Future Now
The IFTF Blog
Deep dive into climate change
[From the July 27 expert workshop on the future of science and technology.]
BR: It's real; consequences are not fully known; and the models don't give us more precision than a range between muddling through and global disaster.
KD: No incentives to encourage long-term thinking and action.
LS: Moving the poorest up the economic curve using the same old means is a prescription for disaster. Since 50% of that population lives within 50 miles of a coast, and depends on snowpacks for fresh water, those populations are going to be very hard hit by their own growth.
SS: Many of the problems are social. The notion of mitigation efforts bringing down the economy is just wrong.
BR: Government should tilt the playing field, and then let the markets figure out solutions: change the economics by making carbon emissions more expensive (or just recognizing the real cost), and businesses will make it happen.
SS: Actually, this is un-tilting the playing field.
JL: Should we have a single center that works on this?
SS: No. The UK does a good job of not spreading the money too far, but not centralizing it too much, either.
BR: Also have to confront the sensible people who don't want to do anything, or who argue that cold is bad but warm is good (look at the 13th century "Little Ice Age").
SS: Not in the tropics!
LS: Why does Europe get it?
SS: Less distrust in intellectuals, public media that isn't so ratings driven.
LS: Most people will react and adapt locally to global changes, and will thus be able to avoid paying attention to the serious consequences for longer. (More houses are built in Florida as more hurricanes hit it; SUVs have added a Saudia Arabia's worth of energy demand.)
When do we reach the point of no return-- where, even when we all realize the consequences, we can't do anything about it?
2010 1
2018 3
2030 5
2040 9
2070 10
BR: The same drivers that make this bad put pressure on energy supply, and pressure to do something.