That’s actually arguable. Without going deep into the citations (although I could upon request), I’ll note that climate change currently has more of an effect at the lower temperatures than higher ones—freezing becomes cold, while hot doesn’t get much hotter.
Because more people die from cold weather than warm weather, it’s unclear that the effects of climate change have been net negative.
Additionally, more carbon dioxide in the air means greater crop yields, which is again net positive for humanity.
Which isn’t to say that Climate Change is good, and I recognize that I’m using the word “terraforming” loosely. I do believe, however, that controlling the earth’s climate was always going to be necessary in the end, if only because of the inevitability of another ice age.
I think there are other bottlenecks to crop yield before CO2 becomes much of a factor. There have been experiments with adding CO2 to greenhouses to see how it affects crops. More CO2 tends to make plants more fibrous and tough. Not better for eating. Selective breeding could perhaps mitigate this, but not for free. Consider that this could start affecting most of our crops at once.
Humans are a tropical species. We couldn’t survive a moderately cold night in the temperate zones without technological assistance (shelter, clothing, fire, etc.) so maybe there is something to the argument that a warmer planet is more habitable, but it has negative effects too.
A warmer world would have more frequent, more violent storms. It’s just more energy in the system. We’re already seeing this beginning to happen.
Even granting that cold weather kills more, that may not remain the case in a warmer world. We can deal with cold using even fairly primitive technology (clothing, fire). In a cold snap people can bundle up and burn things. In a heat wave, on the other hand, once the wet bulb temperature exceeds human tolerance, everybody dies. You can defend against this with air conditioning, but that’s much higher tech, and prone to failures, especially in poorer areas where this is likely to come up first.
A warmer world would probably be better for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. For an agricultural, industrialised civilization that can protect itself from cold just fine but is vulnerable to unpredictability and extreme events hitting its infrastructure, not so much.
Because more people die from cold weather than warm weather, it’s unclear that the effects of climate change have been net negative.
The biggest problem of climate change is intensified extreme events and the effect it has on agriculture, not direct deaths from heatstroke. That said, things might change anyway if we ever experience a true Wet Bulb Event. That might flip the scales very quickly. I’m worried for the Indian Subcontinent and the Arabic Peninsula, as they seem the most on track for experiencing that soon.
That’s actually arguable. Without going deep into the citations (although I could upon request), I’ll note that climate change currently has more of an effect at the lower temperatures than higher ones—freezing becomes cold, while hot doesn’t get much hotter.
Because more people die from cold weather than warm weather, it’s unclear that the effects of climate change have been net negative.
Additionally, more carbon dioxide in the air means greater crop yields, which is again net positive for humanity.
Which isn’t to say that Climate Change is good, and I recognize that I’m using the word “terraforming” loosely. I do believe, however, that controlling the earth’s climate was always going to be necessary in the end, if only because of the inevitability of another ice age.
I think there are other bottlenecks to crop yield before CO2 becomes much of a factor. There have been experiments with adding CO2 to greenhouses to see how it affects crops. More CO2 tends to make plants more fibrous and tough. Not better for eating. Selective breeding could perhaps mitigate this, but not for free. Consider that this could start affecting most of our crops at once.
Humans are a tropical species. We couldn’t survive a moderately cold night in the temperate zones without technological assistance (shelter, clothing, fire, etc.) so maybe there is something to the argument that a warmer planet is more habitable, but it has negative effects too.
A warmer world would have more frequent, more violent storms. It’s just more energy in the system. We’re already seeing this beginning to happen.
Even granting that cold weather kills more, that may not remain the case in a warmer world. We can deal with cold using even fairly primitive technology (clothing, fire). In a cold snap people can bundle up and burn things. In a heat wave, on the other hand, once the wet bulb temperature exceeds human tolerance, everybody dies. You can defend against this with air conditioning, but that’s much higher tech, and prone to failures, especially in poorer areas where this is likely to come up first.
A warmer world would probably be better for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. For an agricultural, industrialised civilization that can protect itself from cold just fine but is vulnerable to unpredictability and extreme events hitting its infrastructure, not so much.
The biggest problem of climate change is intensified extreme events and the effect it has on agriculture, not direct deaths from heatstroke. That said, things might change anyway if we ever experience a true Wet Bulb Event. That might flip the scales very quickly. I’m worried for the Indian Subcontinent and the Arabic Peninsula, as they seem the most on track for experiencing that soon.