Many tipping points (Arctic ice loss, permafrost thaw, Amazon dieback) are much closer than your timeline suggests.
I gave a timeline? I merely said we have time to act deliberately and implement known working solutions than go all in on what is popular today.
Yes, we need to stop emissions now, but framing this as something that mainly affects future generations is dangerously misleading. Climate impacts are accelerating, not gradually unfolding.
Of course the impacts are unfolding today. That means we will have to adapt than just focus on mitigating future warming. If the concern is rising sea levels then we will have to build seawalls, abandon some low lying areas near shores, etc. With wildfires we may have to clear out dried plant matter by mechanical means or with small controlled burns, clear out fire breaks to reduce risks to people and property, etc. Some of that may not be considered "green" to some people but it's better to clear out some trees near homes so people don't die than wait for the inevitable. We can create more wooded area elsewhere to make up for the losses, and then some.
Waiting another 10 years for nuclear power while continuing to burn coal is a recipe for disaster.
I didn't say anything about nuclear power. But now that you mention it that sounds like an excellent idea. It's not like we need to burn coal in the meantime. We can put up windmills, build some mini- and micro-dams for flood/drought mitigation and hydroelectric power. I'm not a fan of rooftop solar as a solution due to it's high cost but if it makes people feel better then I'm not going to stop them. I'll be opposed to government subsidies for rooftop solar but not any kind of law or regulation to stop people. Just switching from coal to natural gas would help plenty in reducing CO2 emissions, and certainly in reducing air pollution. To make that happen though we need people to stop opposing the construction of pipelines. The longer people hold up these pipelines the longer we keep burning coal to keep the lights and heat on in the cold dark winter.
We don't have that luxury of time.
I don't know if I'd call it a luxury but we do have time.
We're talking 10-15 years until resource wars over water and arable land, mass climate migration that makes current refugee crises look trivial, and supply chain breakdowns that will devastate the global economy.
10 to 15 years? It takes only 8 years to build a nuclear power plant, that is if we don't have Greenpeace tossing wrenches in the gears. 10 years is enough time to do a lot of things. We just need people to STFU and put their nose to the wheel and work on solutions than get in the way of people that are working. We need pipelines. We need hydroelectric dams. We need power lines. We need mines for rare earth metals, lithium, and so much else. Instead we have people standing in the way because they claim this is damaging the environment and a distraction from more immediate options.
The solutions exist NOW - renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets.
Do you know how long I've been hearing that? Ever since I could read, and I'm no spring chicken. If what you have is cheaper then make it happen than stand in the way of any parallel efforts to get solutions, like those dams and pipelines I mentioned. If you are wrong on the timeline then we saved the world. If you are right then you saved the world by acting than talking. I'm seeing a lot of talk about how renewable energy will save us but not enough action. Renewable energy isn't keeping up with growth in demand so you and your friends can work on those solar panels while the rest are building more traditional solutions.
Every year we delay while waiting for the 'perfect' nuclear solution means more locked-in warming, more irreversible tipping points crossed, and exponentially higher costs later. This isn't about choosing the ideal solution anymore - it's about deploying what works immediately before the window for manageable adaptation closes entirely.
Nobody is waiting for the "perfect" nuclear solution. Third generation nuclear is just fine right now and there's plenty of people willing to build them with alacrity. The only thing slowing them down are the morons that have been screaming we don't have the time to build nuclear power plants for the last 2 or 4 decades.
Within the next 5 years, we'll see global crop failures - whether from pests gaining evolutionary advantages in warmer climates, extreme flooding destroying entire harvests, or unprecedented droughts. Most likely all three simultaneously, plus factors we haven't even considered yet.
I grew up on a farm, I know farmers have considerable ability to adapt to variations in weather from year to year. We will do fine.
Farmers need stability to plan crops, invest in equipment, and maintain soil health.
It is common practice to rotate crops to maintain soil health so a farmer will have the equipment and knowledge to plant at least three crops and have the ability to adjust their rotation to market demand, weather, and more. They also rotate equipment because anything mechanical will experience wear and failures. That gives them an opportunity to make a shift to a different crop if they must without any real hit to their costs or operation. We will do fine on food supplies.
Our food systems are built on predictability. When that breaks down, everything breaks down. We're not talking about gradual changes farmers can adjust to over decades - we're talking about whiplash between extremes that make farming as we know it impossible.
If that happens then I'm holding people like you responsible for holding up projects like pipelines, dams, power lines, and... I'm forgetting something... oh, right, you mentioned nuclear power, for decades while CO2 emissions have been rising. We'd be in a much better position now if it weren't for people like you demanding the short term and very expensive solutions while holding up what we know would work to lower CO2 emissions and energy costs.
