AOC says the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change

[7,052,770]

Statement like hers only hurt the climate change action message.  One sure way to drive away nearly anybody who thinks climate change is a problem but doesn't think about it much... is to tell them if they don't up and change everything about their lifestyle right now, the world is gonna end in 12 years.  

Also, you need to point to evidence that is not sensationalist or easy to poke holes in, no matter how wrong those counter-arguments might be.  The endangered Pacific nations are a good example.

Many of these low Pacific atolls are stuck between sinking land and rising seas.  They are pumping too much ground water due to overpopulation.  The lense of fresh water that sits on top of the salt water under the land gets depleted and begins to turn brackish and the land subsides.  On top of that, warmer oceans lead to thermal expansion which causes sea level rise.  What is easier for these island nations?  Convincing Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, and Brazilians to dramatically curtail greenhouse gas emissions?  Or find sustainable water sources?  

Ultimately this is about something bad happening to the land these people live on, and their seeking a scapegoat to deflect responsibility for a problem that is half their own fault.  Even so, wealthy nations have a responsibility to help these nations cope.  Providing funding for rainwater collection and filtration to reduce ground water pumping is a no-brainer.

As for this idea that there are these "tipping points" always 10-15 years in the future if we don't do something NOW and that the politically arrived at temperature increase limit represents some unholy number that if you cross it, the whole thing goes straight to hell... is all just activists at lavish conferences negotiating science.

Then there is the issue of power production:

We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels.  Ever.  They are supplementary and not reliable.  When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid.  And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true.  Still doesn't matter.  We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.

Nuclear, in the short term, along with a stratoshield. Long term solar is more ideal, but we don't have time to wait for it to be viable.

[GoTfan]

Statement like hers only hurt the climate change action message.  One sure way to drive away nearly anybody who thinks climate change is a problem but doesn't think about it much... is to tell them if they don't up and change everything about their lifestyle right now, the world is gonna end in 12 years.  

Also, you need to point to evidence that is not sensationalist or easy to poke holes in, no matter how wrong those counter-arguments might be.  The endangered Pacific nations are a good example.

Many of these low Pacific atolls are stuck between sinking land and rising seas.  They are pumping too much ground water due to overpopulation.  The lense of fresh water that sits on top of the salt water under the land gets depleted and begins to turn brackish and the land subsides.  On top of that, warmer oceans lead to thermal expansion which causes sea level rise.  What is easier for these island nations?  Convincing Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, and Brazilians to dramatically curtail greenhouse gas emissions?  Or find sustainable water sources?  

Ultimately this is about something bad happening to the land these people live on, and their seeking a scapegoat to deflect responsibility for a problem that is half their own fault.  Even so, wealthy nations have a responsibility to help these nations cope.  Providing funding for rainwater collection and filtration to reduce ground water pumping is a no-brainer.

As for this idea that there are these "tipping points" always 10-15 years in the future if we don't do something NOW and that the politically arrived at temperature increase limit represents some unholy number that if you cross it, the whole thing goes straight to hell... is all just activists at lavish conferences negotiating science.

Then there is the issue of power production:

We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels.  Ever.  They are supplementary and not reliable.  When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid.  And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true.  Still doesn't matter.  We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.

Nuclear, in the short term, along with a stratoshield. Long term solar is more ideal, but we don't have time to wait for it to be viable.

Hydrogen?

Labor over here recently committed to a plan to kickstart the hydrogen industry in Australia.

[HisGrace]

God forbid we take climate change seriously. So far we are ignoring it. I hope she is successful in getting in to the top of the agenda where it belongs.

Hyperbolic rhetoric like this is part of what makes people not take it seriously. It becomes a debate of "Climate change is completely made up" vs "The world is ending in 12 years"

[ProudModerate2]

She's wrong about the numbers but 100% right about the basic premise. Climate change is the existential threat of this generation.

I mean, she's not wrong. Probably more senastionalist wording than I would have used, but that's a matter of style, not substance.

[dead0man]

Climate change, as a political issue, is pretty much perfect.  If the impact is anything but severe, the people preaching the loudest about will claim that "yes! You should all thank us for telling you to recycle and pollute less, just imagine how bad it would have been if you hadn't?  Victory!".  If the impact is severe they get the easiest "told ya so" in history.

[Badger]

Excellent point! I know when I think to myself about the near irreversible impact of global warming we face in about 12 years, I hardly ever worry to myself about my kids inheriting and environmental dystopia before they're even out of college, but rather what will win arguments at cocktail parties a dozen years from now.

[dead0man]

I'm not suggesting it's a thought out plan or that the people "preaching the loudest" don't mean well or are even wrong.  Just that it's an unloseble political issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"The Planet is fine...We're not, we are going away..." - George Carlin.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels.  Ever.  They are supplementary and not reliable.  When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid.  And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true.  Still doesn't matter.  We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.

That's nuclear for you. Though you're actually wrong about the weather-based renewables. What we would need for them to work is a common hemispheric power grid, connecting all the sources to each other. There is always enough wind/sun SOMEWHERE to power the world, so it's all about linking as much together as possible to use as insurance when there isn't enough power somewhere.

[136or142]

God forbid we take climate change seriously. So far we are ignoring it. I hope she is successful in getting in to the top of the agenda where it belongs.

Hyperbolic rhetoric like this is part of what makes people not take it seriously. It becomes a debate of "Climate change is completely made up" vs "The world is ending in 12 years"

I'm not sure about that.  Trump and the right's lies and hyperbolic rhetoric about illegal immigrants doesn't seem to make people take it less seriously.

[Figueira]

People need to stop thinking of this issue in black and white. There isn't some hard deadline where if we "address" it by then it will be all sunshine and rainbows and if we don't, it's the literal extincton of humanity. It's guaranteed to be bad, but we can control how bad it gets to some extent. The longer we wait, the more choices we have.

[emailking]

Hydrogen?

Labor over here recently committed to a plan to kickstart the hydrogen industry in Australia.

Hydrogen provides a means of energy storage. It could be useful in many contexts (we've used it for space travel obviously), but it's just a glorified battery. We have to make the hydrogen and the energy still has to come from a conventional source, possibly renewable.

[Brittain33]

Statement like hers only hurt the climate change action message.

...compared to what? We're not getting sufficient action now. People in her generation need to express the urgency they *should* feel given how bad their adult lives are going to be if we don't act.

[Brittain33]

God forbid we take climate change seriously. So far we are ignoring it. I hope she is successful in getting in to the top of the agenda where it belongs.

Hyperbolic rhetoric like this is part of what makes people not take it seriously.

No, what makes people not take it seriously is a coordinated misinformation campaign funded by fossil fuel interests and their conservative allies which helps people who don't want to make any changes or compromises to their lifestyle tell themselves it's ok for them to do so.

You can't point to any way that AOC's actions have made things *harder* for climate change action. Republicans are going to oppose no matter what, most are elderly and DGAF. The rest can be outvoted given time and strength on the Democratic side.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels.  Ever.  They are supplementary and not reliable.  When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid.  And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true.  Still doesn't matter.  We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.

That's nuclear for you. Though you're actually wrong about the weather-based renewables. What we would need for them to work is a common hemispheric power grid, connecting all the sources to each other. There is always enough wind/sun SOMEWHERE to power the world, so it's all about linking as much together as possible to use as insurance when there isn't enough power somewhere.

The latter isn't feasible right now.  A *lot* of electricity is lost in transmission over long distances which is why we tend to build power plants all over the place (power plants that can produce 24/7).  Wyoming, sparsely populated and close to power sources, loses only 2.2% of its electricity between the power plant and the plug.  But Idaho loses 13.3%.

With a system like you propose losses would be much larger than that.  You also must factor in that places like the eastern 1/3 of the U.S. have low wind and solar potential.

Wind power works well on the plains and solar in the SW.  Electricity utilities are building their grids accordingly.  Minnesota gets 18% of its electricity from wind and 25% from renewables overall.  23% comes from nuclear.  So nearly half of electricity production is low-carbon.  Utilities cut emissions 27% in the last 12 years and wind is now the cheapest form of electricity at $45 MWh compared to $49 for gas and $66 for coal (and $75 for solar).  But wind is not this cheap in most of the populated areas of the country. 

It is important to realize that economies are like water... they have a habit of finding the path of least resistance.  If we take national action to combat climate change, we'll just outsource our carbon emissions.  If we prevent that with policy, the cost will be passed downwards onto the poorest.  If we prevent that with policy, we will just outsource large bank accounts.  If we prevent that with policy, we'll outsource some wealthy people.  At some point, we'll just end up outsourcing our freedoms and liberties to an angry mob or an angry man with a big gun.  You have to look at this through a lens of realpolitik.  There is action being taken against climate change.  But it is mostly still in the innovation stages.  Our ability to reduce emissions will be low and slow until it rapidly increases and becomes so cheap you'd be an idiot not to.

I think with the collective of human action, we'll do it before the heat is on.  And if the heat really is on, we'll find a solution there too (Not a stratoshield, Harry... SO2 in the stratosphere is poorly understood and would have tremendous unintended negative consequences)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm the first to say that this sort of hyperbole really doesn't help the cause for climate action nearly as much as a lot of environmentalists seem to think, and, yeah, AOC is talking in a kind of careless way here. However, she doesn't seem to be framing this as a statement of fact, exactly; she's saying it's something that a lot of younger people worry about and are afraid of, which is completely true.

[Deleted User #4049]

Then there is the issue of power production:

We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels.  Ever.  They are supplementary and not reliable.  When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid.  And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true.  Still doesn't matter.  We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.

The only actual solution is to drastically reduce energy consumption in all industries, all parts of life, all countries. But this is politically toxic and will never happen. I've become resigned to the likelihood of collapse.

[GoTfan]

I want to believe this is just alarmism, but It's likely already too late to address climate change.

[Badger]

Just curious. Can we get a link to what she actually said? I wonder because there was another Fred recently about how AOC supposedly thinks that A system that allows billionaires to exist is immoral, but it turned out that the headline from The Hill stating so was incredibly misleading compared to what she actually said. What she actually said, fwiw oh, was that it was a moral to have a system that allows billionaires while the same time poor people in Alabama still get ringworm because of lack of access to public health. Few non libertards disagree with that sentiment, but the Hills headline stated AFC sleep system allowing billionaires to exist is immoral.

Just wondering if there's something similar here. Even if not, considering the UN recently issued a report listing 20/30 as a deadline of sorts for the world to aggressively and seriously address global warming, it's not like she was talking out of her ass.

[Big Abraham]

I want to believe this is just alarmism, but It's likely already too late to address climate change.

Not too late to address it, but many of its effects are already irreversible.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That explains why she's not worried about amassing tens of trillions of dollars in debt.  If we are all dead, it won't matter.

[Badger]

That explains why she's not worried about amassing tens of trillions of dollars in debt. 

She's a Republican?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

That explains why she's not worried about amassing tens of trillions of dollars in debt.  If we are all dead, it won't matter.

Debt and deficit spending aren't inherently bad. Research and development into technology and production to face an imminent threat to life as we know it is a good way to direct borrowed resources. America's economic dominance in the 20th century was due in large part to deficit spending into wartime production during WWII. The reverse side is using deficit spending to cut corporate taxes to transfer wealth to corporate shareholders - this is not an effective use of government spending.

[Brittain33]

That explains why she's not worried about amassing tens of trillions of dollars in debt.  If we are all dead, it won't matter.

You may have intended this as a sick burn, but it’s got more than a little truth in it. We need to be putting the maximum $ we can into preventing and mitigating climate change or we will face economic blows that will shred any projections about social security sustainability or debt. It helps immensely that Republicans have proven that deficits and debt don’t matter.

[jamestroll]

That explains why she's not worried about amassing tens of trillions of dollars in debt.  If we are all dead, it won't matter.

You may have intended this as a sick burn, but it’s got more than a little truth in it. We need to be putting the maximum $ we can into preventing and mitigating climate change or we will face economic blows that will shred any projections about social security sustainability or debt. It helps immensely that Republicans have proven that deficits and debt don’t matter.

Deficits and debt are just a powerful tool of the opposition. Unlimited debt is a horrible idea.

No the world will not end in 12 years if we do not address climate change but it is not like it does not exist either like some people on this forum think.

And yes solar and wind power are a great supplement and should be integrated into our energy system. It is sad to see some on this forum probably get high off of oil and coal though.