In the Disasters and Policy Stagnation scenario, a series of natural hazards affects all European countries, starting with heatwaves, droughts and wildfires in 2026, followed by a combination of floods and storms in 2027. The compounding effects of these hazards could lead to a decline in euro area annual GDP of up to 4.7% by 2030.

It reads like self-parody. We need to remember that economics is a pseudo-science.

Looks like a cross between a sparrow and a coal tit. What it is?

C’est dit dans l’accroche même : pour “relancer la compétitivité du secteur” et pour éviter que “trafic aérien stagne”.

La stupidité atteint vraiment des combles.

it looks purpose-built to capture diverse motorcycle-heavy markets like Indonesia, which counts over 120 million two-wheelers and is quickly transitioning to electric models

A transition that cannot come soon enough for that region’s eardrums and sanity.

As a teenager at the time, I remember finding it almost unbelievable that such a thing had just happened in the middle of Europe. Bosnia is right opposite Italy. Not in the 1940s but in the 90s! I still find it mind-boggling. The veneer of civilisation is very thin.

It does seem so, but I’m guessing it’s mostly a tourism venue at this point.

What I find interesting is how the experiment effectively taught us some humility:

But the most important lesson from the biospherians’ experience, experts agree, is the realisation of how difficult it would be to live anywhere else than on Earth. Humans can’t exist in isolation; they come in “biospheric packages”, as Nelson puts it, and recreating these complex systems is no easy task. While Tilman reckons that some of the problems may have been solvable, it was clear during his visit to the facility that it was a long way away from being able to sustain human life. “It really impacted me when I saw that, because… my initial guess was that you would probably make it work,” he says. Now, “I firmly believe that this really is our only planet ever”.

Harsh! I do faintly remember it (very young at the time) and I do vaguely remember a bit of a circus atmosphere, sure.

Probably referring to this (trailer). Have not seen it. Looks super interesting.

Ouais on est bien d’accord que j’ai le droit de m’informer, mais t’as posté un truc sans aucun contexte ou explication, c’est pas ça qui va susciter une conversation (ce qui est normalement le but de ce truc).

PS: c’est fait.

Cette petite diatribe aurait mérité un peu de contexte (si possible neutre) pour ne pas dire un lien vers une source (si possible neutre) avec plus d’infos.

(Si cette loi est si conséquente et mon ignorance est partagée, j’avoue que c’est un problème en soi.)

Perhaps you’d consider writing a paper to detail all this. And then submitting it for peer review, of course. I am not a climate scientist so I will content myself with trusting reliable secondary sources.

Point 2: “Reliable sources”. They are likely wrong. Read the paper.

Yeah, no. To be clear, the source I referred to is Our World in Data. It’s widely respected and I have better things to do than second-guess it.

And yet reliable sources say what seems to be generally accepted, namely that stopping carbons emissions completely in a short time frame (a couple of years) would land us with “1.5 degrees by the end of the century”. So, as I said, something is off with this “10 degrees”. Perhaps it’s the “end of the century” bit.

That’s helpful. These estimates do tend to vary a bit depending on assumptions (type of plane or car, what occupancy etc). The 2t I quoted was slightly high. My point was that there’s no other way to emit 1 tonne in 6 hours.

And yet, says the same article:

Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring.

So something’s off.

Apart from the methane problem, all livestock farming takes, by definition, a massive amount more land than arable farming to produce the same amount of food. On a stressed planet of 9 billion people, there simply is not enough land to feed everyone with red meat.

First, well done for taking it seriously and doing your bit.

The point of the post (I think) is simply to illustrate that certain actions are much, much more important than others. Anecdotally, there are still plenty of people out there who believe that, say, turning off a couple of (low-energy) lights, or “recycling” a plastic bag, are somehow major good deeds that allow them to kick their feet up and celebrate with a steak. There’s still way too much ignorance about all this, IMO.

In reality (as you seem to understand), some gestures are far more important than others. Ditching red meat (and dairy) really is a big deal. Everyone who claims to care about this problem should at least consider doing it.

This is a nice articulation of nihilism.

The paradox being that the attitude is both justified and… certain to only make the problem worse.

lasts much longer which is important as a single household

This is an often-overlooked argument for veganism. If you plan carefully, you literally don’t need a fridge.

Roughly true, but you’re eliding a very, very problematic activity into “travel”: aviation.

Per kilometer, flying is pretty carbon intensive (about the same as driving - basically: the extra efficiency of being packed into a tin can is offset by exponentially higher wind resistance at high speed). The problem is that airplanes allow you to burn up massive distances really quickly.

A single transatlantic flight will blow a 2-ton1-ton hole in your personal carbon footprint. That’s 10-20% of an average European’s annual footprint - or 100% a very large chunk of a sustainable annual footprint. For anyone who flies more than once a year (i.e. likely a bunch of people here), cutting down on flying is likely to be the single biggest thing you can do for the climate.