Mitigating climate change: the answers we get depend on the questions we ask.

[GliderGuider]

What if the nations of the world were to ask scientists, "What would we need to be do to be 99.9% certain of avoiding a human-triggered 3°C rise within 1000 years?”

That is, strip out the short-term time bias and put the onus on proving any perturbation safe. What answers would come back?

We know that the big risk to be avoided is essentially the possibility of complete and utter ruin.
When that kind of risk is on the table, taking a measured response is a sucker's opening move.
Like having a two-second advantage over someone trying to kill you and using that time to remove your glasses so that they won't be broken.

[daleanime]

1. kick, kick, kick....

[dreamnightwind]

2. Yes, thank you for saying it.

I am continuously blown away by people's ability to ignore this. Even most of those who are aware of it just put it out of their minds and accept lip service to small changes in the right direction, as though that is going to get it done.

Wake up already.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. As long as it's something our children or grandchildren will have to solve,

we just talk about it and pretend that driving a hybrid will solve the problem.

But when it's something that's biting us in the ass right now, something that would take drastic action to solve, well then, who wants to take drastic action? Let's talk about problems that are more abstract, and further removed from the present moment. In other words, "hell no! I won't give up my car and ride the bus." (even if that were enough to solve the problem, which, frankly, it ain't)

[hatrack]

4. BAU's one helluva drug . . .

How you doin', Paul?

[GliderGuider]

5. One day at a time...

For both me and the world. Thanks for asking!