I watch a lot of maritime disaster videos, so YouTubeâ(TM)s genius algorithm thinks Iâ(TM)d be interested in traveling on a cruise ship.

It doesn't matter. Work our the cost of sequestering the carbon from the atmosphere, or adapting to the impact, then spend the money on that. At some point it might be cheaper to make the jet fuel from seawater rather than pay for the adaptation to or sequestration of greenhouse gasses. And that's fine too.

If the cost is set correctly, and the money is spent on the cause of those costs, then it doesn't matter if people change their behaviour or pay for the cleanup. And it also doesn't matter who does which.

Emissions aren't measured by wealth.

No, changing energy source doesn't mean reduced industrial activity. It mean increased industrial activity, because you have to roll out the new infrastructure.

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent surged to 16 percent of world’s total CO2 emissions in 2019.

That's 16 times the average. Because an average 1% will emit 1% of the total. What does your back of the envelope calculation get?

No, that they currently create more emissions per dollar of GDP than Norway by 15 times.

And no we're destroying a lot of wealth when the economically better course is to reduce emissions.

Yes it does. Private aviation contributes about 0.1% of total emissions. Which is important, but should be targeted by bringing the externalities of damage to the environment into the cost of the fuel, just the same as other fossil fuels. So as to not distort the economic incentives.

In South Sudan, the primary fuels used for cooking are firewood and charcoal.

It's more than immediate. They're already doing it.

My solar panels generate more than enough electricity to run my air conditioning on a hot day. If the cost of fossil fuels were applied to the price, states that use fossil fuels to generate their electricity would see people not buying that electricity for aircon within 6 months. It should have been done in the early 80s.

Then: No. Economic incentives motivate individuals, businesses, or governments that own private jest to make specific economic decisions. Including ones that reduce pollution.

And the increased greenhouse effect still does have a single cause: The increase in greenhouse gasses. Private air travel contributes about 4% of aviation emissions, and aviation contributes about 2.5% of total greenhouse emissions.

Well, your buying power would be crippled.

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.

The thing to understand is we're talking about sixth tenths of a degree warming since 1990, when averaged over *the entire globe* for the *entire year*. If the change were actually distributed that way -- evenly everywhere over the whole year -- nobody would notice any change whatsoever; there would be no natural system disruption. The temperature rise would be nearly impossible to detect against the natural background variation.

That's the thinking of people who point out that the weather outside their doors is unusually cool despite global warming. And if that was what climate change models actually predicted, they'd be right. But that's not what the models predict. They predict a patchwork of some places experiencing unusual heat while others experience unusual coolness, a patchwork that is constantly shifting over time. Only when you do the massive statistical work of averaging *everywhere, all the time* out over the course of the year does it manifest unambiguously as "warming".

In the short term -- over the course of the coming decade for example, -- it's less misleading to think of the troposphere becoming more *energetic*. When you consider six tenths of a degree increase across the roughly 10^18 kg of the troposphere, that is as vast, almost unthinkable amount of energy increase. Note that this also accompanied by a *cooling* of the stratosphere. Together these produce a a series of extreme weather events, both extreme heat *and* extreme cold, that aggregated into an average increase that's meaningless as a predictor of what any location experiences at any point in time.

We're talking about the fact that the Earth is Trapping Much More Heat Than Climate Models Forecast. This is related to the combustion of fossil fuels.

The top 1% emit about 15 times the global average for a person. If you got rid of them all you'd still be left with 85% of the problem.

To lead to our current predicament, you need more than just them.

It's not even close to directly. North Korea emits over 15 times the CO2 per international dollar (US dollar adjusted for purchasing power parity) GDP that Norway does.

I know what all those words mean, but not in that order. The problems we have now from fossil fuel burning are increasing heat waves, droughts, floods and storms, rising seal levels, ocean acidification, shifting habitats, declining biodiversity, food and water insecurity, economic losses, and displacement and Migration. Those aren't "captured" by anything, and they didn't create wealth. And what you mean by any problem being "captured in wealth" isn't clear, much less intractable problems, with vast impacts like coral bleaching.

No. There are other sources of wealth than fossil fuels.

Bill Gates is rich, but he doesn't give a fuck if we move to nuclear and renewables. Nor Larry Paige, nor Zuckerberg.

Nope. You have to target fossil fuels. A tonne of CO2 does the same damage to the environment if it is emitted by Warren Buffett or by 500 South Sudanese.

What?
No, Economic incentives motivate individuals, businesses, or governments to make specific economic decisions. Including ones that reduce pollution.

The increased greenhouse effect does have a single cause: The increase in greenhouse gasses.

Wow. So he is. This place is normally better than that.

It's an especially good time to meta-moderate..

I get about four. There's a Faulty Generalization or the fallacy of composition. The vast majority of people informing us about climate change did not attend the Bezos wedding.

There's the Genetic Fallacy. Global warming isn't false because some Elites that we don't like communicate about it.

There's Ad Hominem, specifically appeal to spite. The argument is entirely against a hated subset of the people making the argument, not the argument itself.

The whole thing is a Non-Sequitur fallacy, although, that's generally the case with fallacious arguments.

No, it's the combustion of fossil fuels that affect the climate.

There's certainly a fossil fuel industry propaganda claim that that's tied inseparably from the economy, but this place is news for nerds, not news for gullible idiots. We can see that just because only 8.5% of France's power generation is fossil fuels, that doesn't mean that their economy in general is in any way reduced from what it would be if they were from fossil fuel sources, nor that Norway's 1.2% of power generation is fossil fuels is having a huge negative impact on the economy. Power is important to an economy, but not all economic products have energy as the same proportion of their cost, and in the very common case of the power being electrical, that it is generated by nuclear, geothermal or renewables compared fossil fuels, has no negative effect.

If anything, the opposite. It insulated the cost of the power from the machinations of OPEC, providing a more constant cost, improving the accuracy of business planning.

Vladivostok, Russia is slightly south of Oza, Spain. In January, the mean daily maximum temperature is 10C in Oza, but -8C in Vladivostok. The difference is about half due to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC).

So the collapse of the AMOC, would cool Europe and the UK by something like 10C, and correspondingly increase the heating of tropical West Atlantic. It is still considered an approaching tipping point. Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course