WTF Climate Change News

[Innula Zenovka]

Stop Arguing, Start Building

A Common Sense Approach to Survival

jacipriano.substack.com

For decades now, we've been locked in an endless debate about climate change. Is it real? Is it man-made? Who's to blame? Meanwhile, cities are flooding, homes are burning, and infrastructure is crumbling. We're like passengers on the Titanic arguing about who moved the iceberg while the water rises around our ankles.

Here's the thing: Earth doesn't care about our debates. It doesn't care about our political affiliations, our economic theories, or our carefully crafted arguments. Earth is going to Earth, just like it has for billions of years. The planet has gone through ice ages, heating periods, and everything in between long before we showed up, and it'll keep doing so whether we like it or not.

So here's a novel idea: Let's stop trying to win arguments and start trying to survive.

When a Category 5 hurricane is bearing down on your house, it doesn't matter whether you believe in climate change or not. What matters is whether your roof stays on. When floodwaters are rising, your political stance on environmental regulations won't keep your family dry. When a wildfire is approaching, your position on carbon credits won't fireproof your home.

And let me tell you, that “Gotcha, I was right!” will feel like the world’s worst consolation prize whether you’re right or wrong about any particular thing.

We're stuck in this absurd cycle where we can't improve our infrastructure because first, we have to prove beyond any doubt that changes are happening and then assign blame for those changes. It's like refusing to install seatbelts until we've definitively proven who causes all car accidents.

We don't need to agree on why things are changing to agree that they are changing. We don't need to achieve consensus on who's to blame before we start protecting ourselves. We just need to apply some basic common sense:

• If buildings keep getting destroyed by storms, build stronger buildings.
• If areas keep flooding, improve drainage and elevation.
• If power keeps going out, build a more resilient grid.
• If water systems keep failing, build better water systems.

This isn't about being "green" or "sustainable" or whatever buzzword is trending. This is about not being stupid. This is about survival. This is about looking at reality and responding to it like rational human beings instead of ideologues locked in an endless debate.

 

[Beebo Brink]

So here's a novel idea: Let's stop trying to win arguments and start trying to survive.

Apparently the author hasn't noticed that the same people who are arguing that there is no climate change are the same people who refuse to take any actions that would help us survive what is happening regardless of the cause. They are the ones who want to pretend the oceans aren't rising, the weather isn't volatile and more of our forests aren't burning.

The people who are arguing there is a problem that we caused are also pretty damn open to mitigation -- like zoning changes, converting back to wetlands, and moving away from flood plains -- but nobody on the denial side wants to listen to them.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. at least, Trump is working at making things worse all the way around: more fossil fuel, less green tech, and no emergency services.

This isn't an "argument" so much as talking to a brick wall. There is precious little "both sides" here, so the author needs to stop wagging a finger as if "both sides are to blame."

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Apparently the author hasn't noticed that the same people who are arguing that there is no climate change are the same people who refuse to take any actions that would help us survive what is happening regardless of the cause. They are the ones who want to pretend the oceans aren't rising, the weather isn't volatile and more of our forests aren't burning.

The people who are arguing there is a problem that we caused are also pretty damn open to mitigation -- like zoning changes, converting back to wetlands, and moving away from flood plains -- but nobody on the denial side wants to listen to them.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. at least, Trump is working at making things worse all the way around: more fossil fuel, less green tech, and no emergency services.

This isn't an "argument" so much as talking to a brick wall. There is precious little "both sides" here, so the author needs to stop wagging a finger as if "both sides are to blame."

I think that's his whole point, though -- that fact someone is doubtful (or claims to be) about the role played by fossil fuels in global heating is no reason for them not to support measures to mitigate the effects of increasingly violent climate change, no matter what's causing it.

They're using it as a diversion, as you say. He's not saying that it's "both sides." Just that if someone says "But we can't be sure it's caused by CO2" it's better to sidestep that argument by saying "Whether it's caused by CO2 or sunspots or something else, floods, droughts, hurricanes and other forms of extreme weather are happening increasingly frequently and we need to mitigate their effects."

 

[Beebo Brink]

He's not saying that it's "both sides.

That's EXACTLY what he's saying:

We don't need to agree on why things are changing to agree that they are changing. We don't need to achieve consensus on who's to blame before we start protecting ourselves.

He is creating this vague, generalized image of two equal undefined camps in opposition both over the why of it and the blame for it; these two camps are so intent on their argument that they are paralyzed by the discussion. No such division exists, and that is NOT why there is a stalemate.

In reality, you have the very specific camp of scientists (and the people persuaded by them) that there is a huge problem that we have caused, that only we can mitigate, and who have no power to change anything at all or to initiate the most basic survival strategies.

In another camp, you have the concentrated power of corporations who know that the scientists are right, but have chosen to use their resources to convince the general public that no such problem exists. Meanwhile, they are doing everything in their power to take advantage of the situation by sucking up any remaining wealth on the planet. They don't care whether the general populace survives; they are putting their own survival strategy into operation already (in places like New Zealand).

And then you have the government, which has the theoretical power to not only stop the damage, but also, at the very least, invest in survival strategies. In truth, however, they are beholden to the corporations, to do their bidding, and they are vulnerable to the denial of the general populace because a strong stance for mitigation or survival, either one, would result in being voted out of office. Meanwhile, the military is fully aware of the damaging potential of climate change and they have been quietly drawing up their own survival plans.

So the OP is presenting this existential dilemma and massive power play as if it's two kids fighting on a playground, locked in a blame game, which is not only criminally simplistic, it's not even remotely accurate.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

That's EXACTLY what he's saying:

He is creating this vague, generalized image of two equal undefined camps in opposition both over the why of it and the blame for it; these two camps are so intent on their argument that they are paralyzed by the discussion. No such division exists, and that is NOT why there is a stalemate.

In reality, you have the very specific camp of scientists (and the people persuaded by them) that there is a huge problem that we have caused, that only we can mitigate, and who have no power to change anything at all or to initiate the most basic survival strategies.

In another camp, you have the concentrated power of corporations who know that the scientists are right, but have chosen to use their resources to convince the general public that no such problem exists. Meanwhile, they are doing everything in their power to take advantage of the situation by sucking up any remaining wealth on the planet. They don't care whether the general populace survives; they are putting their own survival strategy into operation already (in places like New Zealand).

And then you have the government, which has the theoretical power to not only stop the damage, but also, at the very least, invest in survival strategies. In truth, however, they are beholden to the corporations, to do their bidding, and they are vulnerable to the denial of the general populace because a strong stance for mitigation or survival, either one, would result in being voted out of office. Meanwhile, the military is fully aware of the damaging potential of climate change and they have been quietly drawing up their own survival plans.

So the OP is presenting this existential dilemma and massive power play as if it's two kids fighting on a playground, locked in a blame game, which is not only criminally simplistic, it's not even remotely accurate.

I dunno.

In the UK, we've still got people (fortunately not many) who dispute whether climate change is caused by greenhouse gasses, and considerably more (including the present leader of the Conservative Party, even though it was her party who introduced the measure when they were in government) who question the necessity/practicality/economic implications of the UK's legal obligation to achieve net zero by 2050.

So far, at least, none of them (not even someone like Nigel Farage) has made the leap in non-logic from "I'm a climate change sceptic of one sort or another" to "So I don't think we need do anything to mitigate the effects of all these floods, severe storms, droughts, heat waves and other "once in a hundred years" events that now seem to be hitting us every other year.

While the causes and the effects of extreme weather are clearly related, why do we need to reach consensus on the causes before we can agree about the need to do something to mitigate effects of extreme weather?

If, in a response to a question about what they intend to do about better flood defences, a politician says "well, I don't believe in global warming," then isn't the correct response something like "Maybe you don't, but, nevertheless, do you not think that, since this district has experienced $N zillion dollars worth of damage from floods and hurricanes over the last 5 years, it would be prudent better to mitigate their effects, and if not why not?"

 

[Beebo Brink]

While the causes and the effects of extreme weather are clearly related, why do we need to reach consensus on the causes before we can agree about the need to do something to mitigate effects of extreme weather?

You tell me. Why ARE we waiting? And who exactly is refraining from action?

It's not the science camp that is demanding a consensus be reached before action is taken because, again, they are not in the decision stream for doing things. They provide information; they have no authority over what to do with the information.

So who are these people being stopped in their tracks by a lack of consensus? Who needs to be convinced to just get on with things? If it's the government, whose consensus are they supposedly dependent on? Who are they supposed to ignore to just get on with it?

The author of the article needs to be specific. A generalized we/humanity is a useless admonishment. Name names. Call them out.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

You tell me. Why ARE we waiting? And who exactly is refraining from action?

It's not the science camp that is demanding a consensus be reached before action is taken because, again, they are not in the decision stream for doing things. They provide information; they have no authority over what to do with the information.

So who are these people being stopped in their tracks by a lack of consensus? Who needs to be convinced to just get on with things? If it's the government, whose consensus are they supposedly dependent on? Who are they supposed to ignore to just get on with it?

The author of the article needs to be specific. A generalized we/humanity is a useless admonishment. Name names. Call them out.

I took it as meaning simply "Don't waste time trying to change people's minds about the causes of climate change if they don't want to have their minds change. Press them on how to mitigate the effects of the increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather conditions we're all seeing, because they can't dispute that's happening, even if they don't want to accept what's causing it".

 

[Beebo Brink]

I took it as meaning simply "Don't waste time trying to change people's minds about the causes of climate change if they don't want to have their minds change. Press them on how to mitigate the effects of the increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather conditions we're all seeing, because they can't dispute that's happening, even if they don't want to accept what's causing it".

I'm not being pedantic (or at least, not any more than I am usually) in expecting the author to BE SPECIFIC about who he is talking about and who he is addressing. He is very vague about who exactly is caught up in this consensus debate, and so blithe in assuming that this debate is the impediment to action.

A generic "we" should do this, that and the other is unhelpful and unpersuasive. There is no cohesive "we" that needs to be urged into action. There are numerous camps with differing motivations and differing goals, and only a few of them care about survival for the general population; in fact, some are actively opposed to survival strategies because they would rather avoid the cost of it, which saves more money for their own use.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm not being pedantic (or at least, not any more than I am usually) in expecting the author to BE SPECIFIC about who he is talking about and who he is addressing. He is very vague about who exactly is caught up in this consensus debate, and so blithe in assuming that this debate is the impediment to action.

A generic "we" should do this, that and the other is unhelpful and unpersuasive. There is no cohesive "we" that needs to be urged into action. There are numerous camps with differing motivations and differing goals, and only a few of them care about survival for the general population; in fact, some are actively opposed to survival strategies because they would rather avoid the cost of it, which saves more money for their own use.

In this context, I'd define "we" as being anyone who doesn't want to see their community flooded out, or devastated by a forest fire, the insurance companies who will have to carry the costs if it happens, and the fiscal conservatives who are worried about how much disaster relief costs the taxpayer.

Years ago, a senior Labour member of our Public Accounts Committee (the parliamentary committee that scrutinises reports from the National Audit Office and holds government departments to account for waste and mismanagement, or tries to) that the reason his committee worked so well was that, while the Conservative members were opposed to waste and mismanagement of public funds because they wanted to cut taxes, and the Labour members were opposed because they wanted to have more money available for social welfare projects, both sides agreed they didn't want to see public funds wasted by government departments.

That's stuck with me of an example of why it's often good tactics to make common cause with the other side when you can find issues on which you both agree.

 

[Soen Eber]

In this context, I'd define "we" as being anyone who doesn't want to see their community flooded out, or devastated by a forest fire, the insurance companies who will have to carry the costs if it happens, and the fiscal conservatives who are worried about how much disaster relief costs the taxpayer.

Years ago, a senior Labour member of our Public Accounts Committee (the parliamentary committee that scrutinises reports from the National Audit Office and holds government departments to account for waste and mismanagement, or tries to) that the reason his committee worked so well was that, while the Conservative members were opposed to waste and mismanagement of public funds because they wanted to cut taxes, and the Labour members were opposed because they wanted to have more money available for social welfare projects, both sides agreed they didn't want to see public funds wasted by government departments.

That's stuck with me of an example of why it's often good tactics to make common cause with the other side when you can find issues on which you both agree.

The only problem is, when a "good idea" pops up that everyone can agree with, the Republicans as a rule never want the Democrats to get the credit for it. And this isn't a both-sides-ism thing - Democrats have done plenty of things that would find general Republican support, such as Clinton's welfare reforms in the 90's, or Obama's immigration crackdown.

Only a "Nixon in China" scenario would ever work, and while Nixon was a crook and a rotten, vindictive politician, I haven't seen anyone prominent on the Republican side (except possibly Reagan) who can even measure up to him, they're all bottom feeders, meaning there will never be a Nixon in China scenario while "these guys" are still wrapped in their little cult of lies, stupidity, and doubling down.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The only problem is, when a "good idea" pops up that everyone can agree with, the Republicans as a rule never want the Democrats to get the credit for it. And this isn't a both-sides-ism thing - Democrats have done plenty of things that would find general Republican support, such as Clinton's welfare reforms in the 90's, or Obama's immigration crackdown.

Only a "Nixon in China" scenario would ever work, and while Nixon was a crook and a rotten, vindictive politician, I haven't seen anyone prominent on the Republican side (except possibly Reagan) who can even measure up to him, they're all bottom feeders, meaning there will never be a Nixon in China scenario while "these guys" are still wrapped in their little cult of lies, stupidity, and doubling down.

I know the proposition "Global heating is caused by human activity, particularly the use of fossil fuels" is contentious in the US, but is the proposition that "Extreme weather, no matter what's causing it, is becoming an ever bigger, destructive and more expensive problem, so it would be a good idea to mitigate its effects" also contentious?

I ask because I do not know. Over here you'd get a hearing for the proposition "Net Zero by 2050 is unnecessary and too expensive" but no one, no matter how sceptical of Net Zero, would listen to "We don't need to do anything to mitigate the effects of all the floods, extreme storms, prolonged heatwaves and droughts that are happening far more frequently and more destructively than they were 20 years ago."

 

[Soen Eber]

I know the proposition "Global heating is caused by human activity, particularly the use of fossil fuels" is contentious in the US, but is the proposition that "Extreme weather, no matter what's causing it, is becoming an ever bigger, destructive and more expensive problem, so it would be a good idea to mitigate its effects" also contentious?

Very probably. They take "non-compromising" and "unyielding" as marks of pride, a rallying cry. Meeting half-way on anything would collapse their public standing with their most vocal AND ACTIVE base. Given the religious, messianic principles they espouse through their interpretation of the Bible as a model, they have become a rigid party of absolutists whenever it involves their political sacred cows, which are legion. They have carefully crafted an insulation layer around themselves to keep things "hot," and to keep the cold reality from intruding upon them.

i do believe that only a very bad and bloody nose to the United States would change that equation, and the base would not just wake up and say "Oh My God what have we done?" like the Germans did (to their credit). They would just double down and become even more fanatical. Only a gradual sea change would bring them around, starting with their propaganda infrastructure such as FOX news, hate radio, and the Internet.

Talking to them, it's like talking to Milošević during the Baltic wars, or "Baghbad Bob" during the Gulf War. Many could be reasoned with normally, but the leadership cannot, nor can their most fervent base, which provides the bulk of the funding and campaign work, vital for political survival. And their base has been indoctrinated by a media system which intrinsically rewards drama and outrage, where truth becomes a distant second - while still putting their trousers on.

“Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” -- Voltaire

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

I know the proposition "Global heating is caused by human activity, particularly the use of fossil fuels" is contentious in the US, but is the proposition that "Extreme weather, no matter what's causing it, is becoming an ever bigger, destructive and more expensive problem, so it would be a good idea to mitigate its effects" also contentious?

Yes, because the powers that be know damn well what is causing the extreme weather events, but refuse to take any meaningful steps toward mitigation, or flat-out deny the evidence, because admitting they are the cause of the problem and taking steps to mitigate it would greatly affect their bottom line, if not put their entire business model in jeopardy.

In the US, money talks. Until such time that damages caused by extreme weather cost them more than they can make by barreling forward with the status quo, nothing will change to any meaningful degree.

 

[Beebo Brink]

I know the proposition "Global heating is caused by human activity, particularly the use of fossil fuels" is contentious in the US, but is the proposition that "Extreme weather, no matter what's causing it, is becoming an ever bigger, destructive and more expensive problem, so it would be a good idea to mitigate its effects" also contentious?

This difference in perspective is at the root of the debate you and I were having the other day. In the U.S. there are people who have a vested interest in adamantly ignoring the escalation of damages caused by climate change. There are substantial numbers of bad actors who DO NOT CARE that people are at risk. They have no interest in spending money to mitigate climate effects, regardless of the cause. It's not disagreements on blame that are blocking action, it's that any money spent on the public good is considered to be a waste of money that could go in their pocket.

You can't convince these factions to "agree to disagree and move on to action" because in many cases they are already quite aware of why climate change is happening, and their goal is to make as much money as fast as they can and then get themselves to some safe location and ride it out.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Earth's storage of water in soil, lakes and rivers is dwindling. And it's especially bad for farming

...global warming has notably reduced the amount of water that's being stored around the world in soil, lakes, rivers, snow and other places, with potentially irreversible impacts on agriculture and sea level rise.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Big Banks Quietly Prepare for Catastrophic Climate Change | Scientific American

Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan and an international banking group have quietly concluded that climate change will likely exceed the Paris Agreement's 2 degree goal and are examining how to maintain profits

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Link to Guardian article

It summarises this LinkedIn post:

Climate, Risk, Insurance: The Future of Capitalism

CO₂ emissions directly increase the amount of energy trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. This is not a vague or future issue—it is physical reality.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Beebo Brink]

CO₂ Surged Last Year, but the Trump Administration Has Downplayed the Alarming Data | Scientific American

Climate-warming carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere grew at a record-breaking speed in 2024, surging by 3.7 parts per million, a recent NOAA data analysis has found.

It’s one of the agency’s biggest scientific findings of the year — yet the research largely has flown under the radar after NOAA officials took steps to minimize the announcement.