Brutkey

Kent Pitman
@kentpitman@climatejustice.social

@RichardAshwell@climatejustice.social

Maybe so. But increasingly I think we will each die not of old age, but very specifically one of these. I think it is useful to visualize how horrible that fate is as we contemplate what we need our climate priorities are, and what we're willing to sacrifice. Most people probably want to believe it's safely distant. It's not.

I was called yesterday by a pollster. He was tuning messaging for someone. One possible message included something about climate and how the candidate was going to get us the most cost-effective solutions. I had already told the pollster that I was basically unconvinced by messages that don't have to do with climate, so he thought it odd that I found that messavge unconvincing, too. He said, it's got climate in it. I explained that if you really care about climate, cost-effective is not your first thought. It makes it sound like cost is more important than survival.

People who are in denial want a climate solution if it works well in their budget, and not otherwise. Inhofe was famously like that. I'm probably in the minority, but I'm soothed more by a politician that says they'll try to keep costs down, but that ultimately we just have to do stuff, even if it costs. Of course, that creates a situation where people may Jack the cost because they think you're willing to pay. One has to be vigilant about stuff like that. But not every higher price is caused by that. There's no substitute for paying attention.

And if you're not willing to do that kind of tradeoff, of understanding that there are things of real value you would give up to have climate solved, then you are probably not really properly visualizing how bad this can get in the climate endgame. And how soon. (I mean the generic you here, but if it applies specifically to anyone reading on, so much better.)

Kent Pitman
@kentpitman@climatejustice.social

@RichardAshwell@climatejustice.social

Oh, and I don't know what that #collapse2040 tag is about, but I expect collapse to happen sooner than that. For more than a decade I'd been saying 2035. Even that seems optimistic to me now. 2040 seems out right luxurious in terms of time. I just can't believe we'll get that much. And that's why I'm talking about our fates, not the fates of our kids.

People report to care about their kids, but from the way they behave, and my bet that they believe it will affect only them and not ourselves, my sense is that they would sell out their kids in an instant for just a little more pleasure themselves, because that's what I see them doing everyday through inaction. It's just that now I think they aren't even going to get that little more pleasure because it's going to hit us too soon. Want the kids-seller-outers among us be sad...

Richard Ashwell
@RichardAshwell@climatejustice.social

@kentpitman@climatejustice.social

For me the #collapse2040 hashtag means the following:

In 2040 if you are not growing your own food, assuming you still can given the increasingly eratic #climate, then marauding bands of hungry armed looters will be doing their very best to steal it from you. The only people who will survive will be those who are rich enough to employ their own private army to defend the food they grow on land they claim to be theirs, and their employees, of course.

In what order, and when, exactly, the things you mention will occur, I know not. There will, in any case, be multiple occurrences of all of them in various different places over the next couple of decades. These things are all happening now, and will simply grow in size and number until the population of the planet is reduced to a fraction of what it is now.

And this will affect me, not just my children and grandchildren.

No, most people simply don't have a clue about what is happening now, never mind what will happen in the future.

What am I doing about it? Just living the best life I can while I can.