Article US government: Climate change is not an existential risk?

[C C]

A first look at a new U.S. government assessment on the most significant risks facing humanity
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/glo...tial-risks

EXCERPTS: In 2022, on a bipartisan basis, the U.S. Congress passed the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act of 2022 requiring the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate an expert assessment of global catastrophic and existential risks. The Department of Homeland Security published the first Global Catastrophic Risk Assessment two weeks ago, and reached some important — and one surprising — conclusions...

[...] The report is well done, and each of the six risk areas are worth their own focused post here at THB. In the remainder of this post, I highlight what the report says about climate change — which the report does not identify as an existential risk.

The assessment recognizes that changes in climate have many significant consequences for people and ecosystems, but the corresponding risks are local and regional, not global...

[...] The report acknowledges diplomatically that activists often characterize climate change as an existential risk, which reflects “subjective values and worldviews” rather than scientific judgments of real-world risks...

[...] The report acknowledges some of the extreme claims found in the scientific literature from those in the catastrophist planetary boundaries community as well as some of the outlier work in climate econometrics. However, the assessment largely rejects these outliers and is very clear in its conclusion that climate change does not present a catastrophic health risk — even over the course of a century... (MORE - missing details)

[Syne]

No surprise when real science is actually done.

[confused2]

Looking at Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 .. 1400 people died. In reality if those folks had been warned and heeded the warnings the number of deaths would have been far lower .. almost none. Even comparing the actual number of deaths with annual deaths on the roads (40k+).. the number is trivial. With proper preparation even if 40 hurricanes hit major US population centres every year .. the priority should still be making roads safer.

If fossil fuels start to run out in (say) 70 years .. the worst effects will last about another 100 years while CO2 is removed naturally. So we're planning (or not) for at least the next 170 years. So a sea level rise of 2 to 4 feet by 2100 and 4 to 8 feet (maybe much more) by 2200. Hardly existential .. even old folks can stay ahead of it.

Extreme heat .. affects mostly old folks and folks too poor to have A.C. .. neither are politically important. The young folks can migrate to somewhere cooler if they want to .. assuming they don't die in the attempt.

[stryder]

Looking at Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 .. 1400 people died. In reality if those folks had been warned and heeded the warnings the number of deaths would have been far lower .. almost none. Even comparing the actual number of deaths with annual deaths on the roads (40k+).. the number is trivial. With proper preparation even if 40 hurricanes hit major US population centres every year .. the priority should still be making roads safer.

If fossil fuels start to run out in (say) 70 years .. the worst effects will last about another 100 years while CO2 is removed naturally. So we're planning (or not) for at least the next 170 years. So a sea level rise of 2 to 4 feet by 2100 and 4 to 8 feet (maybe much more) by 2200. Hardly existential .. even old folks can stay ahead of it.

Extreme heat .. affects mostly old folks and folks too poor to have A.C. .. neither are politically important. The young folks can migrate to somewhere cooler if they want to .. assuming they don't die in the attempt.

Droughts lead to problems in farming (as do floods), an increase in temperature means certain foodcrops will increase in Lectins to counter the temperature destroying the plant cells (which means some people will have issues with digesting such foods), temperature also increases the types of pests and fungal infestations that can occur (along with of course increasing homeostasis for various diseases).

As for Sea level rise.... Consider that seas/oceans have waves, a single foot increase can increase in magnitude in height during a storm through tsunamis (Moon phase, wind direction and time of year also applies).

While the world will not suddenly implode, it's more about the struggles and hardships of having to deal with situations as they arise.

[Syne]

If fossil fuels start to run out in (say) 70 years ..

Ah, the old "peak oil" myth. Disregarding the US becoming a net exporter of oil under Trump's last administration.

[confused2]

Looking at Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 .. 1400 people died. In reality if those folks had been warned and heeded the warnings the number of deaths would have been far lower .. almost none. Even comparing the actual number of deaths with annual deaths on the roads (40k+).. the number is trivial. With proper preparation even if 40 hurricanes hit major US population centres every year .. the priority should still be making roads safer.

If fossil fuels start to run out in (say) 70 years .. the worst effects will last about another 100 years while CO2 is removed naturally. So we're planning (or not) for at least the next 170 years. So a sea level rise of 2 to 4 feet by 2100 and 4 to 8 feet (maybe much more) by 2200. Hardly existential .. even old folks can stay ahead of it.

Extreme heat .. affects mostly old folks and folks too poor to have A.C. .. neither are politically important. The young folks can migrate to somewhere cooler if they want to .. assuming they don't die in the attempt.

Droughts lead to problems in farming (as do floods), an increase in temperature means certain foodcrops will increase in Lectins to counter the temperature destroying the plant cells (which means some people will have issues with digesting such foods), temperature also increases the types of pests and fungal infestations that can occur (along with of course increasing homeostasis for various diseases).

As for Sea level rise.... Consider that seas/oceans have waves, a single foot increase can increase in magnitude in height during a storm through tsunamis (Moon phase, wind direction and time of year also applies).

While the world will not suddenly implode, it's more about the struggles and hardships of having to deal with situations as they arise.

The OP is set up to discuss 'existential' risks

[quoteThe legislation provided key definitions:
The term ‘‘existential risk’’ means the potential for an outcome that would result in human extinction.[/quote]

The intent of the report is to deal with risks likely to cause human extinction - climate change isn't one of them and can be safely ignored by the President of the United States.

Given that most Americans know nothing of chemistry and more than half believe in angels there isn't much chance of having a rational discussion with 'the average American'.

Syne is a fine example .. attempting to project forwards (say) 70 years to when fossil fuels start to run out .. his response is to claim fossil fuels won't run out in 70 years. From a climate change point of view he (a typical American?) may believe CO2 isn't responsible for warming the planet, maybe oil and coal are being formed as fast as we are extracting them, maybe it's God's plan .. it could be ANYTHING. Trying to run a cost/benefit analysis past a lunatic is a total waste of time.

[Syne]

Syne is a fine example .. attempting to project forwards (say) 70 years to when fossil fuels start to run out .. his response is to claim fossil fuels won't run out in 70 years. From a climate change point of view he (a typical American?) may believe CO2 isn't responsible for warming the planet, maybe oil and coal are being formed as fast as we are extracting them, maybe it's God's plan .. it could be ANYTHING. Trying to run a cost/benefit analysis past a lunatic is a total waste of time.

Typical ad hominem bullshit when you have no actual argument.
I'd challenge you to find anywhere that I've denied that CO2 contributes to climate change. So this is just an ad hominem lie.

Personally, I think we should be ramping up nuclear power production, but there's no evidence that we're close to "peak oil." Predicting it 70 years out is no more credible than the plethora of past predictions, all proving wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicting...f_peak_oil

[confused2]

I use (say) to indicate the number that follows is a 'for instance'.

Let's say we plan to add CO2 to the atmosphere for the next 4 years.
If it takes (say) 100 years to remove the CO2 then we actually have a 104 year plan.
Is that clearer?

The (say) 100 years was a 'for instance' .. if it actually takes N years to remove the CO2 then we have a 4 + N year plan .. OK?

[Syne]

^Weasel's gonna weasel.

[confused2]

Trying to run a cost/benefit analysis past a lunatic is a total waste of time.