City of New Orleans is gonna go under water.

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2026, 06:29 AM - Edit history (2)

They ran experiments that showed the more CO 2 you had in a body of gas the more heat that
body of gas would hold. That fact has never been disproven the fossil fuel industries have spent
billions to make millions of Americans believe that is not true.

i will be here, dead or alive.

We will see simultaneous massive migration and massive death.

NOTHING is more important, but we're bound up in the news cycle of the rodeo clown.

Our highly-dependent civ is not designed for resilience, it's designed for quick profit. Supply lines will break down, including food, medicine, and fuel.

Learn to garden. Potatoes have a high yield of calories per square meter. Collect rainwater. Solar panels. I planted black locust to burn for fuel. It grows fast, coppices well, and yields anthracite-like heat in a wood stove. I called it "planting my solar power".

If you're young, move to a higher altitude. Years ago I read that seas will rise by hundreds of feet if all the ice melts. It's happened before: the North Sea was land when the Ice Age was on. I haven't checked recent calculations. Remember: it's not how far you are from a coast, it's how high you are.

I reminded people of that before a storm surge and got them to move valuables higher. They thought because they were hundreds of yards from the water they were ok. They weren't. I'm glad I got that word out. The flood reached them, but they were prepared.

That was almost 20 years ago. It's worse now.

We've wasted decades of planning and organization. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House - we should have begun then. The destructiveness is in the RATE of change; we lost our chance to slow the impacts down by moving to higher ground systematically and making other prep. This is why I went into massive shock for T2.0: that scuttled our last slim chance to prevent and cope. I had to hibernate until I could cope again.

Every minute we spend now preparing for a drastic rate of change will pay off tenfold or more. But if we wait until our feet are wet while our hair is burning...

That seems to be the prevailing attitude.

4 billion dead in less than a century, will put a crimp on the demand side of the fossil fuel equation that's for damn sure.
Not pretty for any of us, but the environment and the planet, WILL find a way to outlive this problem we have created...it doesn't much care if we're still there on the other side or not.

to reap the "rewards" of their actions or inactions.

An invasive species.

There should be a lot fewer or us than there are.

The upheaval and turmoil will give authoritarians issues to run on like immigration.

Mass migration because of climate change is already occurring and it's almost never discussed as such. In the US, much of the immigration we've seen at the Southern border is partially due to climate change. Subsistence farming in the mountains of Central and South America has become rarer because climate change has shutdown some systems that brought nutrients to those regions. This prompted millions of people to leave small towns and head to the cities looking for work thus taxing the infrastructure in those cities and overcrowding them leading to higher crime and gangs that families flee by heading North. We're seeing the same thing in Europe. It's not going to slow down.

Peace thrives when there is plentitude and scarcity brings war.

bad part is that many of those people will be from national that didn't contribute much or at all to the situation.

that shits where it eats? The only place where we can live.

or from the unvaccinated childhood diseases.

the less populated earth should be a very nice place for the survivors.

i plan to stay in new orleans until the gulf of mexico reaches my door step.

The other 2.5 billion would be what are called "excess deaths" over and above the average expected number.
The birth rate will plunge as well, so there won't be as many replacement births.

It's going to be an "interesting" couple of decades.

...the impact of climate change?

No, the 4 billion is strictly the impact imo.

I think about the sweet little 4-year old in my family and I just want to cry. The world we are leaving him won't be interesting, it will be unbearably horrifying and sad. Imo.

I'm expecting a global population reduction of well over 95% when all is said and done. I think that our numbers will stabilize at around 50 million eventually - not that I'll be around for more than the next 20 years...

Tay Tay



I’ll show myself out.

Ultra wealthy can and do build bunkers

But if your reaction to billions potentially dying is to crack a joke, I don't know what to tell you.

You could contribute to the topic in some way, maybe?

What are your thoughts on geo-engineering?

And her CO2 emissions have been considerably more since this was posted

https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2024/02/13/taylor-swift-and-the-top-polluters-department/

Aviation represents 2.5% of the world’s carbon emissions (and likely much more in non-carbon emissions) yet only 1% of the world’s population are responsible for about 50% of all aviation emissions. Moreover, private planes are up to 14 times more polluting, per individual, than commercial planes and 50 times more polluting than trains, according to reporting by Transport and the Environment.

I know they both have important careers controlling global politics, but I'd be interested in hearing the gossip.

My goal is to make it to 2050.

If so I will be one of the four billion to die.

There is a price point where using energy to fix carbon and bury it at the bottom of the sea will be essential.

Climate change COULD kill a lot of people, but it won't kill as many as it could because we are living in the Anthropocene and we control nature, and economics moves mountains.

We could mitigate climate change with massive change, but scaling up carbon sequestration is something climate scientists have discussed- and it's extraordinarily difficult.

The only thing that MIGHT work is aerosol geoengineering. And that has a whole host of problems and would be a tremendous gamble.

but the technology is possible.

and requires global cooperation and coordination. Trump and republicans, without a doubt, lack the foresight, intelligence and political will to be a good faith partner, so we need Democrats in control of congress and the White House and strong public pressure to act.

But the elephant in the room (though absent from this thread) is the fact that China contributes over a third of all CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and contributes more than the US and India combined.

Even if the US did everything as correctly and timely as humanly possible, China is and will remain a major stumbling block to the reversal of climate change dangers.

But action in the here and now has to be taken against what is happening in the here and now. And China is pumping out more than twice as much as the US.

You pointed first.

If there is a call for the US to admit historical culpability, I will be all for the US taking accountability.

If there is to be substantive action, we’ll need to recognize and mitigate what’s happening now. And nothing substantive can be done with cooperation of the worst offender.

That's some terrible context to have to point out.

Ironically, China in it's current position, and who conveniently makes a bulk of the worlds products, is probably doing more now than we are in this dilemma.

At their current rate, China’s cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas emissions since 1850 will match the US’s by 2100.

as all the other industrialized nations combined and that include the US

been stated, but apparently meaningless context.