q: Can we do anything about it?
Yes we can resolve global warming. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'd rather we died as a species trying to fix it than with our heads stuck in the sand.
Studies (and history) show reducing GHGs (greenhouse gases) resolves the issue with grace and is technically safe. |
|
Studies also show there is time to fix it with minimal problems, although it's a big effort at this point. It's interesting to note that both of the main U.S. political parties have adopted climate change, the only separation between them now is how much $ to pour into how fast so as to not bankrupt the country while saving it. A number of their constituents are still stuck in previous thinking (this is similar to how politicians of both parties are generally fully vaccinated despite legal actions to reduce mandating vaccinations).
Replacing fossil fuels with renewables and ESS's also sets us up for cheaper goods & power in the future, that is it makes economic sense to do anyway. Solar & Wind are already both dramatically cheaper than any fuel source, the hold-up from a normal capitalism take-over by them is ESSs are required for stable supply and they have been too expensive unless you lived in an area with special geological features (e.g., hydro, compressed air are both cheap). Fortunately, ESSes are falling drastically in price, and mass producing them will cause prices to fall to where stable renewables are cheaper than fuel-driven (doesn't solve the methane (see also
#247) or N2O
issues) though.
Even without reducing GHGs, we are technologically advanced to create a "nuclear winter" with thermonuclear devices that will
immediately start reducing the temperature. It doesn't fix the problem, just buys time. Good for windmills, bad for solar, does nothing about ocean acidification. But, inbetween those two solutions are a lot of other ones somewhat less drastic. My guess is we won't get as serious as we need to now, and it'll cost more to fix in the end because of it. We'll probably also see a whole variety of solutions deployed.
Trying to fix the problem and making things worse seems like a real concern to me.
Doing nothing is bad too. Even if you don't others will and force you to action (e.g., drafted into the military).
q: How serious is it?
If human civilization is on the line and we can actually do something about it then we should get on with it.
If its a non-issue then no action is required.
Humans
might endure. As coastal cities are abandoned and farmlands can't produce war/famine/disease will rage across the world. This will reduce the population to where it would eventually be small enough or technologically incapable enough. I suspect survival depends on if we can avoid all-out nuclear war during the era.
But, if we just take action now for net-zero now, then it's not something to be overly worried about.
q: Is this most urgent and important issue that we face?
Let me reverse that, what issue is more important?
A world war would almost certainly take priority.
Some would say that climate change is already a world-wide war being waged. It seems obvious to me that climate change would destabilize countries making an escalating world war a certainty. But currently, no country is abandoning its military during the GHG reductions they've planned.
