Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Stuart Mackintosh, contributor to The Hill, “The problem of climate change is so big and so costly that we may not have the hands and our brains to tackle it.”
Climate change is no longer a probability – it’s time to face reality
BY STUART MACKINTOSH, STARTUP CONTRIBUTORS – 12/12/22 09:01 AM EST 2.389
VIEWS REPRESENTED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN VIEWS AND NOT HILL VIEWS…
The problem of climate change is so big and laborious that we might not have our hands and our brains to tackle it. The time period is too long for us to plan properly. We often look back on lessons when the probability of extreme weather events like fires in California, Siberia, Australiaor stormy and storm is increasing in severity and number rather than remaining the same from year to year. We consider past averages for consolation although this gives us false probabilities for severe climate-related events. Perhaps most worrisomely, we have not fully taken into account the tipping points of the epochal shift.
The late economist Martin Weitzman calculated that there is another probability that failing to tackle climate change will end our civilization. This dangerous outcome is brought closer through interconnected cut-off points such as the end of summer arctic ice, melting of the world’s Alpine glaciersthe slow down and stop the Gulf Streamthe loss of Greenland Ice Sheetthe Amazon Rainforestor the fall of ‘Doomsday’ glacier in West Antarctica. The tipping points are many and scary, and all are being pulled closer by our failure to understand the risks. I argue in “The Economy of the Climate Crisis”“We have to account for these terrible tipping points so we can properly calculate the risks before
Weitzman in “Climate shock”“Also estimated the possibility of a staggering 6 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature by a whopping 10%. However, since we cannot understand probabilities and what the economist Mark Carney calls the tragedy of our horizon Too many of us underestimate the dangers of climate change to our peril. However, if I put it this way – if you knew that there was a 10% chance that you or your child was killed walking down a street in your neighborhood, you would take action. You will require more action, more policies, better street lights, more spending to ensure such an event does not happen; or you will move, refusing to deal with such risks for your family. All we need to do is adjust the risk probability estimate and continue to do so.
…
The world won’t warm 6C over the next century, but even if it did, civilization would last.
The idea that humans cannot adapt to warmer conditions is absurd. Cities will need better drainage if the rainfall increases, you can almost walk down the sewer lines in my hometown. People will want better air conditioning in the summer. The asphalt on the roads will need to be upgraded. But no problem is insurmountable.
Food supplies won’t even skyrocket. What farmers need to do is copy farming practices from warmer regions. Most food crops are tolerant of a wide variety of growing conditions. The potato variety developed in Maine, USA is a major crop in subtropical Bundaberg, Queensland.
When the British colonized Australia, within a few months, farmers were transported directly from an average high of 56F to an average high of 73F – like experiencing 17F (9C of global warming) ) instant. After a few false starts, like sow seeds in the fall (the curators didn’t know the seasons were going on in the Southern Hemisphere), they did well, using food crops and animals that they mainly brought from England.
6C for over 100 years won’t be a problem.
What about super typhoons that wipe out crops? My response to that – the age of the dinosaurs, a world much warmer than it is today, supported an ecosystem with giant animals at the top of the chain. Does that sound like an ecosystem clinging to viability, or is it a vibrant tropical riot bursting with plant growth and productivity?
Related
