Study on the future cost of global warming

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

. The conditions for this growth will be less and less met in the years to come, we should therefore see a reorientation, willingly and especially by force.

We can already see the premises with government "advertisements" encouraging the redistribution of materials that people want to get rid of instead of throwing them away. This kind of measure would be perfectly counterproductive for a state in a period of growth. It seems to me that this is very significant of a major turning point that few are aware of.
Of course, this coexists with incentives to buy bazaars that no one would have wanted spontaneously (contrary to the theory of "needs"), but it is not aimed at the same audience and growth, even "soft", remains. the touchstone of the current system (pending a real reconfiguration).

[humus]

Perfect, how would you be interested in solutions to what you feel is either not a problem (CO2) or an insurmountable problem (people's desire and economic model)?
You don't feel concerned.

It's not that I don't feel concerned, it's that I think the problem is badly posed, and that you always talk about "solutions", when in reality you don't have any. Thinking about that doesn't mean you don't care.

If you make a statement opposite to mine, it is not even worth discussing a solution.
So how do you pose the problem personally?
And what do you understand from the observation that I can make?

[ABC2019]

If you make a statement opposite to mine, it is not even worth discussing a solution.
So how do you pose the problem personally?
And what do you understand from the observation that I can make?

Personally, I think that the depletion of natural, mineral and energy resources is the main problem facing humanity. I think that the RCA is a secondary problem, which can create problems here and there (among others, like the overpopulation, the impoverishment of the grounds, etc ...), but which does not threaten neither the humanity nor the civilization.

I do not know if we will find a lasting solution in the future, I am not as optimistic as Exnihilo on the merger for example, but otherwise we will do what we have always done: we will do the best we can with what we at.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(When Bozo talks about humanity and civilization, you have to understand "Population and G8 countries", the rest of the world doesn't care ...)

[ABC2019]

well no when I speak of humanity and civilization, I speak of humanity and civilization ...

[humus]

Personally, I think that the depletion of natural, mineral and energy resources is the main problem facing humanity. I think that the RCA is a secondary problem, which can create problems here and there (among others, like the overpopulation, the impoverishment of the grounds, etc ...), but which does not threaten neither the humanity nor the civilization.

I do not know if we will find a lasting solution in the future, I am not as optimistic as Exnihilo on the merger for example, but otherwise we will do what we have always done: we will do the best we can with what we at.

You don't say what you understand from my view of the issue, that's a shame.

However, I will clarify my point of view.
I see as you do, except that the climate, although secondary, is far from negligible. Currently it is still fine, but it will get worse:
Water stress, reduced harvests where we are used to cultivating.
Moving from a country of sedentary people to greener countries is not what is commonly practiced. In addition, it would be very energy intensive and resource consuming.

Fusion will surely be available one day, but not in time to replace fossils.
----------
We already disagree on the observation of having to limit CO2.

What is your position in the face of resource depletion? Anticipate today to seek a more resource-efficient way of life or wait until you are in a shortage to adapt without sinking, to a way of life that we have never known.
So far we have done with more and more resources consumed.
To do with less and less, society is absolutely not intended for.
The result is a double shock: habits to change radically plus stress from the scarcity of resources.

[ABC2019]

However, I will clarify my point of view.
I see as you do, except that the climate, although secondary, is far from negligible. Currently it is still fine, but it will get worse:
Water stress, reduced harvests where we are used to cultivating.

it is catastrophic discourse used over and over in which you believe from having heard it, but it is not based on anything concrete. Food production has grown steadily, and there is still ample room to grow it given the low yields and inefficiencies of many parts of the world - and in this regard, removing fossils would be much more damaging. for agriculture than the RC

In fact, I do not identify any area of ​​society where the removal of fossils would not have far more serious consequences than those of RC that it is supposed to avoid. There is a very simple argument for that: it is that the production of wealth, of food, of the population, increased by correlating POSITIVELY with the temperature (the more the temperature rose, the more it increased). This simple remark proves that if the increase in temperature has overall negative effects (which remains to be proven), they are much less than the positive effects of the consumption of fossils which are the cause.

That's why the logical conclusion is that resource depletion is a much bigger threat than CR.

[sen-no-sen]

That's why the logical conclusion is that resource depletion is a much bigger threat than CR.

The two are nevertheless consubstantial, why want to separate them?
RCA is a consequence of the use of fossil resources, resources which have allowed the human species to prosper like never before.
The decline in its same fossil resources (primarily oil) will force us to have to deal with more and more problems * with fewer and fewer resources.
Unless we lock ourselves into primary climate skepticism, it appears that the effects of RCA coincide precisely with the beginnings of the end of oil and gas (Peak all oil: 2015/2030, 2040/2050 for peak gas).
Discussing the place on the "risk podium" of RCA or depletion therefore essentially amounts to discussing the sex of angels ...



* For example, the demographics will decline through a latency period, continuing to grow even as shortages will make themselves felt. Certain populations, in particular in peripheral countries, risk suffering the full brunt of the drop in production ... in addition climatic hazards.

[Ahmed]

The reasoning of "drawer" minds is inadequate to grasp the problematic of a complex system: it is all the factors, as well as their interactions which must be taken into account. Some factors can counterbalance or on the contrary amplify by feedback ...

[ABC2019]

That's why the logical conclusion is that resource depletion is a much bigger threat than CR.

The two are nevertheless consubstantial, why want to separate them?

why consubstantial?
if the CO2 did not absorb in the infrared, there would be a resource problem but no climate
if the oil was abiotic and came out of the magma, there would be a climate problem and no resources.
They are two different problems, and in addition anticorrelated (the earlier there is a depletion problem, the less there is a climate problem).

It is normal to consider them separately, and more precisely to ask the question: is the amount of fossils beyond which the RCA is really dangerous lower or higher than the amount of economically extractable fossils?

most people think the answer is "inferior", but the concern is that when you ask them if they know these two values, in fact they don't know.