“It is very much outside our understanding of this system.”
This is what worries me: climate change leading to entirely new regimes that we don't understand and thus can't model or predict with any accuracy. You just can't build a seawall for a sealevel rise of between 50 and 300 cm somewhere in about 20 to 50 years. Or for heatwaves of maximum 35 to 45 degrees, precipitation of max 20-100mm/hour, etc. Climate adaptation will be even more challenging if we don't know what we are adapting to
I've read somewhere that up to half of Antarctic sea ice could easily disappear in hours or days, given right conditions. Greenland is not looking good either.
That's the big problem with anything involving feeback loops. There is a domain where it's unstable and then a small change can cause big and surprisingly rapid effects. Nature is full of such tricky stuff and there is unfortunately no manual so we are learning a lot of this stuff by experiencing it first hand.
You use a wooden chair for reaching up in high places. Imagine you're a short person and utterly dependent on this chair. It works for 20 year, and it helps you reach what you need in all that time. You never notice much except for some familiar creaking. The chair works every time, and you just take it for granted as a handy tool to have around.
But when the wood in that chair snaps, it happens all at once. Even if just a single part of that chair momentarily fails. Gravity, leverage, falling backwards with no way to protect your head. And it happens so fast, there's no time to think about it while it happens.
Luckily your husband put a cushion on the floor exactly where you'd fall with your neck, because he anticipated this happening. He just didn't know when it'll happen.
You wake up a bit dazed, and a bit wiser to how the world works. How fragile and complex systems can fail all at once and too fast.
If we aren’t able to predict it then we need to assume the worst. Start moving inland/to higher areas now. I’m not optimistic though. I don’t understand why people (with the means) continue to live and rebuild in areas that regularly get savaged by hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters.
I think of Buckminster Fuller's "Spaceship Earth" concept of how we are all the crew on a spaceship and need to work together, and Jim Morrison's quote, "I'm just trying to get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames", and I believe the model that humanity operates under is most accurately summarized as "Shithouse Earth".
> This is what worries me: climate change leading to entirely new regimes that we don't understand and thus can't model or predict with any accuracy.
People have been talking about that for a while, we're playing god right now but we have no idea what's coming. It's the same thing every time we try something with nature, what seems easy and simple turns out to have massive side effects we couldn't imagine because every little thing is inter dependant
Meanwhile HN will freak out over some loose study about aspartame or nano plastics, but dismiss extremely sound research on climate change. Clearly brainwashed by decades of corporate marketing.
Yes. We have lots of models, some of the biggest super computers crunching them.
But models are still estimates. There can still be un-knowns. Scientist have been writing about un-known, or difficult to model feedback loops for awhile. That is the movie-style doomsday, where we hit some un-foreseen tipping point and climate change takes off.
Instead view climate as a large dynamic system, you hit it hard enough, maybe it moves to a different stability point. Even with small systems this can be hard to estimate with a model.
Of course, this is the plot to the movie "Day After Tomorrow".
But just because it was the plot to a movie doesn't mean it can't be a real risk.
At the scale we're talking about, with the number of cases we have (one, Earth), all our models are going to become more and more wrong the further off from our current equilibrium we get. But yes, Day After Tomorrow.
Yeah. didn't mean to say models are wrong. Just that because they are estimates, that it is likely that some unknown variable, or unknown feedback, could dramatically shift climate more than the model would show. So this worse than expected melting in Antarctica could be some 'disaster-movie-level-unforeseen-event'.
Another day passes, another day nowhere near enough is being done to get on top of this situation.
If the US government had any brains, they'd be setting up a WW2 style mobilization against climate change and moving towards almost immediate decarbonization. This is an international effort working with NATO allies. It would only benefit everyone. New industry, safer economic outcomes long term, nicer world to live in. Lastly, it would be a sign that America are capable of leading the world into the future. IMO the longer the US drops the ball on this, the less competent it's starting to look. If China didn't follow suit, it would look equally weak, especially to it's own people so it would also need to respond.
I'm picking on the US here because they're happy to be leaders in war, arms, tech and economics, but in this case, we're hardly anywhere to be seen and showing pretty much zero meaningful leadership.
If we don't, who will?
Looking what is going on around the world, I really can't even imagine a functioning economy in 20 years. Looking at how many heat records have fallen this year, it's really hard to even imagine what the world will look like in 2043.
Look at parts of Europe, they seem pretty much uninhabitable during summer now. Phoenix, AZ... yes it's a hot place to being with but I mean, will people just be living there in the 130s?
The worse the situation becomes, the less will be done.
We could have taken action even 10, 20, or 40 years ago, but so far, we have done nothing significant to prevent it from happening.
The longer we wait, the more expensive and complicated the solutions will become. Politicians are often reluctant to make unpopular moves that might anger their base, so they tend to focus on short-term goals rather than long-term sustainability (though Bernie might have been an exception, imho). We are searching for solutions that maintain the status quo.
One of the most significant issues is the exponential growth driven by our financial system's need for constant growth. Yet, we have not even begun to start discussing that.
>> We've so far done nothing to stop it from happening.
That is completely untrue. We’ve certainly not done enough but the world of 40, 20 and even 10 years ago was much worse. Unfortunately most of the changes have been ones forced on individuals while businesses and governments continue to pollute and cause damage.
You're right that the system is set up in such a way, that it often prevents meaningful changes on the individual level. However, the individuals are still consumers of those businesses, and our habits are driving their profits and further destruction.
> the exponential growth of the human population driven by our financial system's need for constant growth. Yet, we have not even begun to start discussing that
Probably a good place to begin that discussion would be with some sort of demonstration that this is actually a thing that's happening. It seems like a difficult [1] argument to construct, so you should probably get on that.
"In tracking the effects of human activity upon the Earth, a number of socioeconomic and earth system parameters are utilized including population, economics, water usage, food production, transportation, technology, greenhouse gases, surface temperature, and natural resource usage"
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Human overpopulation per se hasn't been a matter of plausible concern since the 70s; what is concerning is that the "green revolution" in agriculture is dependent on roughly our current level of technological development, and that's what has produced yields capable of supporting the human population at its current level.
This is a good point, but is much being done while a democrat is in charge? Seems like Joe has squandered the best part of another term.
Amendment: I didn't mean he is doing nothing, or a bad job, but he could even just address the UN or NATO and actually explain that while his hands are tied, he could offer support in any other way possible until America gets his head correct.
This shows an enormous amount of ignorance over how the US works.
Because of gerrymandering, republicans own the House of Representatives, no legislation can pass from the legislative branch if the Congress and the House don’t agree.
The executive branch can not “just” make new legislation. It’s not part of its power or job.
You can’t blame Joe because Marjorie Taylor Greene and every so and so lunatic has decided to screw everyone else and shove their head into the ground.
Man I would love to see us go 100% nuclear. Just slap 50 power plants down and we'd be done, 10 years, in-and-out. It'd only cost like 100 billion or so, basically free.
President Biden can’t create legislation. That has to come from Congress. McCarthy (R) is speaker of the house.
“Can’t the President issue executive orders?”
Yes but the Supreme Court has been striking down and limiting the EPA from executing on executive orders or other mandates that the agency has. For example last year [1]
> By a vote of 6 to 3, the court said that any time an agency does something big and new – in this case addressing climate change – the regulation is presumptively invalid, unless Congress has specifically authorized regulating in this sphere.
Biden actually has addressed the UN at least once [2] and discussed climate change. He wouldn’t address NATO on this topic because NATO is a defensive military alliance and most NATO members are well aware of climate change risks.
He doesn’t need to explain to other political leaders that his “hands are tied” because they already know and understand how the U.S. political landscape works.
I was responding to the person above who specifically called out the president, ergo federal level.
Second I want to mention there aren’t “Democratic” states or “Republican” states. Just states. Each state is full of Americans. Sometimes they vote for one party and sometimes they vote for another. For example I used to vote Republican and then the party has diverged from what I value. I live in the same state and that hasn’t changed.
To answer your question though which is why can’t states with supposed Democrat leadership or control create legislation for their own states - they can and often do. For example [1].
It’s important to note that Congress can take action at the federal level, and state legislatures can also take action at the state level and they’ll probably be able to do some very precise legislation that the federal government would have trouble with, but then the federal government can use its much greater power (and budget) to do things that any single state or group of states cannot.
> He wouldn’t address NATO on this topic because NATO is a defensive military alliance and most NATO members are well aware of climate change risks.
The US military labelled climate change as a natsecurity threat [1], unfortunately NATO is only concerned with other countries invading or waging a war against the member states and thus such problems can't be addressed even though they are directly related to national security.
Sure but as such there isn’t anything for President Biden to do here in terms of an address or speech which was the point.
I also don’t think invasion of member states is the only thing NATO is concerned with. For instance, NATO allies are coordinating and providing direct military support to Ukraine which isn’t a member state.
I don’t follow. What good would addressing NATO members who are trying to take action on climate change do when the problem for President Biden is a Congress (House in particular) that doesn’t even think that rapid climate change is a real thing, let alone a threat?
For the US climate change policy completely falls at the feet of one group of people, and that’s Republicans. Period. End of story. No possible narrative otherwise exists.
Don't be absurd. There is a ginormous difference between a party whose position is that climate change is a problem that we have to deal with but doesn't support all possible ways to deal with it, and a party whose position until recently was that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by China or socialists or others to destroy the US, and whose current position is that maybe it is happening but we should not take any action and in fact should increase our fossil fuel use.
The intellectual energy in the US is entirely beholden to economics at the present. There are plenty of intelligent individuals who could be mobilized on this issue but by and large they are subjugated by the language of economics into chasing teh dollarz.
Like you mentioned, mobilization is possible, look at WW2, intellectuals were entirely captured to serve military efforts during that period. Then w/ the neolib period it shifted to being captured by the language of economics which is where we are currently.
It really is on the precarious cognitariat to break the shackles of the current burden of working inside of the stagnant linguistic framework of economics. Economics is anti-science.
> I don't believe there is anything we can do about the impending climate changes.
But there is (something we could do).
Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption.
We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to.
If we don't, the nature will force us.
As it does with every species in overshoot.
> all we can do is learn, prepare, and adapt
But we don't know how it will play out. Imagine building a jenga tower. You'll remove a brick from the base and put it on top. The more you build the less stable the structure becomes.
Our society is an extremely complex system.
We don't know when and how, but we know it will collapse. And nobody can even know how it will look, what to expect, and what to prepare for.
Even those bunkers of our tech elites won't do them much good.
Fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source because of they are already established (economy of scale) and are subsidized heavily. In a world were all major economies have shifted to nuclear power, solar power, and wind power, that will no longer be the case. It will be cheaper for developing countries to use green tech.
Also, once the powerful countries have moved off fossil-fuels, we'll hypocritically force poor countries not to use them anyway. Come now, be reasonable.
> Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption. We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to.
Yes, we can turn rich countries into poor countries by taking away transport, energy, and protein from the working class, and there's growing support for that approach.
But that approach also destroys most of the hope for technological solutions.
And even if the richest countries did sacrifice everything, would it be enough, if many other countries continued pursuing growth of economies, consumption, and population?
> we can turn rich countries into poor countries by taking away transport
City and economy planning, work from home, basic income, degrowth ...
> energy
Renewable energy, insulation and heat pumps, not air-conditioners.
> protein from the working class
That's propaganda, and now you're getting somewhere. We already get 63% of our protein from plants. If we were to extend that to 100%, we could store our entire 1.5C carbon budget through afforesting and rewilding pastures, which would also help restore biodiversity.
Climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, soil erosion, and overfishing are all but symptoms of ecological overshoot.
Switching off animal protein would help solve climate change (15-25% impact, co2/methane/n20), deforestation, pollution, soil erosion and overfishing.
So it's one of the most impactful things we should do ... helping to solve 5 things out of 7.
> But that approach also destroys most of the hope for technological solutions.
We don't have any such solutions, that's something that sways the attention from things we already have at our disposal (just wait for this one thing that may or may not come ...).
> And even if the richest countries did sacrifice everything
Rich countries did/are doing most of the damage, the poorest ones are the ones paying most for it. If everyone would act as we do, we would need several more earths.
> if many other countries continued pursuing growth of economies, consumption, and population
Should they stay underdeveloped, or die out just so we could still be living like pigs in clover ?
>That's propaganda, and now you're getting somewhere. We already get 63% of our protein from plants. If we were to extend that to 100%, we could store our entire 1.5C carbon budget through afforesting and rewilding pastures, which would also help restore biodiversity.
Protein is not created equally. It is not possible to maintain a healthy diet using sustainable low-energy sources of plant protein in place of meat. Meat is not an optional part of our diet. There have been plenty of studies detailing the dietary impact of vegan diets.
Plant-based diets were protective against cancers of the digestive system, with no significant differences between different types of cancer, a meta-analysis based on 3,059,009 subjects
Over 17,000 doctors call on White House to shape nutrition policy on plant-based diets
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes." - American Dietetic Association
"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age." - NHS UK
"[I]t is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding." - British Dietetic Association.
"For adults, protein from two or more plant groups daily is like to be adequate. " - World Health Organisation
> There have been plenty of studies detailing the dietary impact of vegan diets
Meat & dairy industry is spending massive amounts of money of keeping the status quo as long as possible, same as with cigarettes or fossil fuels. A lot of those studies are paid for, be aware.
And this is why people are being pushed away from the environmental movement as a whole. As well as the activists blocking roads and throwing paint around.
Significant changes to energy/fuel usage and transport/travel were already hard for people to accept, with vast numbers of jobs/livelihoods so dependent on cars. But trying to take away meat at the same time (let alone all dairy) is just too much to ask, certainly not an election winner.
(So we get to 'conspiracy theories' about the WEF and global policy being dictated undemocratically, with a war on farming that nobody voted for set to cut food production at a time when we're told that the biggest risk from climate change is crop failure and famine...)
Even if we accept that meat is not optional we don't have to eat so much of it. Most of Europe consumes 1/2 to 2/3 of the meat per capita as the US. China too. Japan consumes about 40% per capita as the US and they consumer a mix of meats that has much less climate impact. India consumes around 1/30th of the US in meat per capita.
in western countries sure, there is a glut of food but there are non-western countries that are chronically malnutritioned and that absolutely do need that meat. it's a distribution problem not a farming problem
> Would standards of living really decline that much if we didn’t all have mega SUVs and the latest years iPhone?
Would emissions really decline by a measurable amount if the changes were limited to that?
If we're going to have any impact on the climate, changes need to be drastic and on a global scale. But at the same time, governments will not accept an end to economic growth, let alone a managed 'degrowth'. They can't even allow an end to population growth as it's such an important factor in economic growth.
If we can't even end the era of hugely destructive wars between nations, what hope is there for the human race coming together on the scale necessary to slow/reverse climate change?
>Climate change is caused by pollution and overconsumption.
Which has already happened and is irreversible as far as we know
>We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to.
No, change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization.
Hello again :) You've previously rejected scientific studies, so this time I won't include any, and will keep this as brief as possible. If you'll find that you'd like some, ask and I shall provide.
> Which has already happened
True.
> and is irreversible as far as we know
Not true.
> change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization
A superlative suggestion, sir. With just two minor flaws. One, it's not true. And two, it's not true. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.
We can't adapt to something that keeps changing. If we keep putting out CO2, the climate will keep getting hotter. It's not as if giving up will make it stop here. It really can go to 8C or more, a temperature that will make large parts of the earth uninhabitable.
We're going to be forced to make changes -- not just "adapt" but substantially alter society. The longer we wait the worse it will be.
I've seen the analogy be made that it is comparable to avoiding the grounding of a big vessel, say an ocean tanker. The sooner you act the smaller the course and velocity changes will have to be, the later the more extreme and violent they will have to be.
We're already well into the territory where we will in all likelihood not escape a grounding. But we can still choose the spot where we ground and indirectly affect how much work it will be to get the boat afloat again once that happens.
Adapting is actually a bad decision. If everyone invests into local counter measures such as ACs or flood walls rather than reducing emissions, we might take away resources spend on the cause of climate change.
The estimated cost for net zero are only 3-6% of global GDP per year until 2050. Totally doable.
Sure we can. We can start spreading Serpentine rock on the Ocean's surface. We just need some billionaires to fund it.
Serpentine rock, which is primarily composed of the mineral serpentine, has been considered in the context of climate change mitigation due to its potential to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) through a natural process called mineral carbonation. This process involves the reaction of CO2 with certain minerals, like serpentine, to form stable carbonate minerals like magnesite.
The reaction kinetics of carbonation using serpentine rock are generally slow under ambient temperature and pressure conditions, which is one of the main challenges in utilizing serpentine for carbon sequestration. The rate of the natural carbonation process depends on various factors, such as the particle size of the serpentine, temperature, pressure, and availability of CO2.
At ambient conditions, the carbonation of serpentine can take from several months to thousands of years to proceed to completion. The slow reaction kinetics is mainly due to the formation of a passivating silica-rich layer on the surface of serpentine minerals, which hinders the further reaction with CO2.
However, if we ground up serpentine rock into 1cm pieces and sprinkled it on the Caribbean sea between Cuba and Jamaica, we can estimate how many tons we would need to use to carbonize our deficit of 15 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide:
To estimate this, we need to consider the stoichiometry of the carbonation reaction. Serpentine rock primarily contains the mineral serpentine, which has the chemical formula Mg3Si2O5(OH)4. The carbonation reaction involving serpentine can be represented as:
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 + 3CO2 ? 3MgCO3 + 2SiO2 + 2H2O
Here, one mole of serpentine reacts with three moles of CO2 to form three moles of magnesite (MgCO3) as the primary carbon capture product.
15 Gt × 2.087 = 31.305 Gt (gigatons) of serpentine rock
However, this calculation assumes that the carbonation reaction would go to completion, which is unlikely in a real-world scenario, especially with 1 cm pieces of serpentine rock. The reaction kinetics would be extremely slow with such large particles, and the reaction may not proceed effectively in the ocean environment. Grinding the serpentine rock into much finer particles, using catalysts or additives, or applying pressure and temperature could enhance the reaction rate, would perhaps make it go faster.
I agree there is nothing we can do to prevent the next 30 years or so of climate change.
However, there is plenty we can do longer-term.
Step 1: USA via coalition (or alone, it doesn't matter) goes Nuclear (Fission). Global energy consumption is 17.4 Terawatts. About 4 Terawatts of that is us. We therefore need about 4000 nuclear power plants to cover our usage (which, given the economy of scale, would probably cost about 4 Trillion or so). It would take 15 years to build them out, so that's about $280 billion a year. Not particularly expensive, given the overall federal budget is $6 trillion. In addition to domestic construction, we offer generous construction deals to all other countries at-cost with shared IP. Any country can sign up, and the US will use it's hegemony to backup all deals in a "too big to fail" kind of way. Note that we only need about $24 trillion to build out power for the rest of the world, which again isn't a substantial component of anyone's budget (except for developing countries, for which we would just provide the reactors for free/via loan schemes). China will probably do it themselves, so that's like another 5TW capacity we don't need to build.
Step 2: We change out the infrastructure. Massive funding, drowning-in-money level funding for Hydrogen aircraft. Massive funding for electric cars & electric grid improvements. Build out HSR between all cities & build out public transit to sap down air travel / car travel. Cut energy use & de-carbonize.
Step 3: Turn the CO2 in the air back into fossil fuel, or capture it into some other form. We build 17 TWatts of nuclear capacity, so we have plenty of energy. We need only scale up the chemical processes for doing the conversion.
Once completed, we can now "tune" CO2 levels, giving us a lever for global weather control. This will likely be a useful tool for humanity & will let us dynamically control mean surface temperature.
Gah what a load of drivel. Seriously, if this is the kind of site that informs you there are other priceless nuggets on there such as 'China’s CCP Concealed SARS-CoV-2 Presence in China as Far Back as March 2018'. I'm all for engaging the argument but in this case there is this torrent of nonsense that doesn't even begin to compute and which it would take you a lifetime to properly debunk, at which point I don't doubt the author has created some more masterpieces. The name of the blog already sets you up for being gullible.
That's a whole boatload of misdirection and but maybe.
Yes, the sun shines and brings energy from above, yes the core is hot and brings energy from below.
This was known centuries ago and is accounted for.
"The ethical skeptic" is just parroting another form of denialism; it's not us, it's the flucuations from the sun, it's not us, the core is suddenly radiating more heat outwards, maybe it's the volcanos, perhaps it's cosmic rays.
The thermodynamics here is straightforward enough, we have put a measureably significant volume of thermal insulating gas into the atmosphere and have the records to prove it, more energy from the sun is being trapped, the land | sea surface layer has more energy for storms, tipping climate cell behaviour, heating, etc.
We cannot do much about heat from the core, but that's essentially steady state in the short term (50 year time scales) and declining in the long term (heading towards a cold rock).
We cannot do anything about the output of the sun, we can 'shade' ourselves by blowing bubbles in space or by (very very carefully) altering the atmosphere.
We can more directly alter our CO2 output and work on recovery from the atmosphere.
We know by direct measurements that the warming is largely due to greenhouse gases, because we can measure radiation inflow and outflow and see that greenhouse gases are stopping incoming radiation from being radiated out and we can see how much is being trapped.
We know it is the greenhouse gases because we can measure the wavelengths of the incoming and outgoing radiation and see from spectrographs of greenhouse gases that the outgoing radiation falls into greenhouse gas absorption bands.
We can tell that the increase in greenhouse gases over the last couple hundred years is largely from human burning of fossil fuels because the carbon in fossil fuels has a different isotope ratio than that of carbon in living or recently living things. (Volcanic greenhouse gases would also have a similar isotope ratio to fossil fuels but we have sufficient monitoring to detect and account for geologic greenhouse gases).
In other news, population is declining among Japanese and this is a huge crisis as well.
What exactly does life look like per capita if population continues to increase or stay the same? How is the solution to this problem not exactly what the Japanese are doing?
Time to kill off our pyramid scheme economic growth models and barbaric bronze age "be fruitful and multiply" religions.
You are 30 years late. The world at large didn’t wait for you. Fertility has been declining worldwide for decades and been subreplacement in the USA and Europe for quite sometimes. South East Asia and Africa are slowly getting there too. Population is only an issue because of demographic lag. It’s already sorted out. We just have to pass the bump.
The U.S. population is still growing, which of course may be lag, but can also be caused by immigration. Countries need to keep the population growing to support Ponzi-schemes like retirement benefits. I expect poorer countries to continue to be baby factories indefinitely.
> The U.S. population is still growing, which of course may be lag, but can also be caused by immigration.
Indeed which is why I specifically talked of fertility as immigration is a thing. Irrelevant on a global level obviously.
> I expect poorer countries to continue to be baby factories indefinitely.
Highly unlikely. Fertility is getting lower everywhere. In all likelihood Africa will go the same way as South Asia as women education and access to contraception rise and children mortality rates drop. It’s already started.
Indeed. Essentially, the resources available to the average person are sum_of_all_resources / total_nr_of_people. The amount of a lot of resources (energy, food, mobility, communication) to go around has grown greatly since the industrial revolution. But some resources, like land, minerals, fish in the sea, are just fundamentally limited. The only way to have more on average is to diverse what is available by less people.
Or you can just take more for yourself by stealing it from the less privileged and future generations, which seems to be the current modus operandi...
Whatever disaster you might want to impose on the world to solve the problem--and decarbonization without fusion power would be a terrific disaster--will be as bad as the sea levels rising a few feet. Actually, much worse.
The real solution, of course, is population control. And step one in population control is shutting down immigration. Very few politicians want that, and basically none on the left. So it won't happen. They will continue demanding that the government seize control of the means of production and distribution, and not actually fix anything.
Countries with high birth rates will hit their local maximum carrying capacity. Immigration allows it to "blow off". As a past example, there are about 100 million people of Irish descent in the world. This is many more than there would be had they been limited to Ireland itself, when Ireland's birth rate was very high.
I assume you are white and live in America. Seems a smidge hypocritical.
Also this doesn't make much sense. We live in a globalized world. Singapore, for example, gets 80% of its food from abroad. Their "carrying capacity" is not particularly limited, except for literal space. For a country-sized country, space is functionally unlimited.
While the floating ice in the northern Arctic has behaved as scientists and climate models expected in a warming world – that is, on an apparent terminal decline – Antarctica’s sea ice has held steady.
So now the lag in the Southern Hemisphere is going away, and the Southern Hemisphere is finally playing 'catch up' with the Northern Hemisphere. Except that in geological terms where thousands of years are the norm, those decades of lag are negligible, really.
This is what worries me: climate change leading to entirely new regimes that we don't understand and thus can't model or predict with any accuracy. You just can't build a seawall for a sealevel rise of between 50 and 300 cm somewhere in about 20 to 50 years. Or for heatwaves of maximum 35 to 45 degrees, precipitation of max 20-100mm/hour, etc. Climate adaptation will be even more challenging if we don't know what we are adapting to
reply