How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Climate Change
Climate change is something I'm not worried about. Solar is becoming dirt cheap and will continue to plunge in price.
See here:
But, what makes me not worry about climate change and even embrace it, is the impetus it has created to embrace renewable and more efficient technologies. Even if the US doesn't adhere to the Paris climate accords, other countries will, and that fact will hasten the end of the fossil fuel era, due to the fact that fossils are inherently inferior to electric. The only thing holding us back is the problem of energy storage; but, that's just an engineering problem.
It's a matter of simple economics with climate change. A cost-benefit analysis is all that is needed to persuade a politician, and solar and the wind is becoming so cheap in many regions, that people are seriously considering the switch.
See here:
But, what makes me not worry about climate change and even embrace it, is the impetus it has created to embrace renewable and more efficient technologies. Even if the US doesn't adhere to the Paris climate accords, other countries will, and that fact will hasten the end of the fossil fuel era, due to the fact that fossils are inherently inferior to electric. The only thing holding us back is the problem of energy storage; but, that's just an engineering problem.
It's a matter of simple economics with climate change. A cost-benefit analysis is all that is needed to persuade a politician, and solar and the wind is becoming so cheap in many regions, that people are seriously considering the switch.
Comments (100)
Of course, I'm sure your being hyperbolic, but language is important when discussing these issue since it can be used against you. Embrace is just the wrong word to use.
It's just a matter of economics. People will switch to solar or wind or whatever that becomes sufficiently cheap enough.
Quoting SnowyChainsaw
How else can you phrase the issue? It's a boon for renewables since now it has taken a president over other matters. In other words, it's a directive that is being implemented by other countries like France, Germany, China, even India.
Thus, one must embrace climate change to solve it.
The only loser in all this is the failure to adapt by those very conglomerates you mention. If they can't adapt to the new situation with all their wealth, then they will be left behind in the new race towards renewable energy.
Your use of the word "embrace" detracts from the severity of the issue and will aid fossil fuel based business in battling the implementation of alternative energy. It suggests that it's fine to allow climate change to get worse and the market will sort it out. "If it's fine to allow climate change to continue, then it not as big a deal as people make it out to be so isn't just easier to keep going as we are." Is what I'm sure they'll claim.
I agree, the market will decide but let's not tempt fate by giving opponents ammunition to fight back.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yep, it sure is. Even funnier is that Nuclear fusion is just as, if not more, dangerous but everyone loves it.
I use the word embrace, in a stipulative manner. People will 'embrace' climate change by a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. If the market dictates (as it does base on the graph in the OP) that solar is cheaper than natural gas (as it is in some regions) then the conglomerates have no argument to make, it's the economics of the situation that will dictate or 'embrace' this change.
Hence, I love climate change because it forces us to act, and that is seen through the working of the economy, which is pushing more and more for a positive externality.
In other words, we are internalizing the costs of carbon emissions by switching to cheaper alternatives like solar and wind.
What do you mean by that? There has been significant progress in utilizing fusion energy, made by Canadians, Germans, and others.
Hmm, that sounds edifying. Though, it sounds like a really bad non sequitur.
Hence, what I mean to say with 'embrace' is that climate change has presented a problem to the market. The answer is being made possible by the 'invisible hand'. We (collectively) are pursuing the matter in a good form as seen by the progress being made. The powers that be are just trying to produce more energy through fossil fuels, which also is a boon for the economy.
My point is that the market is responding effectively, and all that is left is to embrace the market's solution, through a directive on the part of governing parties.
Yeah, sorry I'm just being argumentative for arguments sake.
When fusion is working, it's great. But if it goes wrong, the potential for catastrophe ranges from the creation of black holes to the instantaneous destruction of reality, according to a few hypotheses. Point is we don't really know how bad it could be, only that it will be bad, just like fission.
What, don't want to become one with the forest? To be of the prestigious tree people? Highly trained in tree related disciplines, and puns?
Well the only alternative that I can see is shutting up and taking your poison.
That's fine.
Quoting SnowyChainsaw
I have a lot of hope for fission and fusion. Some really really smart people are working on solutions to the collective problem of climate change.
Check out these guys:
http://generalfusion.com/
Sounds pretty boring. Climate change by the very definition of "change" is exciting. It provides an impetus to strive for something better. Tree people just wallow in mud and hope for rain. What if climate change endangers your habitat, then what?
Cool, I'll have a look.
Quoting Posty McPostface
"Traditional" Nuclear power plants use nuclear fission to generate energy. Fission and fusion are the two primary processes that are responsible for the existence of suns. It stands to reason that if something goes wrong with either bad things happen. We have already witnessed the destruction of fission, but it remains to be seen what happens when we lose control of fusion.
I personally support research into fusion energy. We just need to be really, really careful.
I understand that. But, your fear is not based on rational analysis. The market is the answer.
1 Terawatt Hour: Electrical energy consumption rate equivalent to a trillion watts consumed in one hour.
What? No. My fear is perfectly rational. Nuclear reaction, of both kinds, are objectively some of the most destructive forces in nature. Messing about with them is dangerous. Sure, no risk no reward and all that but we can't rush this.
Everybody likes a hug, so I don't have a problem with embrace. Maybe we should have sex with climate change. You could say "Acknowledge" instead of embrace, or "take climate change into their consideration".
Posty wants to be one with the forest, but he is barking up the wrong tree.
Ask the people who lived in Chernobyl and Pripyat about "social stigma".
The trouble with fusion is that getting it to work on a controlled basis has proved to be damned difficult -- more difficult than we have so far been able to overcome.
*meow*
Actually, if you do some research, the prevalence of cancer and other fears about radiation are unfounded by science.
Yes.
The rate of genetic defects among the animals that live in the forest around Chernobyl are apparently quite low. There are some genetic defects -- for instance, a bird species there that now tends to have a crossed beak (it doesn't align properly). The wolves, top predators, seem to be doing OK. One thing that was noted is that not very many animals live in the zone underneath the new thick forest litter and above the uncontaminated soil. How rodents living in the contaminated soil zone are faring, don't know. Of course by now some of the contaminants have decayed considerably.) A number of species are apparently living shorter lives.
Bear in mind, that humans were evacuated fairly quickly. Not quickly enough, probably, but their exposure was limited by the evacuations. Also, thyroid cancer can be prevented by administering potassium iodide after exposure. The non-radioactive PI saturates the thyroid, preventing the uptake of radioactive iodine.
Seems to me the death rate among workers trying to contain the mess (in the hours and days after the explosion) didn't fare too well.
The other thing to remember is that the Soviets had reason to downplay the disaster's health effects and post-collapse Russia was a largely disorganized mess. How well cases have been followed, I don't know.
I don't think it's doing that unbidden. It's doing that because governments in Europe have made laws that try to internalise the externalities of fossil fuel power generation. It is that government action that has lead new coal-fired plants anywhere except in developing countries to be unfundable, because of the investment uncertainty that brings.
If it were not for government action in Europe, and the prospect that other developed countries like Canada, US and Australia may some day come to their senses and also internalise the externalities, new coal-fired plants would still be being built, and it would still be seen as the 'cheapest' solution (since we don't price the externalities).
I don't share your optimism by the way, but it is conceivable that you will be right, and I earnestly hope you are.
Be careful with saying you're not worried about climate change though. If things unfold as you suggest, affluent people in developed countries will generally be fine. But even with the warming currently regarded as inevitable - about 2 degrees C - people in Bangladesh and Pacific islands will still lose their homes to rising sea levels, enormous numbers of people in Africa will still die of drought-induced famine, and many will die from the advance of tropical diseases into sub-tropical areas. So we rich whiteys will be fine, even though we caused the problem, but poor people in developed countries will still pay the price for our greed.
Well, yes. The whole premise of this thread is that some form of guided influence is required to instantiate a solution for the problem. It's an interesting perspective that a top-down governance is required to fulfill the solution to the problem. So, I'm quite befuddled that Trump is doubling down on coal. But, that's to be expected from a country that now exports gas, oil, and other fossil fuel intermediates. It's quite amazing economically that the US has turned to a net positive exporter of gas and oil. But, it's quite obvious that the fossil fuel industry is a conglomerate of an oligopoly. I don't think they will cooperate much longer given the dramatic shift in public perception about the state of affairs of climate change.
I have hope that people will realize that sinking the Netherlands over our greed is an idiocy.
As for internalizing the externalities, that's a tough question. How do you calculate (quantify) the externality of something that is prone to factors like the butterfly effect or chaos theory?
I hope that doesn't sound too neo-liberal.
Just internalising the non-chaotic effects should be enough to create a financial incentive towards renewables that is strong enough to ensure things don't get too bad. But I fear it may have been left too late.
I think you're neglecting individual efforts and private enterprise venture capitalists. I've witnessed something amazing. About 20 some private initiatives to create nuclear fusion, LENR, and fission projects. Bill Gates is betting on fusion.
https://lppfusion.com
http://brillouinenergy.com/
http://generalfusion.com/
https://deneum.com
https://brilliantlightpower.com/ (questionable)
and so many others...
Fusion is a fiendishly difficult technical problem. When I attended a science summer school at Sydney Uni in 1978, everybody was talking about tokamaks and nuclear fusion as the holy grail of energy, and it seemed just around the corner.
Forty years later we are not significantly closer. It's still research labs playing around with tokamaks and hoping to one day generate enough power to replace the power needed to run the thing.
One day we'll crack the problem of scaled up fusion reactors and that'll be fantastic, but it won't be for a very long time. If fusion is the only hope against global warming then it'll be too late and we're all doomed.
Have you heard of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)? It's like cold fusion with a twist. I'm betting hard on LENR and think it will provide the energy required to provide for us. It sounds like fantasy; but, I sincerely think it is real.
As for fusion, I think there's enough geothermal energy to sustain our needs too. Just that there seems to be no interest in geothermal. The LCOE is the lowest for geothermal. See:
Elon Musk is betting heavily on solar, and I think it's the right solution if the intermittent problem can be solved with some energy storage system.
I also think fission is undervalued and overly regulated. I hope thorium reactors or breeder reactors can be devised and implemented.
LENR is just a rebranding of cold fusion. It is largely the province of cooks and scammers.
You should look into it more. Seems you have a provincial view on the subject.
A fusion reaction "out of control" just dies down. It's much safer than fission in operation. Life time of fusion reaction waste is 50 to 100 years - a fraction from fission waste - and the resource materials aren't radioactive to begin with as opposed to uranium. Waste is also produced in much smaller amounts than for fission and tritium irradiates beta waves instead of gamma (and therefore is less harmful).
Look where? Rossi's E-cat? :rofl:
1. What is the fourth state of matter? (along with solids, liquids, and gasses)
2. What is the state of matter that most of the known universe exists in?
3. What (debatably) is a potential transitional state between matter and energy?
[hide]The answer to all three questions is “plasma”. If you got this answer then you get a flower :flower: !
If you answered “a wet fart” to any of the questions, you get partial credit. :lol:
Lightning is a plasma, to give a succinct example. (Funny thing about the link about plasma... my browser included an advertisement for “plasma televisions” ) The link provided above about “general fusion” by @Posty McPostface concerns plasma and energy. Much more research is needed. Fascinating subject (which may change our lives) that I know too little about.
[/hide]
There is a weight of evidence supporting what Rossi has been doing. I don't know if you care to explore what evidence is available in regards to the topic. The evidence is available through websites like http://brillouinenergy.com/...
I won't play the role of I know more than you, as I'm quite uneducated on the topic.
Check LPP Fusion. They are the only guys operating without LENR reactions that I hope can make a product possible. Dense plasma focus is what they are trying to create.
LENR is possibly more serious provided it isn't cold fusion in disguise, which often happens. Lower temperatures (and therefore lower energy) is a possibility but not at or near room temperature. Just much lower than that of plasma, which would be an improvement for sure.
Indeed. And there are a few more red flags besides those that you mention. There always is an external power supply to Rossi's devices. Rossi never allows the supplied power to be monitored. This is a bit like a levitating magician who would never allows you to walk between him and the curtain. Also, Rossi never allows 'independent' investigators to handle the products of the alleged fusion reaction. But when the produced copper is analysed, it has isotope ratios that exactly matches the ratios for natural copper. This is rather like the Filipino psychic surgeons who extract cancerous tumors from people's abdomens with their bare hands and, when those 'tumors' are being tested, they are shown to have chicken DNA, or pig DNA, rather than human DNA.
Rossi has a customer for 40MW of his product. Let's wait and see if he can deliver on his promise.
He only has one single customer for his latest scam? Trump University at least managed to defraud 5,000 poor souls. What are the chances, anyway, that sustainable nuclear fusion would be achieved by a lifelong scam artist who doesn't have a degree in any scientific field whatsoever? Rossi graduated in philosophy. His first business venture consisted in buying toxic waste for safe disposal and conversion into usable fuel. He was merely stockpiling it and illegally dumping it into the environment. He then invented a magical device to convert waste heat into usable electric power (the laws of thermodynamics be damned). His devices were independently tested to only deliver 0.1% of the advertised power. Nuclear fusion just is his latest scam.
That's a straw man and you know it...
Quoting Pierre-Normand
Not true. I've been following the advent of LENR for 4 years now, and more and more people are reporting excess heat and commence viable product that can be derived from this technology. Some people have been following this technology since Pons and Fleischmann first released their product to the scientific community that we're unable to reproduce their results.
LENR doesn't necessarily product radiation in some circumstances. Gamma radiation has been reported by some people in different configurations of their LENR devices.
I don't think this is a rebuttal of Rossi... This simply takes a piece of evidence and generalizes for more than one individual, which is overgeneralizing.
See: https://www.lenr-forum.com/
What is not true? Rossi's involvement with 'LENR' is his latest scam. But I was talking about Rossi's previous scam, marketed by his firm Leonardo Technologies, Inc., when he falsely claimed to have achieved 20% efficiency with thermoelectric generators. But the devices were actually generating 1 watt rather than the 1 kW he had claimed. (So, that was back when he was trying to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics rather than the principles of nuclear physics).
I agree that Rossi is not the ideal candidate to provide for the legitimacy of the LENR field. But, phrasing him as the sole failure if the entire field that is LENR, is a gross overgeneralization.
I'm talking about Rossi because you're the one who brought his alleged successes up for consideration. Unfortunately, the whole field seems to be a comedy of errors, self-deception, and plain deception.
I post there under the guise known as "Promethian". I welcome any members from here, there.
Really? You can visit that forum, specifically "Atom Ecology" along with "MacGyver (aka JohnyFive) LENR experiment", and see that that forum consists of well qualified and sincere individuals. They are on another level than me. So, I'm not qualified to describe their results.
He even posted on these forums; but, I can't find his nick? I guess he was removed from the forum for some reason.
58Ni + 1H ? 59Cu* ? 59Ni + ?+ + ? + ?e,
60Ni + 1H ? 61Cu* ? 61Ni + ?+ + ? + ?e,
61Ni + 1H ? 62Cu* ? 62Ni + ?+ + ? + ?e,
62Ni + 1H ? 63Cu* ? 63Cu + ?,
64Ni + 1H ? 65Cu* ? 65Cu + ?.
Three decay back into nickel, while emitting gamma radiation. The other two decay into copper by radiating gamma radiation. By all accounts Rossi should be dead. He isn't. Then considering the lack of shielding on the e-cat, it's a scam.
Ok, I'm going to try and flex my physic muscle. Don't laugh as a spaz when trying to do so.
This is why it's called "Low Energy"-Nuclear Reactions. I don't know the science behind it enough to explain how it's a low energy nuclear reaction. Even if we take Rossi as a particular, then if he's wrong, then there must be some shielding. Note, how all the newer versions of his reactor have some sort of shielding around them.
Anyway, since other's have demonstrated low-energy nuclear reactions, then how do you explain that?
As far as I'm aware the common fusion reactions all have at least beta particles. As to the other demonstrations : I can take them seriously when they're peer reviewed. I'll be happy to look into specific examples but I'm not going to look for them as most of it has turned out nonsense so far.
Wow, so you dismiss the entire field of LENR, based on a prejudice towards Rossi?
Cool.
Fascinating factoid: In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9
I said, I'd be happy to look into specifics, that's not a dismissal. The likelihood it's sensible is very low though, because too many are still pursuing cold fusion which is why I'm not bothering to look into it myself. Your getting excited about demonstrations that aren't properly validated is the real problem here, not my skepticism towards LENR.
Have at it. A compendium of knowledge about LENR can be found here:
http://lenr-canr.org/
Edit: upon review of the widom-larsen theory that had some suggestion it might make sense, I've just come to the conclusion all LENR to date is bunk.
You can look up on that website articles published by Tadahiko Mizuno and other Japanese. Their work spans something since the start of Cold Fusion with Pons and Fleischmann. NEDO is also a prominent candidate to look into.
If you're feeling up for it, there's this book also:
https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Transmutation-Reality-Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001
http://e-catworld.com/
The problem is there's a lot of anecdotal evidence for LENR but nothing close to proof. You're offering similar proof as ghost sightings, mediums and tarot readings. That's is to say it's fun to talk about in a "what if it were real" sense but it isn't science at this point. The biggest problem appears to be reproducibility - Mizuno hasn't managed that either.
Mizuno has produced a working device... I'm not following you here since I am aware of the fact that Mizuno has a working device that produces more thermal energy than the input power.
This is the best I can do for you. Try and forget Rossi for a moment when reading these papers...
Anyway, time for me to sleep.
So does rossi. Theory and working math, Posty, the rest is just noise. Brouillon energy is another scam who claim there's a Wallstreet conspiracy because nobody wants to invest because of the unrealistic profit margin. :lol:
Edit: I'm instituting a new rule for this subject if your want me to continue in this thread. You should explain the physics underlying whatever LENR process you believe works and we'll take it from there. Having to skim through these websites isn't enjoyable at all and it makes for a silly conversation where all you say is "look here" and "look there".
Nope. After 30 years of discussions in order to convince someone, you need a working demonstrator that produces excess heat independently tested by scientific community worldwide, not another CF paper never accepted by GAS. I can't be a physicist and explain to you all the details of LENR. It's new after all. I hope we can save this discussion, and when Rossi or whoever delivers on their promise, then you'll be convinced. Russia is going to accept LENR as real science soon, so there's that sliver of hope for the field of LENR.
Understood. But, I can't be your straw man. I understand physics in a conceptual manner. Transmutation of elements has been demonstrated and found to occur in LENR reactions. I don't know what else I can throw at you to convince you that this isn't all a scam, lie, and so on by Rossi. All that it is real and coming to the market soon. I am interested in how big companies will react. The US Navy has studied this LENR phenomenon and likely will try and implement it into ships and submarines. Time will tell.
But in order to make use of all that energy you would have to cover the entire surface of the earth with perfectly efficient solar panels, which then perfectly efficiently deliver that energy to end consumers. So, all things considered, that doesn't actually seem like that much usable energy.
Since there's always only half of the world facing the sun, half the world should be enough. Currently the most efficient solar cell converts 44,5% of sunlight into electricity. So let's say, theoretically, we can reach 50%. We have approximately 12 hours of sun on average per day a year. So we can make do with only covering 1/12 of the world (.5 X 2 due to efficiency x 1 hour / 12 hours of sunlight). Since we can smear this out over a year, we can make do with only covering 0,022% of the earth. That's only .1122 million square kilometers which leaves us about 148 million square kilometers to live on. 1 square kilometer of solar panels costs about 150 million USD.
At the low price of 17 trillion USD we could be done with global warming in one go. At current efficiency levels that would be 34 trillion USD. About 1/3 of world GDP now.
Sounds like a plan.
So we need 112,200 square kilometers to power the planet for a year. The Netherlands comes in at 25,814 square kilometers, which means after it's paved over with solar panels, we'll still need approximately 90,000 square kilometers for me to be able to run my washer, watch South Park, and do whatever it is I do. I looked to France for more land because if we could increase our power and reduce our French, then we'd killing two birds with one stone. France is 400,039 square kilometers, which is more than enough, but I think we should go ahead and clear it all out now just to create the infrastructure for anticipated increased power needs. We don't want to wait to the last minute like we did this time and have another crisis.
Sounds like a plan.
If we could run the world on dreary instead of sun, I'd have chosen the UK for our power needs.
Substitute Canada and Montenegro for France and you might even get Trump to buy your plan.
Here's the fruition to my question that you postited:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5728-how-do-you-convince-a-skeptic/?pageNo=1
Apologies for the likely rude nature of my response but this is hopelessly naive or ignores the lack of time we have for these "simple matters" of economics to persuade politicians. The U.S. and China are overwhelmingly responsible currently. There's not much to do about China since they hit their industrialization period later. We don't have long (perhaps as soon as fucking 2030 according to the IPCC...) to avert catastrophe. In all likelihood, we will eclipse catastrophe by a considerable margin, we are well and truly fucked.
So honestly, I hope this was somewhat tongue in cheek. There's not enough time, the U.S. especially will insure we won't make it in time, it takes a long time to shift large sectors of the economy to doing something else on this scale (global) and it's just a fact that current big business is working overtime to prevent renewable energy from gaining prominence. That's the point in paying off politicians via campaign contributions to ensure climate change deniers (including the goddamn president) have a sizable control over the political system and thus large control over the economic developments in the world. Nothing about this is simple.
Indeed. The degree to which we are fucked and just plugging our ears disturbs me. It's hard not to think about most days.
Oh yeah sure, they'll have to "adapt". In practice, this means an enormous death toll as sea levels rise destroying coastal cities the world over (major cities alone are usually on coastlines: New York, LA, Beijing, Tokyo), as climate fuckery worsens and promotes bad weather events (droughts, hurricanes, the whole shebang) and as violence of all types increase in response (people will have to flee inland to survive, causing issues with "OMG foreign 'invaders'! Gotta kill them"). Idiots have the stupid view that the Middle East is fucked up "because religion" while ignoring a major factor in worsening climate in the region (it will be uninhabitable in the foreseeable future).
So yes, we are fucked and no one who isn't being highly disingenuous and monstrous can say "We'll have to adapt" as a response to that. A bunch of people are
None of it is enough, of course, and there are irrationalities all over the place. If any city/state could transition to solar, it's Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona has clear skies 300 days a year, but the political machine in Arizona is against building solar generation for it's largest city. Why? Because the powers that be are invested in the existing natural gas plant. Phoenix depends on the Colorado River for water and it takes a dedicated (coal fired, of course) power plant to power the pumps that are required to lift the water over the terrain.
Places like Phoenix will probably become unsustainable in the not too distant future; the Colorado River is over-subscribed and the reservoirs are shrinking. Thanks to all that bright sunshine and climate change, Arizona (and Phoenix) is hot and dry.
Without abundant and affordable energy, much of the world's population is unsustainable. Where would cities like Chicago be without heat in the winter? What about Houston in the summer without air conditioning? Much of the world's housing has been built with the proviso of affordable energy.
Not what I would all a sophisticated response.
Sigh.
We will have to adapt.
Never mind foreign invaders. Does the staid midwest really want all those interesting people back who left for sunny and liberated California or the sophisticated culture of the northeast? Better start blowing up the freeway bridges so they can't just pack up and drive back here.
What, pray tell, is the alternative to adapting? One can throw one's self off a bridge, take poison, or blow one's brains out OR ADAPT. Resistance is futile. You will adapt.
Of course those who survive will have to adapt, that's not the point. The point is that mindset is a large reason we're stuck in a worsening situation. The powers that be have decided in word and in deed (especially in the U.S.) that we're not really doing anything substantial to overcome it. And to the extent that it's even acknowledged at a federal level (need I mention the "It's a Chinese hoax" crap?), we end up with tepid remarks like "We'll just adapt to it", as if it weren't a global state of affairs that will kill shocking numbers of people, damage to environment to an unprecedented degree and destroy lots of species.
What makes you think there must be some happy alternative? If you are told that you've got an untreatable cancer, you will, of course, have to "adapt" to that fact, but that doesn't take away the fact that you've got cancer.
We dont really know how much warmer because there are things we dont know how to model.
We're presently nearing the point in the Milankovitch cycle when reglaciation could be triggered. We don't know what's going to happen at that point, but scientists are attempting to model it. What the average reputable climatologist believes is that the climate is headed for change one way or another.
And I'm not aware of any Republican proclaiming that we're going to have to adapt. Where did you hear that?
All of the adaptations that have been talked about by those who take global warming as a fact involve wretched choices. For instance, Bangladeshis will be among the first very large populations to be inundated by rising oceans. Where will a few million Bangladeshi's go? Who will welcome them? How stiff will the resistance to their migrations be?
Where will the small, scattered island populations go? Which nation is eagerly looking for a few hundred thousand climate refugees?
What happens in tropical and sub-tropical areas when it becomes too hot to spend more than a few hours outside? How will those areas feed themselves? (This will include some parts of the southern US, where high humidity and high temperatures will place a hard limit on outdoor work. If the humidity and heat are too high, outdoor workers die of heat stroke.)
Adaptation will not be like rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. It will be more like a fight for the available lifeboats and then a fight over where to go, what to do, for those in the lifeboats.
That's the context in which I usually come across this. An admission that the thing is real but only insofar as to continue putting off any means by which to mitigate its severity.
Apologies for my assumption, it's how I'm used to seeing that response play out.
I wasn't talking about a short-term adaptation to sea level rise. I was talking about long-term adaption to a warmer climate for the next 10,000 years or longer. The fact that you focus on Republicans, sea-level rise, mitigation, etc. indicates that you and I aren't on the same page, nor even in the same book. I don't see us being able to communicate about this issue. Best wishes.