Q: “Are we doomed?” A: “We would be, if not for the amazing developments in renewable energy.”
Q: “Are we doomed?” A: “We would be, if not for the amazing developments in renewable energy.”
When people find out what I do for work, it’s not unusual for them to ask, “Are we doomed?” My usual response is, “We would be, if not for the amazing developments in renewable energy.” We know the people willing to destroy the planet for personal gain are still
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16969151
I wasn't aware just how good the news is on the green energy front until reading this. We still have a tough road in the short/medium term, but we are more or less irreversibly headed in the right direction.
You're viewing a single thread.
Before anyone can answer the question: "Are we doomed?," we must determine who "we" is, and what "doomed" means. If we take it to mean the near-term extinction of our species, there's no reason to believe that will happen, even if the worst of the projected climate scenarios occurs between now and the end of the century. That being said, some people are doomed. Even under the most optimistic climate scenarios, sea levels will continue to rise, heat waves will become more severe and more frequent, as will wild fires, floods, droughts, etc. Some people will die as a result of these natural disasters. Which people? It's more likely to be people who live in relatively poor, unstable countries, and less likely to be people who live in relatively wealthy, stable countries.
The long and short of it is: some people are doomed, but many, if not most people, will probably be just fine.
All true but just fine again may depend on your definition. It’s going to cause major inconvenience for everyone at minimum I think.
That's true, "just fine" can mean different things to different people. What I consider "fine" might not be for someone else. I also think it's entirely possible what many of us consider to be fine might change with the climate. There might not be the same abundance in the future, meaning some people might not be able to consume as much as they do today. Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing as many people over consume today, to their detriment, so it might be good for them if they are forced to consume less. Unfortunately, in such a scenario the poorest and most vulnerable will probably be quite desperate and destitute.
Really, the big problem are the instability from ripple effects. How will the world react to massive migrant crises and new, more intense conflict? To increasing economic recessions and the breaking away of old privileges? All things we are already seeing and that won't go away anytime soon.
Now, total extinction of the species, yeah, that is very unlikely, unless something really unexpected happens. But throwing us potentially back centuries in progress, and killing a majority of people? A nuclear exchange from escalating tensions could create something like that.