Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by mrpg on Monday November 27 2017, @07:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the we-are-doomed dept.

We may be headed for an ice apocalypse which could result in the flooding of coastal cities before the end of this century. Glaciers in Antarctica may break and release ice, exposing taller cliffs, resulting in faster melting.

"In the past few years, scientists have identified marine ice-cliff instability as a feedback loop that could kickstart the disintegration of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet this century — much more quickly than previously thought."

[...] A wholesale collapse of Pine Island and Thwaites would set off a catastrophe. Giant icebergs would stream away from Antarctica like a parade of frozen soldiers. All over the world, high tides would creep higher, slowly burying every shoreline on the planet, flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:49PM (#603544)

    >>> Where's the evidence that fighting global warming makes for a better world?

    That list you just gave makes for a start towards a better world.
    The tax one is pretty silly, though. I'm pretty sure that mandating tire inflation warning on cars (another low-hanging fruit) has already saved a few orders of magnitude less energy/time/pollution than anything you could do with tax (including flat tax), despite how many cars I still see driving around with near-flats.

    > decommissioning old coal power plants in favor of more efficient or less carbon intensive power.

    Isn't that one of the main things climate change people ask for, along with raising car/house energy efficiency instead of digging tar sands ? I'm confused about why you sound contradictory while advocating the same things.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:28PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:28PM (#603563) Journal

    I'm pretty sure that mandating tire inflation warning on cars (another low-hanging fruit) has already saved a few orders of magnitude less energy/time/pollution than anything you could do with tax (including flat tax), despite how many cars I still see driving around with near-flats.

    "Less" is the word I would use above too. Tax policy is a remarkably wasteful activity. At least, we're not Italy.

    Isn't that one of the main things climate change people ask for, along with raising car/house energy efficiency instead of digging tar sands ? I'm confused about why you sound contradictory while advocating the same things.

    You'd think so, until you see them knee-cap [wikipedia.org] a more efficient coal burning plant, not to mention their steadfast opposition to nuclear power. And let's keep in mind the policies that they do push, like treaties that don't do much, huge subsidies that greatly increase the cost of electricity (Germany's Energiewende, for example) or motor fuel (US's corn ethanol subsidies) - often while increase greenhouse gases emissions in the process.