I'd rather eat. I guess that means I still see a path out of this, but it's not bloody likely anyone will follow. On foot, or by rail, if you please. Without fighting.
The author looks at nations and ideologues, wondering why there is no adequate solution on the table, but it's hard to imagine groups less likely to generate a challenge to the status quo. They'll tweak around the edges a bit, and that's about it. You're not going to see Ghandi the Climate Change Visionary come from that lot.
Some time back I was looking at online postings of lectures for economics students and the insurance industry and their take on climate change. I didn't post it here because I'd never be forgiven for repeating anything so astonishingly boring, but there were some nuggets imbedded.
First of all, there was no industry boosterism, as there was no need for it. I learned that the insurance industry has much more power than I had imagined. There also was no climate change denial. There was no conspiracy, and no challenge to their assumptions about how economies must work. It was simply banal, mundane, and horrifying calculations of the cost of mitigation and how not to spend a nickel more. If any of them imagined a world with a failed insurance industry and system-wide collapse, they didn't mention it. If they had, why would they be there?
And so the economies march on, until the day in 2113 when we get the headline "Golden Gate Seawall Fails (GG was right it should have been three meters)". For the WSJ, it reads "Fresno Reinvents Itself as a Seaport: Real Estate Market Booms".
= new reply since forum marked as read
