[cm2012]

If you think that you're simply incorrect. For the average person in a Western country, life is dramatically better anytime in the next hundred years, including the worst possible outcomes of climate change. Not to mention that the exponential growth of solar panels is basically stabilized in climate right now.

[ben_w]

Mostly agree, but:

> Not to mention that the exponential growth of solar panels is basically stabilized in climate right now.

Sadly, growth of PV can only deal with part of the problem. We're making PV fast enough now that, given panel lifetimes, in 30 years 100% of current electricity demand will be met with specifically PV, and we're also making wind turbines and nuclear reactors and stuff.

The "and also" means we'll probably also be fine electrifying land transport.

Air transport (also fast-and-reliable sea transport) is somewhat harder to make renewable, but theoretically possible. Metal extraction from ore can be done electrolytically.

Concrete's not limited by electricity, it's an independent thing to be solved. So is meat farming. Progress exists on these, yes, but my point is they're not solved just by us being on the home stretch for electricity.

[vitally3643]

I don't think your "worst possible" case is calibrated correctly.

The worst possible case is global famine and food chain collapse. Food wars, water riots. Starvation in the literal billions.

Living in a Western country won't solve the problems of "crops can't grow anymore" or "keystone species in the food chain are extinct". We'll starve and die in mass numbers just like everyone else.

[cm2012]

Even if we had billions dead from starvation worldwide (huge if), life in a western country in 2060 will be better than life for almost anyone born in 1800 anywhere on earth.

[littlexsparkee]

That QoL is dependent on resource extraction from developing countries - if they crash, so do we.