Once an ice sheet begins melting or the Amazon rainforest begins dying, the process will not simply stop when emissions fall. We cannot hold blind faith that future emissions reductions or reversals can or will reverse avalanche-like changes to the natural world — and these pages are a convincing scolding of the policymakers for whom “conservatism or fatalism about society flips into extreme adventurism about nature.”

…despite Trumpian and Republican bluster, “a regime that embraces climate breakdown as the flipside of fossil fuels is preparing to treat it with something like sulfate planes,” especially if doing so would help reduce climate-caused migration from south to north.

In other words, a future energy secretary may well disagree with Wright that global heating is “no big deal” but agree that American oil must keep flowing and burning, and share the current administration’s xenophobia and penchant for mass deportations and illegal arrests in service of white nationalism. Such a global hegemon could dim the sun to square the circle.

  • matsdis@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 days ago

    Uh, so far scientific predictions about the climate from even 20 years ago have been quite accurate, or a bit too optimistic. The scary predictions are for 50 to 200 years in the future and later. It’s just a very slow process (in human terms). Put CO2 into the atmosphere for a decade, not much happens. Put more CO2 in for another decade, it gets slightly warmer. Stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and the CO2 stays there for many hundred years, and the effects keep getting worse.

    By the time you notice the bad stuff happening around you (desertification of farmland, floods, sea-level rise in coastal settlements), it’s too late to realize that you don’t have a technology to put the CO2 out again, and even if you did it would take another decade until you notice the effect.