...) because they expect government to make sure what we do is safe. While Conservative groups reject science that says "This product is dangerous" (Global Warming, Fracking...) because they are afraid that government will take away necessary tools for them.

          • There are numbers on this subject. [insidehighered.com] We really don't need to guess or say "Well it goes both ways cause I know some people on both sides" or "we don't really know do we?" Because we do: conservatives tend to have less education while liberals tend to have more. Not an absolute, sure, but there's clear bias.

            The urban government useful vs rural government bad thing is one factor probably, but there's definitely an element of tribalism going on in the GOP today that causes some uneducated rural whites to vot

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
            As someone who lives in rural America, most people here don't realize how much Federal aid comes our way. They just assume that because our taxes are lower than urban areas, it means our costs are lower and that we more wisely use the tax revenue. In fact, we probably (making an assumption without citation) receive more federal money per capita than urban areas. More roads, more utilities, more police, more fire are needed to provide the same service in my town of 25k that is spread out over approximatel

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Republicans have an ideological opposition to taxation and government regulation, and tend to think of everything in those terms, so naturally when the solution might cost them money or impose some restriction on them they assume it's just a conspiracy.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 )

        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 peop

    • Re:But President Trump goes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by No Longer an AC ( 4611353 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:04AM (#54483515) Journal

      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!

      • I think there's another interpretation of these facts which you have neglected to consider. Many people might make substantial changes to their lifestyle if they believed that it would do any good. But do you know what happens when individuals make changes to lifestyle? Fuck-all. The majority of people can't or won't make substantial changes, so those people's efforts is just pissing in the wind.

        The majority of environmental damage benefits not the poor, but the ultra-wealthy. Most of those people don't giv

  • Regulatory capture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Esteanil ( 710082 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @05:04AM (#54482821) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re:Regulatory capture (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bongo ( 13261 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @05:40AM (#54482903)

      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.

      • Re:Regulatory capture (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @06:32AM (#54483059) Homepage Journal

        A much simpler and quicker fix is to just shift the subsidies to cleaner energy. Energy is expensive really, it only looks cheap to the end user because much of the cost is either hidden in tax funded subsidy or externalized to someone else.

        In the end, people will usually vote with their wallets. Then they bitch and moan that their wallets are being targeted, because it's the only way to save the fucking planet.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Dins ( 2538550 )

          Exactly this.

          My position on climate change has always been why does it matter whether climate change is happening and whether it's man-made or not? This planet is the only one we have and polluting it isn't going to get us anywhere. That, and we need to get off fossil fuels as they are a limited resource. So subsidize the shit out of existing green energy tech and triple the R&D money going to new energy tech. Do that enough and the problem will fix itself.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            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.

            • re: nuclear and cost (Score:5, Insightful)

              by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:06AM (#54483905) Journal

              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.)

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                In the UK the cost has little to do with protesters or politics. In fact the UK government has been extremely generous to nuclear operators - it build all the original plants, then gave them to commercial operators basically for free, with a guarantee that it would pick up most of the cost of decommissioning, plus the usual subsidies like free insurance.

                The problem are all to do with the technology itself. For example, the long term profitability of new nuclear is in doubt as renewable energy is replacing i

        • A much simpler and quicker fix is to just shift the subsidies to cleaner energy.

          That would be nice, but at this point it's not necessary. Renewables are already undercutting the cost of fossil energy in most areas, even without subsidies (and even though most fossil fuels are heavily subsidized). And all indications are that renewables will only continue to get cheaper while fossil fuels will only continue to get more expensive. If we're not already past the tipping point, we will be soon.

          Another tipping point in the near future is energy storage. Tesla claims [electrek.co] to have already broken th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sky Cry ( 872584 )

          Government has no business telling anyone how to produce energy. Therefore there shouldn't be any subsidies for any specific type of clean energy production.

          However, government has every business telling everyone to not pollute the environment. So instead of subsidies there should be extra heavy taxes on anything that pollutes the environment - proportional to the pollution.

          • You're absolutely right, of course. The best way to manage this problem is to internalize the externalities; make energy producers pay the full cost of their operations. This would mean either a heavy carbon tax or -- even better -- strict regulation on carbon emissions that require fossil fuel burners to capture and sequester all of their emissions. Burning dirty coal for power is just fine if you don't put anything into the atmosphere.

            In practice, subsidizing clean energy is more politically feasible, t

        • Energy is expensive really, it only looks cheap to the end user because much of the cost is either hidden in tax funded subsidy or externalized to someone else

          You need to be careful with this kind of talk.

          It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the rich/corporations pay a lot of taxes that keep the costs of living down for the regular people, and that directly contradicts the consensus that the rich/corporations are nothing but leeches on society.

  • Something's fishy in Denmark. (Score:4, Informative)

    by darthsilun ( 3993753 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @05:10AM (#54482831)

    54 out of 100 Senators and 234 out of 435 Representatives, and Twitler don't.

    The numbers don't line up.

    • You mean that the United States isn't a perfect representation of what the rest of the world wants? I'm shocked! Newsflash: Outside the US (and to some extent Australia), issues of global warming aren't nearly as politicized or controversial as they are in the US. Heck, previous studies have shown that even in the US the majority of Americans think that global warming is a serious problem http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/ [pewinternet.org]. The fact that many Senator

      • Y The fact that many Senators and Congresspeople don't is to a large extent a reflection of how two aspects of our government system (the ability to gerrymander congressional districts, and the fact that senators are elected by state and many low population states lean right) distort what our elected government ends up looking like compared to what it would on a strict population basis.

        You forgot to add that the politicians are paid for their belief by the people that they actually work for.

        As the Exxon papers prove, the industry works hard in a "tobacco lawyer" style to sow uncertainty, and pays politicians handsomely to do as the industry wishes.

        All while they know, but they simply don't care.

      • The fact that many Senators and Congresspeople don't is to a large extent a reflection of how two aspects of our government system (the ability to gerrymander congressional districts, and the fact that senators are elected by state and many low population states lean right) distort what our elected government ends up looking like compared to what it would on a strict population basis.

        I think that you are wrong about the cause of US politicians not accepting climate change predictions. I propose the real rea

  • Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday May 25, 2017 @05:49AM (#54482915)

    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.

    • Re:Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tbannist ( 230135 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:56AM (#54483853)

      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.

      You know, that only works as long as that 1% can convince enough of the 99% that it's not really a problem. And really, I don't think the top 1% are actually aligned on doing nothing. Of course, they're divided over the whether to take action, often based on whether or not they are invested in the industries that will be hurt by taking action.

      One of the problems of some of this anti-climate change lobbying that people like Rupert Murdoch (owner of coal mines) have engaged in, is that they've spawned groups they can't really control. Trump is the end result of trying to stir up opposition to reasonable policies. If you can't trust the government, can't trust science and can't trust the media, who are people supposed to trust? They set the stage for the rise of Trump and we can only hope that they live to reap the bitter fruits of their labours.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • no way!! (Score:4)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @06:44AM (#54483097)

    >"it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions[...]have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen."

    THAT would be the worst mistake ever, especially for the USA. We have already seen many of the things "the world" would want to do and much of it runs contrary to the Constitution.

  • Action needed regardless of cause (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @06:48AM (#54483113)

    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.

  • Tragedy of the Commons (Score:3)

    by hipp5 ( 1635263 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:00AM (#54483163)

    Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe

    Well of course they would. Faced with a clear path to avert catastrophe, people will take it. If you tell people "do this thing, or your life will be ruined", they'll probably do that thing. The problem is that the path to averting climate catastrophe is too abstract from peoples' daily lives. Right now it's more like "do this thing, and depending on whether or not other people do similar things, your life might not be ruined."

    Avoiding catastrophic climate change will take a huge collective action. But since each of our individual actions have a small effect on their own, it's hard for our brains to balance the pain/cost of those actions with a benefit. Few people are willing to lower their standard of living without a clear link between their particular sacrifice and avoiding catastrophe.

    I'm not sure I'm providing any insight into how to solve this problem, but rather that it's not too surprising to see the results as worded.

    • Or for a simpler explanation people are being forced everywhere into believing that we are already in a climate catastrophe, or past the point of no return if you believe the scientists.
      That nearly 9 in 10 would make future changes means they don't believe that there is a current problem. Or in other words as long as you talk the talk on climate change that is all that matters.
  • as less interesting than Trump news.

  • Elites should put up or shut up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @07:31AM (#54483305)
    We really should ban air conditioning in the District of Columbia [usatoday.com] and tax the blue zones [usatoday.com], just to be on the safe side.

    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.

  • From MIT's Technology Review:

    https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]

    So why aren't we talking about spending a few hundred million into engineering R&D to come up with this potentially real and very inexpensive kind of a solution as quickly as possible? Why are we instead talking about huge bureaucracies and trillions of dollars in carbon taxes for forever? That's because we're allowing politicians etal come up with the solution, instead of engineers and scientists.

  • I'll believe they are serious when... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:21AM (#54483621)

    They demand the end of commercial air travel. After all, it's not necessary to humanity, (we lived without it until less than a hundred years ago), and it puts out a lot of CO2, and it's not possible to electrify in the foreseeable future.

    Until then, it's "make someone else change or pay so that I can keep my perks."

  • OK 8 In 10 People ....yes but what do the cats think?

  • So, what you are saying is: Nearly 9 in 10 people are complete liars.

  • First, I really don't know what to think about climate change vs. solar influence vs. normal centuries long ebbs and flows of our 4 billion year old planet. However, my gut tell me this. If you say it long enough and beat the drum loud enough, then whatever your message it must true, right?

  • Stupid (Score:2)

    by dcw3 ( 649211 )

    If you're naïve enough to believe that the world is ready for a global organization that can enforce it's wishes on sovereign nations, maybe you should consider some of the idiocy that's come from the UN previously.

    https://www.unwatch.org/from-t... [unwatch.org]
    https://www.globalpolicy.org/c... [globalpolicy.org]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Not a "risk" anymore (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @10:37AM (#54484659)

    A risk is something that has an element of potentiality. In the case of climate change, the catastrophe is already assured. The only question is whether it will be severe, very severe or "collapse of civilization"-level. Calling a "risk" is, once again, making it sound a lot more harmless than it is.

  • Too late (Score:3)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @11:07AM (#54484905) Homepage Journal

    We had a chance to make a real difference with climate change some 20 to 30 years ago. We chose to argue about it instead of developing the science and executing a plan. No use arguing about it anymore, climate deniers can say whatever they want and I simply don't care. They'll eat their words within their own lifetime, which will be at least something they can eat during the cycles of famine.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can be replaced by this computer.

Close