If we fail
September 6, 2017 3:25 PM Subscribe
🎶 Traverse City! Traverse City, here I come! 🎶
Seriously, the Great Lakes will only get more hospitable. Lots of water, no rising sea levels, milder winters.
posted by leotrotsky at 3:41 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
Seriously, the Great Lakes will only get more hospitable. Lots of water, no rising sea levels, milder winters.
posted by leotrotsky at 3:41 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
Seriously, the Great Lakes will only get more hospitable. Lots of water, no rising sea levels, milder winters.
My partner and I very much took this into account when deciding whether to move back to Chicago from Southern California.
posted by hwyengr at 3:54 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
My partner and I very much took this into account when deciding whether to move back to Chicago from Southern California.
posted by hwyengr at 3:54 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
hwyengr, you are the first person I am personally aware of to actually say, "I'm moving north to escape climate change". Aside from you, I can see no mass exodus underway. Climate change has had no effect whatsoever on the real estate market in coastal areas. Why not?
Last week, a environmentalist friend of mine who lives in Austin, Texas was griping about how hellishly hot it is there in the summer, and I asked why he, or no one else from Texas, seems in any hurry to move to a cooler climate, given that we all know that climate change is coming. He looked at me like I was crazy. It was as if I'd asked a professed Christian why she doesn't give all her money to the poor.
If I lived in a low lying coastal area or in one of those hot-hot southern cities, I'd be buying a ticket to a Great Lakes town like Traverse City right now. But the population movement is overwhelmingly in the other direction (as it has been for the past 50 years). What's going on?
posted by Modest House at 4:20 PM on September 6, 2017 [16 favorites]
Last week, a environmentalist friend of mine who lives in Austin, Texas was griping about how hellishly hot it is there in the summer, and I asked why he, or no one else from Texas, seems in any hurry to move to a cooler climate, given that we all know that climate change is coming. He looked at me like I was crazy. It was as if I'd asked a professed Christian why she doesn't give all her money to the poor.
If I lived in a low lying coastal area or in one of those hot-hot southern cities, I'd be buying a ticket to a Great Lakes town like Traverse City right now. But the population movement is overwhelmingly in the other direction (as it has been for the past 50 years). What's going on?
posted by Modest House at 4:20 PM on September 6, 2017 [16 favorites]
Climate change has had no effect whatsoever on the real estate market in coastal areas. Why not?
Everyone trying desperately hard not to think about it/ hoping it won't be as bad as all that. Human nature, mostly. And it's not like I don;t do the same myself, I don;t want to send my time thinking about a world that is unlivable for my children, especially not now the US has taken such a hard turn against doing anything about it.
posted by Artw at 4:25 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
Everyone trying desperately hard not to think about it/ hoping it won't be as bad as all that. Human nature, mostly. And it's not like I don;t do the same myself, I don;t want to send my time thinking about a world that is unlivable for my children, especially not now the US has taken such a hard turn against doing anything about it.
posted by Artw at 4:25 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
What's going on? There are no jobs there and people's short and medium-term economic prospects will trump what might happen in 50 years, every time.
posted by Automocar at 4:26 PM on September 6, 2017 [28 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 4:26 PM on September 6, 2017 [28 favorites]
We’ve seen that pattern in the Rust Belt: for much of the 1990s St. Louis’s top export was old bricks bound for the booming Sunbelt where its rubble was repurposed as patios bought on credit.
Aha, so that's where they're sending all the bricks scavengers tear out of the city's vacant and increasingly unstable housing stock, while rich landowners lobby for tax breaks and sales opportunities for their gigantic untended urban swaths. Great.
What will happen in Dhaka, Lagos, Karachi, or Rio? All are megacities situated on flat terrain close to sea level in countries already in crisis, legendary for corruption and poor planning.
I've got a friend who's teaching in Dhaka with her husband and their son. Maybe this is the best opportunity they'll ever get to live there. Similarly, this all makes me wonder whether it would be worth it to move back to New York City and live there for a few years, before its character changes dramatically with coming sea-level rise. See also. Timing this is hard, of course.
I own a house in St. Louis, so naturally I would keep that in the meantime—it looks like with the coming encroachment of the Great American Desert, we come out OK in terms of flooding, and the drought impact within my lifetime is projected to be marginally less bad here.
Anyway, I most definitely did some research on this before I bought my house. I grew up here and saw firsthand the impact of the Great Flood of 1993, so flood research is necessary before buying real estate, as far as I'm concerned. But see above for why I would move to a coast for a time—it would be nice to get to experience that life before it's gone or dramatically changed forever. hwyengr is far from the only person I've seen saying similar things—I just saw a friend discussing earlier how all the wildfires and other climate change–related disasters are making him rethink moving out of Minnesota.
Unfortunately, the masses are trying as hard as possible to avoid thinking about this, to the detriment of all of us.
posted by limeonaire at 4:33 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
Aha, so that's where they're sending all the bricks scavengers tear out of the city's vacant and increasingly unstable housing stock, while rich landowners lobby for tax breaks and sales opportunities for their gigantic untended urban swaths. Great.
What will happen in Dhaka, Lagos, Karachi, or Rio? All are megacities situated on flat terrain close to sea level in countries already in crisis, legendary for corruption and poor planning.
I've got a friend who's teaching in Dhaka with her husband and their son. Maybe this is the best opportunity they'll ever get to live there. Similarly, this all makes me wonder whether it would be worth it to move back to New York City and live there for a few years, before its character changes dramatically with coming sea-level rise. See also. Timing this is hard, of course.
I own a house in St. Louis, so naturally I would keep that in the meantime—it looks like with the coming encroachment of the Great American Desert, we come out OK in terms of flooding, and the drought impact within my lifetime is projected to be marginally less bad here.
Anyway, I most definitely did some research on this before I bought my house. I grew up here and saw firsthand the impact of the Great Flood of 1993, so flood research is necessary before buying real estate, as far as I'm concerned. But see above for why I would move to a coast for a time—it would be nice to get to experience that life before it's gone or dramatically changed forever. hwyengr is far from the only person I've seen saying similar things—I just saw a friend discussing earlier how all the wildfires and other climate change–related disasters are making him rethink moving out of Minnesota.
Unfortunately, the masses are trying as hard as possible to avoid thinking about this, to the detriment of all of us.
posted by limeonaire at 4:33 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
There is no rush to move to the Great Lakes because at the moment people are confident that their coastal properties will be protected and/or rebuilt when the next storm hits. Once that stops happening, or stops happening to the homes of the upper middle class then you'll see large migrations.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:36 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:36 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
I definitely am not the only former Californian I know in the Seattle area who moved here in part because of climate change. After the big drought a few years back when we didn't really have a winter in LA, I was done. It scared the heck out of me. If you don't think this is informing the building boom in Seattle right now you're not paying attention.
posted by potrzebie at 4:37 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by potrzebie at 4:37 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Automocar, I see your point. But there actually are jobs and housing and a wonderful lifestyle available in northern cities -- maybe not as much as in Atlanta or Austin, but enough jobs to provide for a few hundred thousand work-ready individuals. I mean, you'd think that with the immensity of the coming crisis, there would be some tiny trickle of people moving north. But the southward hegira continues to swell, and shows no sign of reversing itself.
posted by Modest House at 4:39 PM on September 6, 2017
posted by Modest House at 4:39 PM on September 6, 2017
Here is a very nice infographic of the article: one side of what it will take, and the other side of what happens if we fail. I do not think that the modern world currently has the political will for what it will take, and I think that we are already experiencing what that failure looks like. I am not an optimist, and do not have high hopes for the future of my nephew, or the children of my friends.
posted by codacorolla at 4:41 PM on September 6, 2017 [13 favorites]
posted by codacorolla at 4:41 PM on September 6, 2017 [13 favorites]
TBH If I think about it too hard I see no future at all as we're demonstrably too stupid to steer out of this. If the worst is true or even a fraction of the worst we're going to be living in a nightmare world soon enough.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on September 6, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on September 6, 2017 [10 favorites]
Climate breakdown. The new term: climate breakdown.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:43 PM on September 6, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:43 PM on September 6, 2017 [6 favorites]
Seattle
Heh. Our sky is made of smoke right now.
posted by Artw at 4:44 PM on September 6, 2017 [10 favorites]
Heh. Our sky is made of smoke right now.
posted by Artw at 4:44 PM on September 6, 2017 [10 favorites]
I am generally a techno-optimist when it comes to climate change. This is partly because giving in to despair doesn't help (yes things are bad, we might all die, that would suck), but mostly because in a complex system on the scale of the global economy there can be tipping points where change starts very slowly and then becomes inconceivably fast.
This could easily be the case for electric vehicles. Imagine that through government pressure and lots of Teslas, 10% of the fleet has gone electric and the percentage is growing at a slow but steady rate every year as car manufacturers ramp up. This is a terrible time to own a gas station, used car lot, or oil change shop! The support industry around fossil cars, faced with relentless negative growth, will be forced to consolidate and contract (or adapt, but electric vehicles are more of a different beast than people realize). Suddenly, it's a little less convenient to own a fossil car and the resale values start looking uncertain. A few cycles of this dynamic reinforcing itself can be powerful.
Renewable power generation could have similar tipping-point dynamics as it gets cheaper. Really the biggest problem, which the article touches on, is that carbon sequestration is a complete profit sink and has to happen on such a ludicrously large scale that the economics of who is going to pay for it are problematic even once the technical problems of scaling it up are solved. Jacobin, being Jacobin, phrases the issue as "Clearly the private sector and the profit motive cannot deploy enhanced weathering technology at the scale needed" but I think that's a lesser problem compared to which countries will pay and how much, which a nativist/nationalist backlash to millions of climate refugees will only make more difficult.
posted by allegedly at 4:48 PM on September 6, 2017 [6 favorites]
This could easily be the case for electric vehicles. Imagine that through government pressure and lots of Teslas, 10% of the fleet has gone electric and the percentage is growing at a slow but steady rate every year as car manufacturers ramp up. This is a terrible time to own a gas station, used car lot, or oil change shop! The support industry around fossil cars, faced with relentless negative growth, will be forced to consolidate and contract (or adapt, but electric vehicles are more of a different beast than people realize). Suddenly, it's a little less convenient to own a fossil car and the resale values start looking uncertain. A few cycles of this dynamic reinforcing itself can be powerful.
Renewable power generation could have similar tipping-point dynamics as it gets cheaper. Really the biggest problem, which the article touches on, is that carbon sequestration is a complete profit sink and has to happen on such a ludicrously large scale that the economics of who is going to pay for it are problematic even once the technical problems of scaling it up are solved. Jacobin, being Jacobin, phrases the issue as "Clearly the private sector and the profit motive cannot deploy enhanced weathering technology at the scale needed" but I think that's a lesser problem compared to which countries will pay and how much, which a nativist/nationalist backlash to millions of climate refugees will only make more difficult.
posted by allegedly at 4:48 PM on September 6, 2017 [6 favorites]
One nit-pick with the article... Solar power is not infinite, it's about 1kw/meter^2. Enough to do things with, while the sun is shining.... storage is the problem.... it appears there are some all carbon supercapacitors on the horizon, that might be cheap and big enough, and available in time to do the job.
posted by MikeWarot at 4:55 PM on September 6, 2017
posted by MikeWarot at 4:55 PM on September 6, 2017
It blew my mind to see Red Hook, ravaged by Sandy, suddenly become a super hot place to live with high property values. Like, are people really that stupid?
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:57 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:57 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
grumpybear 69 -- see my point? These are probably smart, well-informed people who are betting good money that you and I are all wrong about climate change. It's not that they're stupid and we're smart. There's something else going on here.
posted by Modest House at 5:00 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 5:00 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's the super hot property values post disaster that indicate people aren't as stupid as you think. There was a reason folks wanted to live there in the first place
posted by zeoslap at 5:03 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by zeoslap at 5:03 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Time horizons matter. Also there's so much money tied up in New York that they'll just spend to fix it.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:05 PM on September 6, 2017
posted by leotrotsky at 5:05 PM on September 6, 2017
Modest House: I live near Seattle, which means that at some point my house will be destroyed by an earthquake and I will be killed. And yet I live here, because my family is here and I like the climate (other than the ash falling from the sky today) and the job opportunities, etc. Finding a new place to live with all the things I like, no earthquake threat, no volcanos, no tornados, no climate change issues... well, if you know one, do speak up.
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:06 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:06 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
There are smart, well-informed people who are betting good money that they can get out of the market before the peak and make a profit while leaving someone else holding the bag. Given the uncertain, decades-long path ahead, that's not a bad bet.
posted by allegedly at 5:06 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by allegedly at 5:06 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
There's something else going on here.
There isn't, though. Humans are short-sighted and make poor decisions all the time. It doesn't make them stupid. It makes them human.
posted by Automocar at 5:36 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
There isn't, though. Humans are short-sighted and make poor decisions all the time. It doesn't make them stupid. It makes them human.
posted by Automocar at 5:36 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
Or, if you want to insist on human rationality, we just have really really high discount rates.
posted by nickmark at 5:56 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by nickmark at 5:56 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think people allow themselves to be deluded by things like the fallacious phrase "hundred-year flood." They think, "Sandy was an anomaly, and won't happen again for a long time, if ever."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:11 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:11 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
Climate change has had no effect whatsoever on the real estate market in coastal areas. Why not?
Denial is a powerful thing, especially if you've just sunk a million-plus into a Miami Beach condo.
posted by Daily Alice at 6:34 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Denial is a powerful thing, especially if you've just sunk a million-plus into a Miami Beach condo.
posted by Daily Alice at 6:34 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
My plan is to buy real estate in Humboldt or Del Norte Counties in the next couple of years; soon it'll be wine country.
posted by notyou at 7:15 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by notyou at 7:15 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
(We recently sold our home in Long Beach, CA, which was in the highest risk NFIP flood zone; the escalating flood insurance premiums and the prospect of more frequent inundation were factors in the decision.)
posted by notyou at 7:19 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by notyou at 7:19 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
One nit-pick with the article... Solar power is not infinite, it's about 1kw/meter^2. Enough to do things with, while the sun is shining.... storage is the problem....
Solar might as well be infinite, though. Current utility scale costs are less than 3 cents per kwh. In Australia, I pay over 40 cents per kwh for electricity, and of that amount something like 12 cents is for distribution grid infrastructure. It's projected that within a few years (like in 2020?) home rooftop solar unit covering just 1/3 of your roof area will drop a bit further and be around 4 cents per kwh, and if you include battery costs that store a day's usage, you end up at around 7 cents per kwh - which is still cheaper than transmission costs alone! Even if scientists discovered a free unlimited and infinite source of energy it would still cost more than your home solar if it has to run through the grid.
posted by xdvesper at 7:35 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
Solar might as well be infinite, though. Current utility scale costs are less than 3 cents per kwh. In Australia, I pay over 40 cents per kwh for electricity, and of that amount something like 12 cents is for distribution grid infrastructure. It's projected that within a few years (like in 2020?) home rooftop solar unit covering just 1/3 of your roof area will drop a bit further and be around 4 cents per kwh, and if you include battery costs that store a day's usage, you end up at around 7 cents per kwh - which is still cheaper than transmission costs alone! Even if scientists discovered a free unlimited and infinite source of energy it would still cost more than your home solar if it has to run through the grid.
posted by xdvesper at 7:35 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
you are the first person I am personally aware of to actually say, "I'm moving north to escape climate change". Aside from you, I can see no mass exodus underway. Climate change has had no effect whatsoever on the real estate market in coastal areas. Why not?
and
There is no rush to move to the Great Lakes because at the moment people are confident that their coastal properties will be protected and/or rebuilt when the next storm hits.
I can assure that in my (admittedly fairly social justice oriented) friends in southwest Ohio, this is a very active topic of discussion - buying property while it's still possible, keeping the lights on for family and friends who live in more vulnerable parts of the country. Lots of folks who are in their 20s or 30s who have either recently moved back to the Midwest or are thinking about it have this knocking around in their brain, even if they rarely voice it.
Climate gentrification is already a thing. New Yorkers are already buying vacation property in Traverse City. When I lived in New Orleans, rich folks joked about how their inland vacation homes and evacuation layovers might eventually become their permanent homes. What makes y'all think this won't accelerate in just a couple years, especially if NFIP isn't improved, or infrastructure programs aren't approved?
posted by mostly vowels at 7:51 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
and
There is no rush to move to the Great Lakes because at the moment people are confident that their coastal properties will be protected and/or rebuilt when the next storm hits.
I can assure that in my (admittedly fairly social justice oriented) friends in southwest Ohio, this is a very active topic of discussion - buying property while it's still possible, keeping the lights on for family and friends who live in more vulnerable parts of the country. Lots of folks who are in their 20s or 30s who have either recently moved back to the Midwest or are thinking about it have this knocking around in their brain, even if they rarely voice it.
Climate gentrification is already a thing. New Yorkers are already buying vacation property in Traverse City. When I lived in New Orleans, rich folks joked about how their inland vacation homes and evacuation layovers might eventually become their permanent homes. What makes y'all think this won't accelerate in just a couple years, especially if NFIP isn't improved, or infrastructure programs aren't approved?
posted by mostly vowels at 7:51 PM on September 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
I definitely am not the only former Californian I know in the Seattle area who moved here in part because of climate change.
I moved from Southern California to Seattle nine years ago in part because of climate change.
posted by Slothrup at 8:07 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I moved from Southern California to Seattle nine years ago in part because of climate change.
posted by Slothrup at 8:07 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Seriously, the Great Lakes will only get more hospitable. Lots of water, no rising sea levels, milder winters.
But isn't the whole thing about climate change that the effect of global warming is global weirding? More floods, more droughts and presumably more lake-effect snow.
Climate change has had no effect whatsoever on the real estate market in coastal areas. Why not?
Agree with all the people who say human beings are generally irrational, don't believe bad things will happen to them, etc etc
Corporations are irrational too (the one way in which they are like people), but face more imminent threats/opportunities from global warming, and plenty of them (insurance corporations, consulting firms, shipping companies, investors) are absolutely making financial decisions aimed at mitigating loss/maximizing profit from climate change.
There's a reason Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is one of the few members of Trump's cabinet who is on the record about believing climate change is real. It's because he's the ex-CEO of Exxon, and they have "a joint venture with Russian state-controlled oil giant Rosneft to explore and produce fossil fuels in Arctic waters " which "represents a big part of Exxon's potential future production growth" and is partly predicated on the assumption of ongoing Arctic thawing.
posted by mrmurbles at 8:15 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
But isn't the whole thing about climate change that the effect of global warming is global weirding? More floods, more droughts and presumably more lake-effect snow.
Climate change has had no effect whatsoever on the real estate market in coastal areas. Why not?
Agree with all the people who say human beings are generally irrational, don't believe bad things will happen to them, etc etc
Corporations are irrational too (the one way in which they are like people), but face more imminent threats/opportunities from global warming, and plenty of them (insurance corporations, consulting firms, shipping companies, investors) are absolutely making financial decisions aimed at mitigating loss/maximizing profit from climate change.
There's a reason Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is one of the few members of Trump's cabinet who is on the record about believing climate change is real. It's because he's the ex-CEO of Exxon, and they have "a joint venture with Russian state-controlled oil giant Rosneft to explore and produce fossil fuels in Arctic waters " which "represents a big part of Exxon's potential future production growth" and is partly predicated on the assumption of ongoing Arctic thawing.
posted by mrmurbles at 8:15 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
I moved from Southern California to Seattle nine years ago in part because of climate change.
My first thought when hearing about the wildfires was that climate change is already having effects in the places I assumed would be less impacted--at least initially--like the Pacific Northwest. While some places may be relatively better off, nowhere is immune. The Bay Area was also supposed to be relatively better than other places, and we just lived through a record-breaking heat wave. And this is only 2017.
posted by pinochiette at 8:19 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
My first thought when hearing about the wildfires was that climate change is already having effects in the places I assumed would be less impacted--at least initially--like the Pacific Northwest. While some places may be relatively better off, nowhere is immune. The Bay Area was also supposed to be relatively better than other places, and we just lived through a record-breaking heat wave. And this is only 2017.
posted by pinochiette at 8:19 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
This is basically the 4th year in a row where the PNW has burned down. I think there have been fires about 8 of the 13 years we've lived here, although most of them are a long way from Spokane. However, our air was at 325 on the air quality scale yesterday, which is pretty disgusting and bad for everyone.
posted by hippybear at 8:22 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 8:22 PM on September 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Fwiw, I don't think I'm some genius or anything, nowhere is really "safe" especially in our deeply connected world. But, there are clearly more critically-at-risk areas (coasts, areas with little potable water) and moving *away* from those is in your long-term interest.
Oh sure, I guess I just associate the Great Lakes with heavy snowfall, and was thinking the sweet spot was more southern Missouri/Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee etc.
But I agree, there's no guaranteed safe bet, and some regions are obviously worse bets than others.
posted by mrmurbles at 8:27 PM on September 6, 2017
Oh sure, I guess I just associate the Great Lakes with heavy snowfall, and was thinking the sweet spot was more southern Missouri/Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee etc.
But I agree, there's no guaranteed safe bet, and some regions are obviously worse bets than others.
posted by mrmurbles at 8:27 PM on September 6, 2017
I won't say that we moved from NM/AZ to OR/WA is because of climate change. But now that we're here, it seems to be a good place to be.
I mean, there's water here! Flowing on top of the ground! It's astonishing!
posted by hippybear at 8:56 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I mean, there's water here! Flowing on top of the ground! It's astonishing!
posted by hippybear at 8:56 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm not moving to Brisbane, Australia because of climate change, and I haven't bought potential retirement property on the south coast of New South Wales for the same reason. Looks like we're holed up at 577m above sea level, 122km from the sea, hoping global warming gives us warmer winters and more precipitation rather than blazing summers and drought.
This is classic Canberra bubble thinking, though, thinking only about our own local climate. If the coastal capitals go down, we all go down, no matter where we are.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:13 PM on September 6, 2017 [6 favorites]
This is classic Canberra bubble thinking, though, thinking only about our own local climate. If the coastal capitals go down, we all go down, no matter where we are.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:13 PM on September 6, 2017 [6 favorites]
Oh look, I found a map of everything burning in a giant circle right around Spokane.
Air quality is expected to go over the 300 and maybe close to the 400 range tomorrow. Elementary kids are being kept indoors all day and not being allowed to walk home. Half the people I see out and about are wearing at least bandanas if not actual masks.
If this is the new normal at least at some point there's nothing left to burn. (Also, morels grow in burn-out areas. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.)
posted by hippybear at 9:28 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Air quality is expected to go over the 300 and maybe close to the 400 range tomorrow. Elementary kids are being kept indoors all day and not being allowed to walk home. Half the people I see out and about are wearing at least bandanas if not actual masks.
If this is the new normal at least at some point there's nothing left to burn. (Also, morels grow in burn-out areas. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.)
posted by hippybear at 9:28 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Heck, I'm looking at moving TO Houston even after the storm because I've got a potential job offer there and I figure there's way too much oil and gas money tied up and way too many oligarchs in the 4th largest city in the country for it to get the post-Katrina New Orleans treatment.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 9:31 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 9:31 PM on September 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
grumpybear 69 -- see my point? These are probably smart, well-informed people who are betting good money that you and I are all wrong about climate change. It's not that they're stupid and we're smart. There's something else going on here.
Again, time scale. With the exception of things such as IRAs and college funds, thinking in advance of 10 years personally is idiotic. Especially if you don't have kids.
In my case, I'm 53. I've got at most 20 more years left to live, and I've gt a government job that I can hold until I die. I'm in a secure area of California, outside of any flood or fire zone. I have numerous friends in the area. Please tell me why the hell I would throw that all away and spend the huge amount of money it would take to go live among strangers in Chicago.
I do know people who are moving north, but it isn't to northern cities- it's to Canada. Three guesses why. Again, time scales. Worrying about fifty years in the future is nonsensical when you're worried about surviving next year.
posted by happyroach at 10:33 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
Again, time scale. With the exception of things such as IRAs and college funds, thinking in advance of 10 years personally is idiotic. Especially if you don't have kids.
In my case, I'm 53. I've got at most 20 more years left to live, and I've gt a government job that I can hold until I die. I'm in a secure area of California, outside of any flood or fire zone. I have numerous friends in the area. Please tell me why the hell I would throw that all away and spend the huge amount of money it would take to go live among strangers in Chicago.
I do know people who are moving north, but it isn't to northern cities- it's to Canada. Three guesses why. Again, time scales. Worrying about fifty years in the future is nonsensical when you're worried about surviving next year.
posted by happyroach at 10:33 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
The truest picture of what the future will look like is that photo from the Oregon wildfires featuring a bunch of assholes golfing while a massive wildfire rages in the background.
Only thing missing is the rich assholes' security forces stealing water from people at gunpoint.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:39 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Only thing missing is the rich assholes' security forces stealing water from people at gunpoint.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:39 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Why are most of the comments in this thread about moving to escape climate change? The people most affected by climate change are people who cannot afford to move. Surely you must realize that.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:43 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:43 PM on September 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's more just a conversation, not really anything with an agenda. Someone brought it up, it got discussed. Perhaps now people will discuss the point you are making.
posted by hippybear at 10:44 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 10:44 PM on September 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Here's a simple chart of where your kids should move: costs of climate change.
Related.
posted by notyou at 10:59 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
Related.
posted by notyou at 10:59 PM on September 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
data point: I moved from NJ to PNW 2 years ago because of climate change;
N.B. finding a 'good place' to survive a changing climate is a non-trivial exercise in predicting not just climate but economics, agriculture, political stability and the choices of others.
Why move at all? Because our collective institutions and movements failed to act in the early-mid 2000s when we could have collectively made a radical infrastructual change that would take20 years to fully implement and would keep us at 'only very bad' levels of food system disruption.
I argue with tech-optimists all the time: unless you are building a time-machine, no EVs and carbon capture or fusion or synthetic photosynthesis etc can be implemented fast enough to overcome the lag and momentum we've baked in. there are no non-catestrophic emissions pathways left.
people with resources should use them to create what can survive, and rescue as many of those without the resources as possible. Only some choose to golf instead.
the time for waiting for a patent or a national policy is long past. We are in the the twilight: passed no return, but before the darkest hours.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 11:05 PM on September 6, 2017 [11 favorites]
N.B. finding a 'good place' to survive a changing climate is a non-trivial exercise in predicting not just climate but economics, agriculture, political stability and the choices of others.
Why move at all? Because our collective institutions and movements failed to act in the early-mid 2000s when we could have collectively made a radical infrastructual change that would take20 years to fully implement and would keep us at 'only very bad' levels of food system disruption.
I argue with tech-optimists all the time: unless you are building a time-machine, no EVs and carbon capture or fusion or synthetic photosynthesis etc can be implemented fast enough to overcome the lag and momentum we've baked in. there are no non-catestrophic emissions pathways left.
people with resources should use them to create what can survive, and rescue as many of those without the resources as possible. Only some choose to golf instead.
the time for waiting for a patent or a national policy is long past. We are in the the twilight: passed no return, but before the darkest hours.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 11:05 PM on September 6, 2017 [11 favorites]
I argue with tech-optimists all the time: unless you are building a time-machine, no EVs and carbon capture or fusion or synthetic photosynthesis etc can be implemented fast enough to overcome the lag and momentum we've baked in
Climate Change Commitment
posted by hippybear at 11:10 PM on September 6, 2017
Climate Change Commitment
posted by hippybear at 11:10 PM on September 6, 2017
Seriously, the Great Lakes will only get more hospitable. Lots of water, no rising sea levels, milder winters.
This $2900 Detroit fixer-upper might be looking like a real sweet deal by 2037.
posted by fairmettle at 11:12 PM on September 6, 2017
This $2900 Detroit fixer-upper might be looking like a real sweet deal by 2037.
posted by fairmettle at 11:12 PM on September 6, 2017
to address splitpeasoup's point. I think it is cheaper and more practical to move to high ground than to build sea walls, to reoccupy old inland and north cities than to farm deserts. It's cheaper and easier and more effective to avoid having any additional kids than to buy a tesla or a chevy volt. At every stage of this emergency we make choices about what makes things better or worse for ourselves personally and for ourselves collectively. Those noble souls buying Florida realty are freeing up spots for young forward looking people to live in more affordable and sustainable places like pittsburgh. Let skeptics and those with fewer years left buy the lowground and the desert, less competition for the verdant north.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 1:29 AM on September 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 1:29 AM on September 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
This thread is weird as hell. There is all this confusion over why people aren't moving north, and meanwhile I'm wondering what someone does for a living that allows them to up and move 1000 miles. I feel totally outclassed.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:50 AM on September 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:50 AM on September 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
On climate change and human futilitarianism. (I see on a search that this link has been posted in the latest 45 thread, but it's particularly relevant here.)
posted by rory at 2:34 AM on September 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by rory at 2:34 AM on September 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
" meanwhile I'm wondering what someone does for a living that allows them to up and move 1000 miles. I feel totally outclassed."
Back in the 1980s, My dad had a boss who moved to Dallas from the Chicago area, my Dad followed him, and he was a welder/fitter. Eventually he decided he didn't like it, and moved back. That's one way to move 1000 miles. I'm sure there are many others. Explore your social network, surely some of your friends and acquaintances have moved in the last 10 years, and might like a visit. Use that to scope out the area, and decide if you like it.
posted by MikeWarot at 4:13 AM on September 7, 2017
Back in the 1980s, My dad had a boss who moved to Dallas from the Chicago area, my Dad followed him, and he was a welder/fitter. Eventually he decided he didn't like it, and moved back. That's one way to move 1000 miles. I'm sure there are many others. Explore your social network, surely some of your friends and acquaintances have moved in the last 10 years, and might like a visit. Use that to scope out the area, and decide if you like it.
posted by MikeWarot at 4:13 AM on September 7, 2017
Solar power is not infinite, it's about 1kw/meter^2. Enough to do things with, while the sun is shining.... storage is the problem....
Quite a lot of the thinking around this, as Amory Lovins has been consistently pointing out since the 1970s, is looking at the wrong part of the problem from the wrong angle. We shouldn't be limiting energy system designs to those that attempt to provide drop-in replacements for existing elements of our present large-scale on-tap centralized generators and grid distribution; we should always start by focusing on what kinds of end uses energy provides, and where, and for how long, and to whom.
For example: it's quite remarkable just how much centrally-generated, grid-supplied electricity currently gets turned into heat at temperatures below 100°C, or gets employed for removal of such heat, in order to regulate indoor air temperatures across seasons. But heat at temperatures below 100°C is really cheap to store, requiring mainly thermal mass and insulation.
So as well as working on designs that let us store electricity for grid distribution in order to continue to rely on ubiquitous energy-guzzling domestic heat pumps, perhaps we could also be exploring the economics of solutions like seasonal temperature regulation based on thermal mass, perhaps with neighbourhood-scale components to allow easier retrofits to existing building stock. Moving heat around on a seasonal timescale can be done with almost complete insensitivity to the precise timing of energy availability.
On a daily timescale, it's already possible to take advantage of cheap overnight electricity by freezing a couple of large plastic bottles of water overnight, then moving those into the fridge compartment during the day. It should not be beyond the wit of humanity to build fridges that have that kind of thermal storage designed in, and respond in real time to signals reflecting minute-by-minute information about energy availability, whether derived from an insolation meter on your roof or price signals from the grid.
Another clear example where the storage problem essentially solves itself is providing charge for electric cars. The storage is built into the vehicles, so as long as the average amount of solar or wind energy available in any given region is a reasonable match for the demands of the vehicles operating in it, the exact times at which that energy gets supplied starts to matter a whole lot less.
Resilience in the face of supply vagaries is certainly a desirable property of a gridded energy system and in fact a key reason for designing one, but it's also a property that in many cases can make more sense to push out more into the end uses. This is even more true in regions that haven't already made the huge existing investments in large-scale centralized generators and grids so common in the industrialized world.
Also ignored in much of the discussion about the presumed inability of intermittent sources like solar and wind to provide "baseload" generation is that our present systems already support far more baseload than we actually need, as evidenced by the existence of economic arrangements like overnight off-peak discounts built into the supply system. These exist to encourage energy consumers to shift consumption patterns to fit the cheapest ways to run large-scale thermal generation plant, which tends to cost a lot to ramp up and down.
As long as overall energy availability remains adequate and predictable - as even weather-derived generator designs can already guarantee - we could easily get by with occasional supply minima far lower than the present arrangements provide.
posted by flabdablet at 6:35 AM on September 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Quite a lot of the thinking around this, as Amory Lovins has been consistently pointing out since the 1970s, is looking at the wrong part of the problem from the wrong angle. We shouldn't be limiting energy system designs to those that attempt to provide drop-in replacements for existing elements of our present large-scale on-tap centralized generators and grid distribution; we should always start by focusing on what kinds of end uses energy provides, and where, and for how long, and to whom.
For example: it's quite remarkable just how much centrally-generated, grid-supplied electricity currently gets turned into heat at temperatures below 100°C, or gets employed for removal of such heat, in order to regulate indoor air temperatures across seasons. But heat at temperatures below 100°C is really cheap to store, requiring mainly thermal mass and insulation.
So as well as working on designs that let us store electricity for grid distribution in order to continue to rely on ubiquitous energy-guzzling domestic heat pumps, perhaps we could also be exploring the economics of solutions like seasonal temperature regulation based on thermal mass, perhaps with neighbourhood-scale components to allow easier retrofits to existing building stock. Moving heat around on a seasonal timescale can be done with almost complete insensitivity to the precise timing of energy availability.
On a daily timescale, it's already possible to take advantage of cheap overnight electricity by freezing a couple of large plastic bottles of water overnight, then moving those into the fridge compartment during the day. It should not be beyond the wit of humanity to build fridges that have that kind of thermal storage designed in, and respond in real time to signals reflecting minute-by-minute information about energy availability, whether derived from an insolation meter on your roof or price signals from the grid.
Another clear example where the storage problem essentially solves itself is providing charge for electric cars. The storage is built into the vehicles, so as long as the average amount of solar or wind energy available in any given region is a reasonable match for the demands of the vehicles operating in it, the exact times at which that energy gets supplied starts to matter a whole lot less.
Resilience in the face of supply vagaries is certainly a desirable property of a gridded energy system and in fact a key reason for designing one, but it's also a property that in many cases can make more sense to push out more into the end uses. This is even more true in regions that haven't already made the huge existing investments in large-scale centralized generators and grids so common in the industrialized world.
Also ignored in much of the discussion about the presumed inability of intermittent sources like solar and wind to provide "baseload" generation is that our present systems already support far more baseload than we actually need, as evidenced by the existence of economic arrangements like overnight off-peak discounts built into the supply system. These exist to encourage energy consumers to shift consumption patterns to fit the cheapest ways to run large-scale thermal generation plant, which tends to cost a lot to ramp up and down.
As long as overall energy availability remains adequate and predictable - as even weather-derived generator designs can already guarantee - we could easily get by with occasional supply minima far lower than the present arrangements provide.
posted by flabdablet at 6:35 AM on September 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Oh sure, I guess I just associate the Great Lakes with heavy snowfall
I have lived i Chicago a decade now, and weather has become mild. I think we only had a couple snowfalls last winter that led to more than an inch or two. The temps rarely dropped below 30. And this summer? Also mild - the weather rarely rose above the low 80's. It's weird, because on the one hand I think to how much it used to snow and how hot the summers were a decade ago, and how much I am enjoying this weather that seems to be our new norm....and on the other hand I know it's not a good thing that we are enjoying this new, milder climate.
posted by Windigo at 8:03 AM on September 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I have lived i Chicago a decade now, and weather has become mild. I think we only had a couple snowfalls last winter that led to more than an inch or two. The temps rarely dropped below 30. And this summer? Also mild - the weather rarely rose above the low 80's. It's weird, because on the one hand I think to how much it used to snow and how hot the summers were a decade ago, and how much I am enjoying this weather that seems to be our new norm....and on the other hand I know it's not a good thing that we are enjoying this new, milder climate.
posted by Windigo at 8:03 AM on September 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
There's so much we don't know about what's going to happen as a consequence of all the carbon we've unleashed on the atmosphere in the past two centuries. What happens when all the arctic sea ice melts? What will the isostatic rebound effects from glacier loss do to global vulcanism? Will the methane deposits in the East Siberian Sea let loose all at once, or little by little? What diseases are lurking in the deep permafrost, and how will they affect modern man? Will permafrost degradation trigger tsunamis in the Arctic? How resilient is modern agriculture in the face of a wave of extinctions?
But here's the one that gets me. We don't know what effects the elevated levels of CO2 that we're due for will have on human physiology.
We know a bit about it. We've got experiments from the Navy in the 1970s on healthy sailors over periods of weeks. We know that human cognition is measurably impacted by CO2 at remarkably low levels. It may cause anxiety, or possibly obesity But we don't actually know how the human body will respond when 800ppm is the average level of CO2 we're exposed to constantly, for life.
Humanity evolved in an atmosphere that hovered pretty close to 280ppm for tens of millions of years. We're looking at tripling that within centuries. I think we're already starting to be unhealthy as a species as a result, and I think it's only going to get worse.
If you were pregnant, or the partner of someone who was, how would you feel about gestating the infant in an atmosphere at 1000ppm CO2? Would you be certain that wouldn't affect the development of the infant, or the health of the mother? Every single pregnancy is going to take place in that atmosphere within the century; surely it'd be worth running a few multigenerational lab rat experiments to see what kind of problems we might anticipate.
It's appalling to me that more research hasn't been done into the health effects of the atmosphere that we're in the process of creating.
posted by MrVisible at 8:17 AM on September 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
But here's the one that gets me. We don't know what effects the elevated levels of CO2 that we're due for will have on human physiology.
We know a bit about it. We've got experiments from the Navy in the 1970s on healthy sailors over periods of weeks. We know that human cognition is measurably impacted by CO2 at remarkably low levels. It may cause anxiety, or possibly obesity But we don't actually know how the human body will respond when 800ppm is the average level of CO2 we're exposed to constantly, for life.
Humanity evolved in an atmosphere that hovered pretty close to 280ppm for tens of millions of years. We're looking at tripling that within centuries. I think we're already starting to be unhealthy as a species as a result, and I think it's only going to get worse.
If you were pregnant, or the partner of someone who was, how would you feel about gestating the infant in an atmosphere at 1000ppm CO2? Would you be certain that wouldn't affect the development of the infant, or the health of the mother? Every single pregnancy is going to take place in that atmosphere within the century; surely it'd be worth running a few multigenerational lab rat experiments to see what kind of problems we might anticipate.
It's appalling to me that more research hasn't been done into the health effects of the atmosphere that we're in the process of creating.
posted by MrVisible at 8:17 AM on September 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
unless you are building a time-machine, no EVs and carbon capture or fusion or synthetic photosynthesis etc can be implemented fast enough to overcome the lag and momentum we've baked in. there are no non-catestrophic emissions pathways left
Build a sunshade at earth-sun L1. It will be the greatest achievement of our species.
Ever since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun...
posted by allegedly at 8:44 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Build a sunshade at earth-sun L1. It will be the greatest achievement of our species.
Ever since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun...
posted by allegedly at 8:44 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
What about earthquakes in Seattle? I don't feel that any West Coast area is safe enough even in the next 10 years, speaking as an inlander.
posted by agregoli at 8:54 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 8:54 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
> The truest picture of what the future will look like is that photo from the Oregon wildfires featuring a bunch of assholes golfing while a massive wildfire rages in the background
How can you tell they're assholes? Are all golfers inherently assholes? What should they have been doing instead? The fires are within an easy drive of me -- am I an asshole for sitting here on my sofa, which is about as constructive as playing golf?
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:15 AM on September 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
How can you tell they're assholes? Are all golfers inherently assholes? What should they have been doing instead? The fires are within an easy drive of me -- am I an asshole for sitting here on my sofa, which is about as constructive as playing golf?
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:15 AM on September 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
For one they could stop playing golf, drive to the nearest supermarket, pick up some racks of water and drop them off at the nearest fire station or temporary command center. They need that stuff for hydration runs for the fire fighters. Or they could volunteer at shelters or donate stuff there. There are mandatory evacuations for the Eagle Creek fire so I'm sure there are human and animal shelters that could use stuff or a hand.
Maybe they already did this or are planning to do this later. Somehow I doubt it.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 9:35 AM on September 7, 2017
Maybe they already did this or are planning to do this later. Somehow I doubt it.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 9:35 AM on September 7, 2017
If we fail We've already failed. It's happening. As usual, the highest human costs will be paid by those who have the least wealth. Now it's all about coping with change.
If you look at the costs of, say, consumer goods, people buy stuff, then enjoy having it and using it. Military costs mostly produce wealth for arms producers, maybe some spoils of war, ideally some safety. Education always seems like the good deal to me. You spend money and people get exposed to information; maybe some of them get better at whatever work they do, it generally seems to make the group as a whole happier and more productive, less militant. Health care doesn't produce goods, but allows us to live longer and better, mostly. But the costs of environmental stupidity, cleaning up waste, replacing flooded homes and goods, emergency housing and evac costs, cleaning fouled water and air, all that stuff is really expensive and there's no residual effect. Maybe that family that got their house rebuilt has a brand new house, but most of them would be happier with their old house, their pictures, Gram's teapot collection, and no anxiety and nightmares about the wind and the rain and the fire and the devastation. The West is on fire, and the loss of square miles of forest isn't mostly felt because in the US, the land is owned by the US. But there's still a lost value of timber. Hopefully not lost lives.
If we get smarter about the economics, we'll get to live better. Over the last year I've heard people talk about Climate Change as part pf making decisions. Insurance companies have been factoring costs of Climate Change into your premiums for quite a while. We're paying for this. Paying for alternatives to Climate Change is a massive bargain.
I've been meaning to post about Paul Hawken's Drawdown project, and this is a good opportunity. We still have the choice to be smarter about this.
posted by theora55 at 10:15 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
If you look at the costs of, say, consumer goods, people buy stuff, then enjoy having it and using it. Military costs mostly produce wealth for arms producers, maybe some spoils of war, ideally some safety. Education always seems like the good deal to me. You spend money and people get exposed to information; maybe some of them get better at whatever work they do, it generally seems to make the group as a whole happier and more productive, less militant. Health care doesn't produce goods, but allows us to live longer and better, mostly. But the costs of environmental stupidity, cleaning up waste, replacing flooded homes and goods, emergency housing and evac costs, cleaning fouled water and air, all that stuff is really expensive and there's no residual effect. Maybe that family that got their house rebuilt has a brand new house, but most of them would be happier with their old house, their pictures, Gram's teapot collection, and no anxiety and nightmares about the wind and the rain and the fire and the devastation. The West is on fire, and the loss of square miles of forest isn't mostly felt because in the US, the land is owned by the US. But there's still a lost value of timber. Hopefully not lost lives.
If we get smarter about the economics, we'll get to live better. Over the last year I've heard people talk about Climate Change as part pf making decisions. Insurance companies have been factoring costs of Climate Change into your premiums for quite a while. We're paying for this. Paying for alternatives to Climate Change is a massive bargain.
I've been meaning to post about Paul Hawken's Drawdown project, and this is a good opportunity. We still have the choice to be smarter about this.
posted by theora55 at 10:15 AM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
How can you tell they're assholes? Environmentally, golf courses are horrible. Overuse of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, water hogs. Golf is generally expensive and available to the wealthy. Golf is really white. On an individual basis, I can't tell anything about those golfers. On a general basis, golf is a decent metaphor for the way we treat the environment, which is why the photo resonates so well.
posted by theora55 at 10:20 AM on September 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 10:20 AM on September 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
I moved away from Texas to New England because I was sick of the heat. Climate change was in my calculation but it is so unpredictable. Members of my extended family have moved to Colorado and Arizona in the last few years, I thought they weren't thinking it through. Some of them are old enough that it won't matter, I hope the rest are nimble enough to move on when needed.
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:53 AM on September 7, 2017
posted by Bee'sWing at 10:53 AM on September 7, 2017
Why are most of the comments in this thread about moving to escape climate change? The people most affected by climate change are people who cannot afford to move. Surely you must realize that.
I can talk about one and also know the other because they're not mutually exclusive.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:59 PM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
I can talk about one and also know the other because they're not mutually exclusive.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:59 PM on September 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Explore your social network, surely some of your friends and acquaintances have moved in the last 10 years, and might like a visit. Use that to scope out the area, and decide if you like it.
Well, that's really great. And where are we going to get moving expenses from? And where are we going to get the money for first and last month's rent? Not to mention surviving for the weeks or months it's going to take to find a job and get a paycheck. Some of us, believe it or not, are happy when we end the month with a positive checking balance. Not to mention, if we have a mass migration of people northward, then there's going to be even more competition for those jobs and housing.
Sorry, but this is still sounding like massively privileged white guy stuff.
posted by happyroach at 11:51 PM on September 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Well, that's really great. And where are we going to get moving expenses from? And where are we going to get the money for first and last month's rent? Not to mention surviving for the weeks or months it's going to take to find a job and get a paycheck. Some of us, believe it or not, are happy when we end the month with a positive checking balance. Not to mention, if we have a mass migration of people northward, then there's going to be even more competition for those jobs and housing.
Sorry, but this is still sounding like massively privileged white guy stuff.
posted by happyroach at 11:51 PM on September 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I'm a massively privileged white guy who recently moved, but I moved from Northern Illinois to South Carolina, which is sort of the opposite of the correct direction. I managed to move myself and my family by securing a job first, before moving, and also, uh, already owning a home at my destination thanks to being stationed by the military in SC previously.
I told you I was privileged.
Anyway, of all the things Climate Breakdown is, it's not exactly an immediate danger, and if you've got time there's lots of things you can do to mitigate the costs of moving. Find jobs and apply from a distance. Sell off as much of your stuff as possible. Try to find places that already have friends or family. Obviously moving is more difficult if you don't have a good resume or you're living paycheck to paycheck, but it's rarely impossible.
It's not so much about finding a safe place for yourself as it is finding a safe place for any children you might bring into this damaged world. Don't make moving away from immediate danger their problem. All of us discussing it now are bound to be long dead before Climate Breakdown really starts swinging for the fences, but one thing we can do is lay the groundwork for the communities that will be weathering the worst of it.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:45 AM on September 9, 2017
I told you I was privileged.
Anyway, of all the things Climate Breakdown is, it's not exactly an immediate danger, and if you've got time there's lots of things you can do to mitigate the costs of moving. Find jobs and apply from a distance. Sell off as much of your stuff as possible. Try to find places that already have friends or family. Obviously moving is more difficult if you don't have a good resume or you're living paycheck to paycheck, but it's rarely impossible.
It's not so much about finding a safe place for yourself as it is finding a safe place for any children you might bring into this damaged world. Don't make moving away from immediate danger their problem. All of us discussing it now are bound to be long dead before Climate Breakdown really starts swinging for the fences, but one thing we can do is lay the groundwork for the communities that will be weathering the worst of it.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:45 AM on September 9, 2017
Anyway, of all the things Climate Breakdown is, it's not exactly an immediate danger,...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. For people who already live in coastal SC, the danger sounds pretty immediate:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. For people who already live in coastal SC, the danger sounds pretty immediate:
South Carolina officials have not ordered any evacuations yet, but Gov. Henry McMaster said he could order a mandatory evacuation that would begin at 10 a.m. Saturday. That's also when the state would reverse east-bound lanes on Interstate 26.posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:36 AM on September 9, 2017
“If you can leave now, go ahead," McMaster said.
The privilege argument is important, there's no denying it, but whats more affordable, being rescued from the attic of your rented home/apartment with at best a backpack of hastily gathered essentials, or taking 2 years to selldown your belongings, pack a bag of essentials get a greyhound ticket to a small city and get a job cleaning or dialysis assistant, or waiting tables etc. In PNW you can clean hospital rooms after 4 days paid training and a ged; $14-18/hr. 30k/yr plus medical bennies. live 30 minutes from a town (further for portland or Seattle obv.) and you can earn nearly the median income for a family. Is moving difficult, are family obligations unrelenting, do debt traps and uncertainty tie one down, sure. But what's the alternative? Look at houston, look at tampa, look at the farm towns in drought and the killer heat waves. Only the rich can afford to ignore the slow motion catastrophe, the poor and the middle must choose between being victims or refugees... being a pre-emptive refugee - planning and preparing, is better than being dumped wet on the floor of a bowling alley by exhausted rescue workers.
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 9:38 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Anchorite_of_Palgrave at 9:38 PM on September 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
Parasite biodiversity faces extinction and redistribution in a changing climate
Climate change could wipe out a third of parasite species, study finds: Parasites such as lice and fleas are crucial to ecosystems, scientists say, and extinctions could lead to unpredictable invasions
Democracy Now interview with Colin Carlson: Climate Change May Wipe Out a Third of World's Parasites, with Disastrous Ripple Effects
posted by homunculus at 3:35 PM on September 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
Climate change could wipe out a third of parasite species, study finds: Parasites such as lice and fleas are crucial to ecosystems, scientists say, and extinctions could lead to unpredictable invasions
Democracy Now interview with Colin Carlson: Climate Change May Wipe Out a Third of World's Parasites, with Disastrous Ripple Effects
posted by homunculus at 3:35 PM on September 11, 2017 [2 favorites]
Speaking of parasites, I read a concept on Twitter the other day that I've lost - "Parasitic Delay". Industries profiting off something while pushing the externalities on everyone else, urging caution, study, delay. Tobacco. Carbon.
Does that ring a bell? Where was that think piece?
posted by anthill at 12:01 PM on September 23, 2017
Does that ring a bell? Where was that think piece?
posted by anthill at 12:01 PM on September 23, 2017
https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/predatory-delay-and-the-rights-of-future-generations-69b06094a16
Predatory delay!
posted by anthill at 4:50 PM on September 24, 2017
Predatory delay!
posted by anthill at 4:50 PM on September 24, 2017
« Older Run, Hide, Repeat | Eleven Chocolate Cakes in Chicago Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Just as importantly, we already have the technology to strip CO₂ from the atmosphere. That technology is fairly simple and has been in submarines for decades. The problem was always how to safely store the CO₂.
And I worried it would be excessively gloomy and terrifying.
(It is still excessively gloomy a terrifying, just with technological solutions I have no faith in sprinkled on top)
posted by Artw at 3:34 PM on September 6, 2017 [9 favorites]