@Sustainable2050@AarneGranlund@ClimateHuman Always Equity is ignored. But observing it serves national security bc it alleviates poverty -which slows down climate flight/migration.
Syrian war started bc of climate flight.
EU breaks up/goes fascist bc of Syrian climate war refugees.
EU Equity budget for 2˚is gone in 2027
@Sustainable2050@AarneGranlund@ClimateHuman Economists framed climate as discount topic with 0 socio-political foresight: Exodus from Levante & N-Africa really starts at ~1.5˚/2030. Maybe it can be slowed.
What'll happen w/ hundreds of mio of poor ppl affected by multiple climate risks at 2˚/2045?
Global destabilisation.
Poor ppl have nothing to fall back on when their home/cow/field/fish is gone. A bit more GHG for poor states can make them more resilient.
So Equity isn't a caritative option.
Observing Equity is a choice btw civilisation & barbarism
@MarvinTBaumann @ClimateDad77 I get your psych. thinking. But. Sit down and sketch a project plan with milestones and deadlines for keeping tech-civilisation afloat. Don't forget culture change toward solidarity: You'll find that only today's decision makers in econ & politics still ⏩
@MarvinTBaumann @ClimateDad77 can change our trajectory on time=in budget. With "today's decision makers" I really mean today's. So it doesn't matter a lot if non-decision-makers get depressed [by the truth]. It's not in their hands anymore, anyway. Covid saw to that. (That's how close we are to deadlines!)⏩
@MarvinTBaumann @ClimateDad77 On the other hand: realizing the truth in the big likelihood of a total crash soon frees up resources for also realizing what can be done today to help crash survivors. It's not the "end of the world" when tech-civilisation ends. People & rural communities can prepare but need⏩
Even renaissance societies relied on extraction, international trade and specialisation.
But rekindled societies after the collapse only have non-useful know-how at first, resulting in caveman-level of useful sophistication
– *and* again rely on fossil and wood fuel for even the most basic tasks.
I agree with Robert Harris' "Second Sleep" where only population outside metropolitan areas survive the famine and violence. How could we today help the survivors to rekindle a *sustainable* organisation?
Which cultures r likely to rekindle societal organisation beyond tribes? IMO non-urban S-America. How to bolster those future attempts today, paper knowledge caches? How to curate that knowledge for its likely usefulness? "When there's no pharma industry: medicine for dummies"...
The soft-sci troubadours sing about degrowth and doughnuts. Ballads of soft "transitions" to utopia. Risk awareness can't grow because these ballads are about a far-away time, not heeding the requirements of today's breeched planetary boundaries/budget.
I spent lotsa time deciphering the climate of the Pliocene or MIS11 and listening to ballads of "transitions" to utopia.
Assuming that this surely was what I need to know.
But neither physicists nor troubadours cover what would have raised my risk-awareness to reality-levels.
Intriguing.
A long drought prevailed AD 500ff in East Mediterranean & Arab Peninsula. Might've been in more regions but these I know of.
The 1st plague epidemic from rat fleas began in Kush/Egypt 541-549 and culled MENA & Europe.
Long droughts cause (death, war and) migration..
Did (the aftermath of) the drought fuel epidemic spread? Likely. Drought weakens states, workers flee, wars ensue, armies carry🪲everywhere.
Did Kush experience drought, too? Was the (onset of the) pandemic even caused by rats' or human behaviour that was influenced by drought?
What human or rat behaviour would trigger rat fleas to jump and infect humans?
I'd imagine you need lots of rats to increase the chances of a few infected fleas to jump. These rats need food and also be brave enough to run around in the immediate vicinity of humans.
Hm.
Intriguing is that Chile's citizens turned out to be the most risk-aware in this international Facebook survey. Of its 19mio citizens, 1094 took part in the survey and 60-70% know they'll be harmed personally by climate change.
This is the level of awareness we need!
The survey was conducted in Mar-Apr 2022, ~6 months after election and 1 month after inauguration of new left govt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Chil…
I don't know anything of the talking points during their election. The only thing I know is, they now have a cli-sci as new EP secretary.
It might be that election campaigns were based on climate by all candidates and that this has in turn heightened the climate-awareness and the so important risk-awareness so much so that 60-70% rightly assume personal harm from climate change.
2 more awareness-factors could be