I recently read a book where the author analyzed two dozen natural or man-made disasters, from global warming to a meteorite. He gave an aggregate rating to each disaster based on (1) its potential to wipe out humanity and (2) the chance of it happening.

I've listed the disasters I remember. I wonder if you can guess which disaster had the biggest aggregate rating. (Hint: it's not global warming.)

Pandemic
Rogue AI
Third World War
Overpopulation
Pollution
Water shortage
Global warming
Ice age
Meteor strike
Super volcano
Mega tsunami
Pole reversal
Black hole

@Ogion, hope? there is always hope, we've got some geo-engineering to do sure, and that's not something to take lightly (or unilaterally) but it does present an opportunity, a problem to solve...

Why would people still be trading in currency in a borderline post apocalyptic climate fucked world? People who can still grow food hydroponically would be the true rich ppl

It would go back to the old ways of trading a goat for a handjob. That kind of economy

Well, if it makes you all feel better, saying that we are killing the planet is a bit of a misnomer. We are just killing our ability (along with many other species) to survive on the planet - Earth will certainly endure after we all go extinct.

Why trade the goat for a hand job when you could just have sex with the goat?

If anything trade the goat for a sexier goat.

Well, if it makes you all feel better, there will be an "end of days" Steam sale probably.

@zmaj: global will not necessarily "wipe out" humanity, but it has the potential to kill many millions, even billions.

Theres going to be a sequel to inconvienient truth by Al Gore. I was hearing how people scoffed at the notion that sea levels could rise enough to affect the world trade center memorial in his first iteration.

Meanwhile it happened when Hurricane Sandy hit.

https://youtu.be/2unzHvFPtY0

I'm sure you read a book, Zmaj, but was it by anyone who understands climate science.

Also, keep in mind that climate change includes several of the "natural disasters" on that list, including Pandemic, Water Shortage, Overpopulation (which can happen if carrying capacity drops below current population), and arguably a third world war (see, Egypt, Syria, writ large.) Thus, of the remotely probably ones, only an accidental nuclear war would seem to rise to the level of a real threat.

I'm going with Black Hole.

Pandemic chances are increasing with Texas Republicans blocking vaccinations in foster children because of possible parental rights and Somali refugees in Minnesota refusing vaccination for measles. Air travel makes spreading easier.

I'm voting Ice Age, following the nuclear holocaust caused by the erosion of world community during Trump's reign of idiocy. And I'm becoming more convinced that we will be referring to Trump's time in office as the "reign of idiocy" or something like that.

Realistically, we're all going to plod along because the majority prefers to deny any of the real dangers of climate change until we have a major undisputed climate disaster somewhere (much worse than Katrina). It's like any other problem in society - play stupid until it hits you in the face, then react.

Then, there will be a big reaction and we will work hard to get things under control as further climate disasters hit (because we reacted too late), but in the end we'll come out ok, and by "the end" I mean several decades if not a century later. We'll just have a few generations that have to deal with climate disasters for their entire lives and will be talking about the good-old-pre-climate disaster days when they are old. The "good news" is the worst climate disasters will trash global economies and force down global pollution dramatically that way, so there is a built-in form of self correction.

Well, I suspect that since it ramps up over time, further climate disasters will seem normal and people will just get used to a lower and lower standard of living and higher and higher costs, until in a century or two, people look back and wonder at past civilization without understanding really why it went away.

slypups nailed it

if you accept the assertion that anthropogenic warming is causing the current warming trend:

Both Republicans and Democrats... anyone who is big government has let us down.

Republicans subsidize oil companies (which isn't free-market... almost like they're hypocritical assholes) and have demeaned much of the scientific debate

Democrats have a track record of censorship which is losing them support, but their main problems are with the fact that they try to force through subsidies energies like solar and wind over better alternatives.

The Agricultural sector is responsible for 30% of carbon emissions: but 40% of food doesn't make it to market. government price setting, buying of surpluses and paying farmers not to produce have led to such waste. the federal government has the largest carbon footprint in America.


Is there a bipartisan solution?

it's called the free market. true conservatives like it because public demand for the cheapest goods will select for Nuclear over Fossil Fuels (once fossil fuel subsidies are removed, and nuclear regulations are drawn back - although even now it's still competitive).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2014/05/20/why-the-best-path-to-a-low-carbon-future-is-not-wind-or-solar-power/

Net Cost per KWH (cents)

Solar 18.74
Wind: 5.64

the only way to make these be more efficient, is either subsidizing them (creating monopolies) or waiting for technological change to beat out fossil fuels

Gas/CC: 3.18

this data might actually be skewed by subsidies, but it still beats out the alternatives by quite a bit

Nuclear: 1.04 DAMN SON
Hydro: 0.33 RUSPEKT


and to all the liberals out there that are whining about nuclear being dangerous

1. France uses it as their main power source. your brethren love this shit
2. Recycling nuclear waste is an industry on the uprise, and it actually will make nuclear more efficient and cleaner
3. We're not Japan (on a fault line, on the coast, in what is known as "the ring of fire" where a tsunami hits every Tuesday). we got enough good nuclear land to go around.

and the biggest one of all:

i know you may dislike free markets, and also not like Nuclear, but isn't climate change a big enough issue to negate all that, if only for the short run? surely you wouldn't prefer a larger economic cataclysm by forcing inefficient energy sources down peoples' throats (hint: many would)




Because while the debate on climate change may be contentious to some, the solution really shouldn't be.

i mean i'm offering a solution that

1. stops carbon emissions quickly
2. allows for a free market
3. not only prevents economic disaster, but actually helps the economy

and as icing on the cake, we can see who all the hypocrites in the Republican party really are, for not supporting a free market and sticking to big Oil.

any major complaints?

hello?

I do not see this agreement working from the start in America's favor. This was a poltical act by Obama to show he accomplished something for climate change that won't even meet its goals. UNEP is saying it will stop the warming 1 degree over the goal which is huge. China isn't really following it, yeah they stopped 100 coal plant construction and is investing money into alternatives but lets be real, the factories in China won't shut down. In America though enviormentalists hate Nuclear which will solve of all the problems so they recomend Wind Hydro and Solar. But they hate Wind because it kills birds, they hate solar because it infringes on natural habitats, and they hate hydro because it blocks rivers. So Obama was forced to cut emissons on factories to please his enviormentalist friends so they would vote for Hillary and not vote at all and its killing American production and Jobs.

Wow zach, that's a steaming heap of cluelessness there. The epitaph of human civlization will be "Americans were arrogant, ignorant pricks"

@Ogion

would you be willing to stop all subsidies to coal, oil and natural gas companies, remove regulations on Nuclear industries, and i'll even say some smaller level subsidies and short-term tax breaks to build or invest in nuclear facilities?

Hey , we dont need the USA to save the earth its not a hollywood movie ,,,actually the rest of the planet dosnt need the US to survive at all..

SO RIP old US ideals welcome to the Fall ( see Rome , Egypt , England ) if your unsure of what that means,,

Im not being critical of the US jst saying I think its time to say "Kansas is going bye bye " as Cypher famously said in the Matrix..

Cheers ,,

Nuclear is a solution, but not the best solution. Renewables are breaking new records every day.

https://futurism.com/california-grid-smashes-record-gets-67-energy-renewables/

@James, ignoring for a moment the carbon cost of building nuclear power plants, and of mining uranium, and/or reprocessing soent fuel.

Nuclear is cheap because decommissioning costs are not factored in. 1000s of years of isolation for highly radioactive components makes decommissioning a nuclear power plant incredibly expensive. Never mond the fact the huge amount of government funding was invested to get the plants you have at the moment.

I'm willing to bet that on a fair basis, watt for watt, measured on a full life cycle, that solar power is currently cheaper than nuclear, or that with similar levels of government investment it would be withon 5 years (and China is currently investing).

Second nuclear power plants are great for base load. And not so great for varying loads. In the US max load is in the summer time powering loads of air conditioners (which i cidentally heat up the air outside your buildings, and make cities even worse hot spots... But that isn't a large climate issue, just a local one afaik). Nuclear can't be readily turned off (decommisioning plants take months and recommissioning them is expensive). So you need to look at base load - the minimum demand during the winter, and plan to have a maximum production of nuclear to supply only that demand.

Then you can have other systems (like hydro) which can be turne on and off at will, to supply higher demands (though there isn't enough hydro to make much impact, and all the low hanging fruit is already massive hydro projects).

Third, nuclear doesn't help address transport. We don't have decent/cheap alternatives to fossil fuels for carrying power around in a car. Nevermind all the rest of the transportation industry (UPS? Freight (lorries and trucks)? air freight? Train freight? Shipping?) the vast majority of the world depends on their food being shipped to them, and nuclear doesn't help solve that issue particularily well at all.

So in short, it isn't all about watts per cent. Free markets have never existed, and political there is some question as to whether they would work now.

History has shown some people perfectly willing to buy out the competition and then simply ignore it (new technologies which might threaten the position of oil and coal would be patentable, and pil giants would love to buy those patents and refuse to use them...) that is perfectly plausible in your 'free market' solution - and yes, is the effect of a government enforced monopoly (ie the patent system).

I don't see how regulation and/or public subsidy is any better or worse than enforcing a patent system. Unless the state is enthralled to large corporations who only have any interest in their own profits rather than the public good.

Sounds like James has homework to do. 1) nuclear is not cheap. Not even close. It been left in the dust by renewables on cost a while ago

2) there are these nifty things called electric cars, orthaic, that do very nicely for powering transportation. I should know. I own two (and none of your smelly gas cars, thank you very much). They're quite practical and cheaper than your gas car for the most part

Do try to keep up

India is planning to convert to 100% electric cars by 2030.

US is being left behind in environmental awareness

Manmade global warming is an issue pushed by elites to gain control over energy use. It's another means of controlling us. The USA and Europe could implement all these crazy, extremely costly measures controlling people's use of energy and increasing prices massively to do so, and the impact on the environment wouldn't have any significance.

If we really were true environmentalists and worried about the situation, you would be looking at putting measures in to stop the chem ag industry and encouraging sustainable agriculture. However, none of those are on the agenda in Paris. Why? They aren't effective means to control populations. Controlling how much energy an individual consumes is great for exercising control over people and populations.

Wake up!