If climate change continues along the business-as-usual path, the 24th Century’s ”brave new world” will be in some ways more like the world of Ancient Greece – with what’s left of the world’s inhabitants living in desperate and isolated polar cities in the northern regions and
scattered along the coast of a single sea.

Google POLAR CITIES and interview me, please?

Those who don’t are called things like sociopaths and libertarians….

We are almost certainly to have shifted to electric personal transportation long before 2050.

Unless something even better comes along….

And who cares about 300 years?? Other than those who believe in reincarnation, nobody. The scientifc community pushes atheism and then expects a “rational” person to care about something other than the next 100. Not gonna happen

It is really sad that we had such a brief flowering. Especially as we have solutions already. Only politics makes us dither.

Our technologies are sufficiently advanced that governments could requisition every available roof to put solar on it and every available windy plain to put up wind turbines and string them to transmission, etc, etc. If we implemented all the clean technology we HAVE, we could mitigate the worst catastrophic civilization-ending climate changes… But we dither, instead.

I got the feeling your article was biased against science, being written in a way that suggests the blame should be put on science and scientific advancement for our current global environmental problems.

The fact that we had 200,000 years before The European Age of Enlightenment means nothing. Technological progress has been the quintessential reason for the rise of human civilisation from the time of the first Homo Sapien Sapiens (true humans). However technological progress was incredibly slow at the beginning end of human history but now is on a geometric rise at this furthest end of human development. Which is consistent with the graph of technological advancement if taken from the year 1900 through to the present day.

Science in and of itself is not the problem, as science is neither “good” or “bad”, it is merely a tool that is used. The real problem lies in the extreme apathy exhibited by people in first world countries towards environmental conservation. And the extreme inequality of global wealth that sees 2/3rds of the planet classified as 2nd world or 3rd world status.

The global problem is political, not technological. Our technologies are sufficiently advanced that we could actually start to repair damage to the earth tomorrow, but that would mean taking the first world out of its comfort zone. How many want to do that when there is no immediate need? I would say, very very few. As is illustrated by the fact that oil drilling shall continue, and move into even more sensitive ecological zones.

Andy.

We no longer should be living to simply live, we need to live with a mission now. We’re on a mission, aren’t we? This task has fallen to our shift has it not? If our attitudes and actions are infectious, let’s each make changes that others can see and be inspired by. The best technology in the world will not make much difference if ordinary people do not shift their attitudes towards safeguarding this one-and-only nest we have.

People created this disaster and will see world demise before their eyes.

Too Late to change the clock back to save this planets from destructions.

They are experts in their field: climate science. Like Joe the Plumber’s opinion on climate science is irrelevant, a climate scientist’s views on the best policy design to cut CO2 the most is just another layman’s opinion.

When I write about the best ideas to cut CO2 the most, I write up the views of those who study the field: climate policy analysts, not climate scientists.

I did a series back last year on Robert Stavins’ great policy ideas and the theory behind how they get CO2 down that have driven our climate legislation (ACES, CEJAPA, and now APA), and on the German Marshall Fund’s analysis of why the EU trading system has worked to get their CO2 down.

(and per climate policy experts, the climate scientists are wrong about the best policy. It is not either/or. Caps on CO2 are intended to not just drive more clean energy technology development but also to fund it.)

But your hatred of IZLAMONIAN MOZOLEMS ON THE PLANET ! trumps common sense for your own descendants, it appears.