Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google
In #1, The people who questioned Bendell said that societal collapse is plausible. In #4, They disputed Bendell's claim that collapse is inevitable. They say that social science doesn't support this. There is some nuance here in terms of how we define collapse. This version of civilization which has zero regulation of many fundamental toxic wastes such as CO2 will inevitably co
That works. As long as the “inevitable” part is framed conditionally, not as a standalone truth, I doubt most people would object. Fit neatly enough into my earlier outline:
Spoiler
Carbon Overload: Our Planet’s Version of Alcohol Poisoning
Why rising carbon levels are accelerating Earth’s slide into a state of toxicity that may no longer be able to support human civilization as we know it.
Depending on where you land along the spectrum of scientific projections, we’re either rapidly approaching or have already crossed a critical tipping point of no return. Rising carbon levels are triggering feedback loops that could lock in irreversible damage to Earth’s climate systems. What this means is clear: without immediate, large-scale action, we risk descending into a future where stability, safety, and basic livability vanish, not just for us, but for our children and every generation that follows.
The time for gradual, half-hearted, incremental action is over.
A recent survey of 211 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reveals overwhelming skepticism that we’ll meet the Paris Agreement targets, with 86% expecting warming to exceed 2°C by 2100 and a median estimate of 2.7°C. While many of our top environmental scientists believe it’s still possible to avoid the worst outcomes, they’re under no illusions: current policies and our collective failure to meet stated goals are inevitably leading us toward those worse outcomes. In other words, a future that may still be habitable, but barely livable in the ways we've grown accustomed to in modern society.
"I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world." - President Ronald Reagan, addressing the United Nations General Assembly (1987).
That threat is here... and it’s already entered our atmosphere. It’s seeping into the air we breathe, the food we grow, and the climate we rely on. It’s showing up in everything from shifting weather patterns to food chains to human health.
The challenge is that this threat doesn’t look like an asteroid or an alien spacecraft. It moves slower. It doesn’t arrive with a countdown or a single point of impact. But that’s how the climate crisis is being framed, not as an emergency, but as a debate. From politicians to policymakers to the media, the message is still: things are bad, but not quite bad enough to treat like a full-scale crisis, as we would if it were an asteroid barreling toward Earth.
But if we fail to begin taking a more aggressive approach now, all we're doing is staving off the impact for our children to absorb. That’s what the panel meant with their pessimism: not that all is lost, but that the gap between what we could do and what we are doing continues to widen, leaving the burden on future generations who may have far less time, far fewer options, and much more to lose to brace for impact.
What the IPCC Scientists Say We Could Be Doing but Aren't
The problem is when it’s left hanging by itself. That invites fatalism, and fatalism shuts people down. I’m still trying to stay hopeful that we’ll act more aggressively, despite all the challenges you’ve laid out. I think focusing too much on how hard it all is and the obstacles in the way doesn’t help. It just makes it easier for people to give up, which was more the point in those articles, despite their misgivings about Bendell's substantive comments.
That works. As long as the “inevitable” part is framed conditionally, not as a standalone truth, I doubt most people would object. Fit neatly enough into my earlier outline:The problem is when it’s left hanging by itself. That invites fatalism, and fatalism shuts people down. I’m still trying to stay hopeful that we’ll act more aggressively, despit
It doesn't work out too often that online debates lead to a meeting of the minds ... so I'll enjoy a small moment of celebration.
I'm not a fatalist .... I'm trying to gather people to connect with their survival energy and push for the fundamental changes we need as a species to survive.
Thank you for participating in this conversation John21 and thank you to the people who host this forum which allows this kind of conversation to take place.
It doesn't work out too often that online debates lead to a meeting of the minds ... so I'll enjoy a small moment of celebration. I'm not a fatalist .... I'm trying to gather people to connect with their survival energy and push for the fundamental changes we need as a species to survive. Thank you for participating in this conversation John21 and thank you to the people who ho
Appreciate that.
I was kind of under the impression that slowing emissions was enough, when really it just slows how fast things get worse. I'm now thinking that net-zero isn't the end goal; more the starting line. That's what I was getting at earlier with your alcohol poisoning analogy: slowing down the alcohol consumption doesn't mean a whole lot when your body can't detox quick enough anyway. Good way for people to get their head around a complex issue.
And yeah, I think that was the original point of a “forum” in the first place.
Appreciate that. I was kind of under the impression that slowing emissions was enough, when really it just slows how fast things get worse. I'm now thinking that net-zero isn't the end goal; more the starting line. That's what I was getting at earlier with your alcohol poisoning analogy: slowing down the alcohol consumption doesn't mean a whole lot when your body can't detox qu
I try to incorporate some buddhist principles into my orientation to the problem.
If we let go of morality which is inherently subjective ... then we don't get bogged down in arguments about who is right and good vs who is wrong and bad.
If we let go of attachment to the outcome, then we don't get bogged down in the doomer vs optimist baggage. The doomer's have some good arguments and their warnings have some value ... but not much advice about to navigate the process joyfully.
I'm not selling hope in the outcome. I'm encouraging people to live their life journey's in synch with their biological nature.
It is in our nature to struggle to survive. It is in our nature to aspire for meaningful connection with other human beings and be part of a community.
So why not make the choice to live this life in synch with that nature ?
Old rockers bailing out on summer concerts because of increasingly extreme weather.
Another proof that Luciom was right higher temperature is great for Canada .
Second biggest forest fire area burn registered in 2025 .
The highest was in 2023 ….
Yup nothing better for humanity and Canada when forest burned down .
Climate change is depleting the nutrient profile of our plants.
I wonder if anyone here on the forum has any educational foundation relating to ocean acidification. Any of y'all take any science classes in college ?
Done a few science classes. Nothing particualrly useful for this but in my considered opinion It's likely to be very nasty and we should take this all far more seriously.
I read a sci fi book about 40 years ago about trying to send messages back in time to try to save the planet from environmental collapse. The oceans blooming was a big part of the end.
Ocean acidification has been a feature of most reconstructed paleo-climate reconstructions of extinction.
pH is a measure of relative alkalinity and acidity. It's a strange scale that not many are acquainted with ,,,,, it's not base 10.
Average ocean pH has declined from 8.2 to 8.05 in the last century. Each 0.1 increase in pH represents a 26% increase in H+ ions in solution.
A healthy blood pH in a human being is 7.35 to 7.45. We can survive a bit outside that range, but we get sick pretty quick. A small difference of 0.1 makes a difference.
A change of 0.4 to 0.5 in ocean pH is a potential extinction event for humankind.
Another proof that Luciom was right higher temperature is great for Canada .
Second biggest forest fire area burn registered in 2025 .
The highest was in 2023 ….
Yup nothing better for humanity and Canada when forest burned down .
Well I don't recall hearing any Canucks complaining about rising CO2 levels and global warming when your entire country was literally buried under a mile of ice 15K years ago. Meanwhile the poor Sphinx got buried up to its neck in sand.
It's weird how so many cultures have stories of floods going back to pre-historic times. I'm thinking if our natural lifespan was like some sponges that live for 10k years, we'd probably have figured out ways to geoengineer the climate rather than packing up and moving all the time.
Well I don't recall hearing any Canucks complaining about rising CO2 levels and global warming when your entire country was literally buried under a mile of ice 15K years ago. Meanwhile the poor Sphinx got buried up to its neck in sand. It's weird how so many cultures have stories of floods going back to pre-historic times. I'm thinking if our natural lifespan was like some spo
Whats your point ?
Not sure there was many Canuck’s complaining 15k years ago .
U got videos of that ?
The point is luciom kept claiming climate changes was great for Canada when in reality the amount of cost from natural disaster keep going up in alarming rates , costing tens of billions on so many levels it’s worrisome .
Many sectors now just for housing have problems with insurrance companies here because flood zones been added and are much bigger for example .
Agriculture suffers because of massive drought now etc…
Not even taking future immigration due to climate problems, the cost of climate changes will clearly exceeds the benefits of climate changes for Canada .
More then many others because our entire economy, infrastructures , etc are not made for the climate coming …..
Whats your point ?Not sure there was many Canuck’s complaining 15k years ago .U got videos of that ?The point is luciom kept claiming climate changes was great for Canada when in reality the amount of cost from natural disaster keep going up in alarming rates , costing tens of billions on so many levels it’s worrisome .Many sectors now just for housing have problem
Costs for natural disasters have to be normalized with nominal gdp btw (actually should be with value of physical capital but that's often hard to assess). Some goons use nominal increases as "proof" of a problem, when OBVIOUSLY the more stuff you have the more the same disaster causes damages (!!!).
BUT you have to count the massive benefits. Every dollar saved in lower expenses for heating is a gift of warming, are you counting that?
agricultural yields increase in canada with a warmer world with more CO2 in the air, are you counting that?
We're in race against time and we may lose. We may have already lost. Then again we may not lose.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Costs for natural disasters have to be normalized with nominal gdp btw (actually should be with value of physical capital but that's often hard to assess). Some goons use nominal increases as "proof" of a problem, when OBVIOUSLY the more stuff you have the more the same disaster causes damages (!!!).BUT you have to count the massive benefits.
That is why we need AC during summer time, because it isn’t hot enough ……
Electricity is electricity .
U used for heating or making a room colder is the same god damn prices .
Yes I’m counting that agriculture to be able to change their crops to adapt to a warmer climate will cost billions .
Agriculture is around 7% gdp, yeah making it 8-9% of gdp will surely solved all those tens of billions of other cost related to climate changes …
And I mean , how great “agriculture “ is to be in the best economies too in the world are ?
nah , I’m not interested too see Canada aiming at a emerging market economy like u seem to imply just for you to believe climate changes is great for us …
No thx .
That is why we need AC during summer time, because it isn’t hot enough ……Electricity is electricity .U used for heating or making a room colder is the same god damn prices .Yes I’m counting that agriculture to be able to change their crops to adapt to a warmer climate will cost billions .Agriculture is around 7% gdp, yeah making it 8-9% of gdp will surely solved all those tens
Except it isn't, because canada is year-long exceptionally *colder* than what is optimal for people. So warming makes it so that you have to spend far less for heating, and only abit more for cooling.
AND, most importantly, solar can provide cooling very cheaply, while it does **** for heating in Canada, because solar energy production is horrendous in winter in Canada.
So you can freeroll AC with solar, while nothing analogous exists for heating. WARMING IS EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD FOR EVERY COLD COUNTRY, how is this even controversial? your country is ****ing too cold so getting less cold is an improvement of the quality of life of people living there !!!! why deny it???
You're welcome. It captures the situation reasonably well. we could omit the 'may not' part but people in politcs in particular are very adept at confusing someone saying 'X may be the case' with them saying they think X is the case.
Antarctica is covered in plastic. An example of a world which is interconnected and waste travels beyond sovereign boundaries.
very good development at Trump EPA
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/clima...
they are trying to get rid of the "endangerment finding", ie the idea that climate change is a danger for public health (and/or that greenhouse gas emissions cause it) so that future executives will lose the power to regulate them.
It's a very tricky field and will probably reach SCOTUS if it goes through, but there is hope EPA is allowed to make it's own findings the way it prefers.
There will be very long and harsh prison sentences in the future for any survivors of this regime who participated in the denial of climate dangers.
Imagine the Nuremburg Trials with much angrier prosecutors.
The rulers of tomorrow will have our IP addresses just like the rulers of today. If they have to make decisions about who to allocate scarce resources to ..... how do you think they're going to feel about the people who tried to spread confusion and doubt about something which is so scientifically straight forward ?
People think we can just hand a bag of **** to young people and future generations and expect them to treat us benignly when they take power. Sorry .... that's not the way people work. There is going to be some serious righteous anger.
There will be very long and harsh prison sentences in the future for any survivors of this regime who participated in the denial of climate dangers. Imagine the Nuremburg Trials with much angrier prosecutors. The rulers of tomorrow will have our IP addresses just like the rulers of today. If they have to make decisions about who to allocate scarce resources to ..... how do you
You are the person who said the democratic party was irrelevant and it didn't make a difference if you voted for it, which is possibly what caused trump to win (or republicans to have the majority in the house given the ultrathin margin).
If they are going to come after people , they are going to come after you and other radicals as well.
Anyway, your "hope for retributive justice" is just a cope. People responsible for the most heinous disasters almost never pay. We didn't put hundreds of people in jail for the GFC, we didn't put hundreds of people in jail for the 30+ riots of BLM, we didn't put thousands of people in jail for the atrocities of covid lockdowns.
They didn't even put anyone in jail for having lied repeatedly to congress to justify wars lol.
If they are going to come after people , they are going to come after you and other radicals as well.
.
That's the way it goes in war Lucifer. Both sides go after each other. I'm on the side that puts the continuity of our species at its apex and recognizes that we are risking that. That's my tribe,
I would challenge you to put together a succinct definition of the tribe that you belong to.
In the absence of any clarification on your part ..... I have you in the tribe that wants to sabotage efforts to save our species. I don't think it's going to be very difficult to motivate people to hate the members of that tribe.
That's the way it goes in war Lucifer. Both sides go after each other. I'm on the side that puts the continuity of our species at its apex and recognizes that we are risking that. That's my tribe,I would challenge you to put together a succinct definition of the tribe that you belong to. In the absence of any clarification on your part ..... I have you in the tribe that wants
I am in a tribe with a very similar goal, but we disagree "slightly" about the threats to the continuity of our species.
In my tribe, we recognize the biggest by far threat, above all, more important than everything else combined, are literally people like you. Collectivism , "leftism" in general is by far the biggest human made threat humanity is facing today.
Except it isn't, because canada is year-long exceptionally *colder* than what is optimal for people. So warming makes it so that you have to spend far less for heating, and only abit more for cooling.AND, most importantly, solar can provide cooling very cheaply, while it does **** for heating in Canada, because solar energy production is horrendous in winter in Canada.So you
I obviously deny everything you wrote because it’s wrong.
But since I live here , u know more then me shrug.
U don’t seem to understand the environment we have , like trees, can and does create big problems with unfamiliar hotter climate .
And that is just one tiny example that was very costly for the government and insurrance companies around here…..
