Global warming: Are we doomed? A poll.

[slartibartfast]

b. The next point is more subtle and difficult, which involves the whole "how do you prioritise" this vs. other things thing. Assuming you can get enough consensus for a. above, where do you rate this problem vs. other global issues?

• poverty
  
• disease (incl. Covid)
  
• food security
  
• ageing populations
  
• human rights violations
  
• pollution / destructions of natural environments
  
• water scarcity
  
• equality
  
• etc...
  

These are all also really really big problems. The truth is that to address climate change you need to take away resources and in some cases work against solutions to address the above - and how the hell does humanity make these types of moral tradeoffs in favour of addressing climate change globally across all countries with completely disparate and oftentimes opposite cultures, needs, ideologies and economical drivers? 

IMO, as long as people believe that addressing the climate issue is detrimental to addressing those...we won't even begin the process.  

Sustainable local agriculture is premised on getting more people housed and working on their own farms which benefit their own communities.  This immediately and intrinsically addresses the first three in one go.  Combined with the fact that contemporary ag exploits it's labor uniformly and on a global scale as well as destroying communities, the environment, wasting water, and concentrating wealth....just one small piece of the push to address climate change, as simple as getting people to garden... touches on the rest.  

Not just for us.  The reason that people starve, today, boils down to the fact that wealthier markets are more lucrative to producers.  The places where the majority of our food is grown also just so happen to hold the poorest and most malnourished populations who are powerless precisely because of this to stop the profligate human rights abuse inflicted upon them as a matter of course, a large majority of whom actually work in the fields to grow the food they can't afford to buy which will be shipped thousands of miles in refridgerated containers to..ultimately, spoil unsold and outcompeted on docks, shelves, or in our homes.  The amount of food that ends up in landfills in the us alone is more than enough to address hunger...and note that this food is sitting in a landfill, not being composted, which necessitates the mining and refining of fertilizers to cover the loss of fertility in production as practiced - one giant extraction industry.

An industry..it deserves mention, that goes full on gangster when anyone points this shit out and offers an alternative.  They'll just starve us to death, if we don't let them exploit us and our environment to death, they say.

Yeah - I get what you are saying, but do you honestly believe that solving any of these other problems comes without cost, energy, focus and need for resource? I am not saying the problems are mutually exclusive. 

What I am saying is that we are a bunch of loosely coupled global societies and by way of example, are you really going to enthuse a country that is, say, contributing only 0.1% of the world's emissions and is struggling from one or more of the other issues above into committing the resources, engaging in the change management and short term cost and tradeoffs to achieve their emission reduction goals enthusiastically? 

Or a country whose economy and wealth (looking at you, Australia) is based on production of fossil fuels would suffer disproportionately in the short-medium term if they were to abandon their primary industry altogether? Are you saying that they would not experience tradeoffs?