Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 13, 2025, 17:53 (21 days ago) @ dhw

> > > dhw: I’m delighted that you agree with Musk that “climate change risk is real”, and that you acknowledge the damage being done by current practices, and are in favour of balanced measures to prevent further escalation. We both condemn silly exaggerations aimed at creating panic. We even agree that without international cooperation, the Paris Agreement is toothless, and I expect you too are dismayed by the obvious truths in Hossenfelder’s analysis. In fact our only disagreement here is on the role being played by Trump, who is now playing a central role in ensuring that Hossenfelder’s prophecy will come true.

DAVID: How real is the risk is still theoretical. My concept of it is much smaller than yours.

dhw: You have agreed with me and with Musk that the dangers are real, not “theoretical”! Pollution, deforesting etc. are happening now. You are proud of the steps being taken in your country to reduce carbon emissions. And we agree that there has to be a balanced approach. Dayenu!

DAVID:The actual climate reality:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/11/most-countries-miss-un-deadline-for-new-climate-...

"The nearly 200 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement faced a Monday deadline to submit new national climate plans to the U.N., setting out how they plan to cut emissions by 2035.
As of Monday morning, many of the world’s biggest polluters – including China, India and the European Union – had not done so.
“The public is entitled to expect a strong reaction from their governments to the fact that global warming has now reached 1.5 degrees Celsius for an entire year, but we have seen virtually nothing of real substance,” said Bill Hare, CEO of science and policy institute Climate Analytics.
As we know, some countries who have submitted new plans, such as Brazil and Mexico have actually reduced their ambitions.
It is yet more evidence that most of the world does not see climate change as a threat.

DAVID: once again I would remind: climate models are multifactorial estimates and not terribly accurate.

dhw: Thank you for this update, It would seem, then, that sadly Hossenfelder’s prophecy has already come true. But I question whether the reason is that countries don’t see climate change as a threat. Hossenfelder: "[…] most countries' net zero “plans” are empty words anyway. They’re economically unachievable. It’s only a matter of time until they’ll be abandoned and no amount of suing by climate activists is going to do anything about this. Because there is no institution on this planet that could enforce a law against billions of people unable or just unwilling to change their lifestyle. Unless the superintelligent AIs take over. Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad."

There is no need for me to repeat my bolded statements above regarding our many agreements. The message could hardly be clearer: although we can’t know the extent or the timing of future disasters, we do know the damage which is already being done. It is therefore only common sense that we reduce and ultimately eliminate these dangers as quickly as pragmatically possible. That means finding alternatives to current practices that will not create social and economic havoc. And that in turn requires money being poured into research. Only when viable alternatives to fossil fuels and current poisonous forms of transport and agriculture can be found will it be possible to make the necessary changes. The USA, China and Europe should be among the powers that lead the way, and eventually there will have to be cooperation between the ca. 200 nations. Discussions on how big and exactly when are totally unproductive, As regards Trump, I wish he would use his power to focus as much on current global environmental realities and the need for international action as he does on American self-interest. The latter is politically necessary, but should not be at the expense of the former.

***********************

Unfortunately, you have posted the same article twice, and have missed out on “New Miscellany”!

DAVID: I'll look back

dhw: Unfortunately, you have looked back at "New Miscellany" but omitted to reply to this post. Or could it be that you simply agree with everything I have said?

I agree with the fact that future climate is an issue to study. It is very multifactorial and the current predictive models are not correct. I follow the climate studies very closely. No alarm is needed.