Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Eddie Teach]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGeb-irMs4w

Greta doing her Greta thing at Davos.  Doesn't sound at all autistic to me.  Also sounds full of herself.

That's an 'accusation' you could make of nearly everyone on this board; people with opinions tend to sound opinionated!

Eh, there are plenty of opinionated people with a poor self-image.

[The Brain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGeb-irMs4w

Greta doing her Greta thing at Davos.  Doesn't sound at all autistic to me.  Also sounds full of herself.

That's an 'accusation' you could make of nearly everyone on this board; people with opinions tend to sound opinionated!

Eh, there are plenty of opinionated people with a poor self-image.

katmai has enormous body issues.

[crazy canuck]

That's an 'accusation' you could make of nearly everyone on this board; people with opinions tend to sound opinionated!

I was responding to her implied belief that concern about climate change and the response to it started with her speech at the UN.

Not sure how you formed that inference.  She always says explicitly it is not about her.  No matter how much her detractors try to make it so.

[crazy canuck]

Posted mainly for our own resident Minsky

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-the-great-climate-shift-has-already-created-one-costly-minsky-moment/

[Eddie Teach]

I'm sure the Globe and Mail subscribers will find that enlightening.

[crazy canuck]

As do I

[Syt]

[Syt]

https://www.wired.com/story/the-10000-year-clock-is-a-waste-of-time/

[...]

Another author with deep roots in the tech scene, Doug Rushkoff, wrote an eye-opening essay called "Survival of the Richest" in 2018. Rushkoff was flown to a private island and given the largest speaker's fee of his life to deliver his insights on "the future of technology" to an audience of five hedge fund billionaires. They weren't interested in his prepared remarks. What they wanted to discuss was "the Event." "That was their euphemism," Rushkoff explains, "for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr. Robot hack that takes everything down." And what they really wanted to ask him was "How do I maintain authority over my security force after the Event?" Rushkoff did his best, recommending that they were better off treating people well right now and working to prevent the Event. But he says the hedge funders laughed off his suggestion. They weren't interested in preventing the jackpot; they were interested in winning it.

One of the grim realities of climate politics today is that the elites bankrolling climate-denier politicians have made a simple calculation. They aren't betting that the scientific consensus is wrong. They are betting that the impacts of climate change won't fall directly on them. They'll either die before the jackpot begins or their wealth will help shield them from its impacts.

The worst thing about this calculation is that I'm not entirely sure it is incorrect. It's catastrophically immoral, certainly. But the impacts of climate disasters won't be evenly distributed. Think back to Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans was devastated, but the wealthy areas were just fine. One answer to climate change is "just buy land on higher ground." That answer won't work for the 99.9 percent. But for the ultrawealthy, it's a viable strategy. And that means, in the short term, that the ultrawealthy can oppose any policy proposals that would radically reshape the economy to prevent, or at least mitigate, climate disasters. Those proposals will cost them money, individually. Those proposals will leave them, individually, less secure.

[...]

[Maximus]

https://www.wired.com/story/the-10000-year-clock-is-a-waste-of-time/

[...]

Another author with deep roots in the tech scene, Doug Rushkoff, wrote an eye-opening essay called "Survival of the Richest" in 2018. Rushkoff was flown to a private island and given the largest speaker's fee of his life to deliver his insights on "the future of technology" to an audience of five hedge fund billionaires. They weren't interested in his prepared remarks. What they wanted to discuss was "the Event." "That was their euphemism," Rushkoff explains, "for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr. Robot hack that takes everything down." And what they really wanted to ask him was "How do I maintain authority over my security force after the Event?" Rushkoff did his best, recommending that they were better off treating people well right now and working to prevent the Event. But he says the hedge funders laughed off his suggestion. They weren't interested in preventing the jackpot; they were interested in winning it.

One of the grim realities of climate politics today is that the elites bankrolling climate-denier politicians have made a simple calculation. They aren't betting that the scientific consensus is wrong. They are betting that the impacts of climate change won't fall directly on them. They'll either die before the jackpot begins or their wealth will help shield them from its impacts.

The worst thing about this calculation is that I'm not entirely sure it is incorrect. It's catastrophically immoral, certainly. But the impacts of climate disasters won't be evenly distributed. Think back to Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans was devastated, but the wealthy areas were just fine. One answer to climate change is "just buy land on higher ground." That answer won't work for the 99.9 percent. But for the ultrawealthy, it's a viable strategy. And that means, in the short term, that the ultrawealthy can oppose any policy proposals that would radically reshape the economy to prevent, or at least mitigate, climate disasters. Those proposals will cost them money, individually. Those proposals will leave them, individually, less secure.

[...]

That article got me listening to Rushkoff's podcast on my commute. I don't agree with him on everything but he brings in a lot of interesting personalities.

[Admiral Yi]

A rather effortless pivot by the author from catastrophic virus, devastating computer failure, etc., to funding climate deniers.

[viper37]

A rather effortless pivot by the author from catastrophic virus, devastating computer failure, etc., to funding climate deniers.

it's the most pressing concern of all.

[The Minsky Moment]

A rather effortless pivot by the author from catastrophic virus, devastating computer failure, etc., to funding climate deniers.

Logic seems to follow.  If you believe that catastrophe will come in one's lifetime, whatever the cause, there is no point in addressing long term problems of any kind - indeed, if addressing them would be very costly and likely to lead to higher tax burdens on the rich, it is better to act as if it doesn't exist.  And climate change is the highest profile long term problem.

[Admiral Yi]

Logic seems to follow.  If you believe that catastrophe will come in one's lifetime, whatever the cause, there is no point in addressing long term problems of any kind - indeed, if addressing them would be very costly and likely to lead to higher tax burdens on the rich, it is better to act as if it doesn't exist.  And climate change is the highest profile long term problem.

If that's the natural human response, why should five billionaire hedge fund managers be singled out?  Noblesse oblige?

My point was the author leapt from hearing they were concerned about planning for a variety of catastrophic scenarios, only one of which was disastrous sudden climate change, to assuming they were indifferent to solving long term problems and were bankrolling climate deniers.  The second part does not follow from the first.

[viper37]

Logic seems to follow.  If you believe that catastrophe will come in one's lifetime, whatever the cause, there is no point in addressing long term problems of any kind - indeed, if addressing them would be very costly and likely to lead to higher tax burdens on the rich, it is better to act as if it doesn't exist.  And climate change is the highest profile long term problem.

If that's the natural human response, why should five billionaire hedge fund managers be singled out?  Noblesse oblige?

My point was the author leapt from hearing they were concerned about planning for a variety of catastrophic scenarios, only one of which was disastrous sudden climate change, to assuming they were indifferent to solving long term problems and were bankrolling climate deniers.  The second part does not follow from the first.

the sample is extremly low, but it is coherent with a lot of what I'm hearing on the right.  Maxime Bernier even campaigned on this during the last election.

[Syt]

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."
CEO Nwabudike Morgan - The Ethics of Greed