It is very strange to me that claiming c/c is an X-risk is the position that requires explaining, rather than the opposite (as is the amount of scepsis/shading thrown at c/c on LW in general). Afaik (correct me if I’m wrong) the future of humanity institute also treats it as an X-risk, though they assign a lower probability to it than to other ones. That is my view aswell, I think c/c is likely to kill several billion people overall before we stop it, and might also lead to extinction.
As for how that would happen, I imagine a sceanario of nation wide collapse, caused by mass migration due to flooding and hunger. Alternatively, it could escalate chaos and cause nukes to be used without leading to total collapse.
I think c/c is likely to kill several billion people overall before we stop it, and might also lead to extinction.
Scientific consensus is that warming under 2 degrees c could be good, warming over that is bad. Worst case scenario is that we will hit that around 2060. Many forecast the singularity as most likely to happen in the 2040s, but even if that is over optimistic, solar panels are halving in cost per watt each decade. Naively extrapolating, by 2060 solar power should be 20x cheaper, so even if the singularity is delayed we should still be able to move most of the economy onto clean energy even without subsidies long before we reach dangerous levels of warming.
I certainly think that global warming is a risk we should monitor, and keep funding research into solar panels, but I really don’t think it needs to be a priority.
Scientific consensus is that warming under 2 degrees c could be good, warming over that is bad.
There’s no such consensus. There is a consensus (which may be more political than scientific in nature) that below two degrees is somewhat safe, globally and on average (locally, not necessarily; ask the island nations of the Pacific). And my impression is that more recent research has suggested that two degrees may be worse than previously though.
Naively extrapolating, by 2060 solar power should be 20x cheaper, so—we should still be able to move most of the economy onto clean energy even without subsidies long before we reach dangerous levels of warming.
Naively. I think solar currently accounts for less than one percent of global energy consumption. With CO2 levels still on the rise, there’s a long way to go before the world economy is rid of fossils, and we don’t know if solar and other renewables can actually scale high and fast enough. There are reasons to suspect they can’t. Plus, with renewables like solar, we would also need to be able to store electricity on a massive scale, and that may not be possible either.
Edit: Whoah, −3 with no responses. Now I get why LessWrong shuns politics.
It is very strange to me that claiming c/c is an X-risk is the position that requires explaining, rather than the opposite (as is the amount of scepsis/shading thrown at c/c on LW in general).
I IPCC summary for policy makers doesn’t say that policy makers should be worried about global warming causing human extinction.
The position of treating c/c as an X-risk is either treating it as a risk with p<0.01 or it’s a position of skepticism of the IPCC scientific consensus.
This doesn’t match with the information I have gathered. I would hope you are right – if you are, it is at best still a simplified stance. c/c already causes chaos in some parts of the world and will continue to do so. That can and will cause interventions which adds fuel to international tensions.
The narrative you are laying out seems to be possible, but there are also numerous ways in which c/c can lead to extinction.
It is very strange to me that claiming c/c is an X-risk is the position that requires explaining, rather than the opposite (as is the amount of scepsis/shading thrown at c/c on LW in general). Afaik (correct me if I’m wrong) the future of humanity institute also treats it as an X-risk, though they assign a lower probability to it than to other ones. That is my view aswell, I think c/c is likely to kill several billion people overall before we stop it, and might also lead to extinction.
As for how that would happen, I imagine a sceanario of nation wide collapse, caused by mass migration due to flooding and hunger. Alternatively, it could escalate chaos and cause nukes to be used without leading to total collapse.
Scientific consensus is that warming under 2 degrees c could be good, warming over that is bad. Worst case scenario is that we will hit that around 2060. Many forecast the singularity as most likely to happen in the 2040s, but even if that is over optimistic, solar panels are halving in cost per watt each decade. Naively extrapolating, by 2060 solar power should be 20x cheaper, so even if the singularity is delayed we should still be able to move most of the economy onto clean energy even without subsidies long before we reach dangerous levels of warming.
I certainly think that global warming is a risk we should monitor, and keep funding research into solar panels, but I really don’t think it needs to be a priority.
There’s no such consensus. There is a consensus (which may be more political than scientific in nature) that below two degrees is somewhat safe, globally and on average (locally, not necessarily; ask the island nations of the Pacific). And my impression is that more recent research has suggested that two degrees may be worse than previously though.
Naively. I think solar currently accounts for less than one percent of global energy consumption. With CO2 levels still on the rise, there’s a long way to go before the world economy is rid of fossils, and we don’t know if solar and other renewables can actually scale high and fast enough. There are reasons to suspect they can’t. Plus, with renewables like solar, we would also need to be able to store electricity on a massive scale, and that may not be possible either.
Edit: Whoah, −3 with no responses. Now I get why LessWrong shuns politics.
I IPCC summary for policy makers doesn’t say that policy makers should be worried about global warming causing human extinction.
The position of treating c/c as an X-risk is either treating it as a risk with p<0.01 or it’s a position of skepticism of the IPCC scientific consensus.
This doesn’t match with the information I have gathered. I would hope you are right – if you are, it is at best still a simplified stance. c/c already causes chaos in some parts of the world and will continue to do so. That can and will cause interventions which adds fuel to international tensions.
The narrative you are laying out seems to be possible, but there are also numerous ways in which c/c can lead to extinction.