Biden Says Climate Change Poses Greater Threat Than Nuclear War

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Bloomberg

President Joe Biden said the sole threat to humanity’s existence is climate change, and that not even nuclear conflict poses a similar danger. “The only existential threat humanity faces, even things more frightening than a nuclear war, is global warming,” Biden said Sunday during a news conference in Hanoi, Vietnam.

The president added “we’re going to be in real trouble” if, in the next decade or two, warming goes above the 1.5C temperature increase that scientists consider a tipping point for increasing the chances of extreme weather events. “There’s no way back from that,” Biden continued. “And so there’s a lot we can do in the meantime.”

Biden spoke following the Group of 20 summit in India, where leaders agreed to a series of climate actions, including a pledge to triple renewable energy capacity by the end of the decade.

The president’s attention this year has been consumed at times by weather and climate disasters, including deadly wildfires in Maui. The US has suffered more than a dozen billion-dollar severe weather events this year, according to the National Centers for Environmental Information.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-10/biden-says-climate-change-poses-greater-threat-than-nuclear-war

[oldsoftie]

1. Well, he's WRONG. And what a sound bite gift that'll be.

Yes, the climate's changing. And if it continues we'll simply have to adapt & do a lot of things differently.It'll be far worse for some than others
You cant "adapt" to a damn nuclear war

[we can do it]

2. He's not wrong.

[Ocelot II]

5. He is not wrong, and here's why: When you do any risk assessment

you have to consider not only the effect of the event but the likelihood that it will occur. Obviously a nuclear war would be the ultimate catastrophe, but although it could occur, it is less likely to happen than disastrous climate change, which is actually occurring now. It's not an "if" so much as a "when" and "how bad." Here's an example of a risk assessment matrix:

[Shermann]

13. It could be a draw depending on how you rank the impact nt

[Martin68]

19. No, a nuclear war is not "obviously" the wost catastrophe in our future. In fact, it would not have

the unrelenting power of climate change to destabilize every society on earth. Climate change is INEVITABLE if we don't do something. Nuclear war is not.

[Ocelot II]

20. My point exactly. Which is the greatest risk,

a nuclear war that might happen or climate change that is happening?

[ck4829]

6. The rich and powerful will survive (While being the biggest drivers of climate change too)

It's not going to be the 1% who will become climate change refugees, who will see their livelihoods smashed by the changes.

[Shermann]

14. I've said this from Day 1

They will find ways to leave less advantaged groups holding the bag. Thus, the indifference.

[Martin68]

18. No, the rich and "powerful" will not survive. Rising sea levels, droughts, floods, hurricanes,

and wildfires will result in mass migrations and millions of refugees that will destabilize every society on Earth. The wealthy depend on the stock market and real estate. Those will both prove useless against the catastrophes that climate change will bring. We're already getting a preview of what's to come, but the temperature is still rising. if we don't start a mass movement for change, no one is safe. The poor will suffer first, but the consequences will affect everybody and everything.

[hueymahl]

27. Unpopular opinion: Climate change will be an economic boon long term

Just like war is an economic boon. It may destroy parts of the world, but the coordinated responses and mobilizations will unleash massive economic forces.

Of course, the best outcome is if we can coordinate a response fast enough to prevent and mitigate its worst effects.

[Justice matters.]

21. They cannot 'eat' gold, or fish if there are none left in the warming oceans.

Warming oceans get more acidic as the temperatures rise.

And to survive eating gold or paper money is unrealistic.

Of course if they purchase food from controlled greenhouses, they may survive, but what good is a billion when society is collapsing all around?

[DonCoquixote]

26. but what good is a billion when society is collapsing all around?

To these folks, it is the answer to their prayers. Many of these folks, like Elon, like Theil would love nothging better than to have the bare minimum of humas around to maintain their power, and not one more. Why do you think they are gushing over ai; it it gets good enough to ensure that their tea is poured and their cigars are lit, no problem. Also, keep in mind that the churches would LOVE that as it is proof that their Gawd is bigger than the other gods.

Do NOT expect these folks to have reason.

[marybourg]

8. He's not wrong. This worst ever summer is likely the best

summer of the rest of our and our children’s lives. How many disasters can we absorb and try to ameliorate before social unrest starts in. Publicans already resent the rest of us.

[Think. Again.]

9. No, You're wrong....

What makes you think humanity, or ANY species, could 'adapt' to a climate that is constantly changing faster than any species adaptation can happen?

[airplaneman]

12. You cannot adapt to the collapse of our biosphere. No water No food No people

[Kaleva]

16. The effects of climate change will not be uniform around the world

Some regions will be hard hit, others not so much and some will become more suitable for human habitation

[mahina]

55. You're missing the flow stock problem. CO2 resides in the atmosphere for 1000 years give or take.

All of the CO2 that we have generated from industrial activity is still captured in that thin blue atmosphere

The ocean is absorbing more of the heat, and will do so more with all the problems that come from that. He is not wrong.

[Happy Hoosier]

58. No, he's not wrong. It's basic risk management.

A total risk is based on both the possible consequences AND the likelihood of the event. A nuclear war would be catastrophic. But it’s relatively unlikely. OTOH, Climate change will be a little less catastrophic, but is already happening.

[RandySF]

3. He's right.

[kimbutgar]

4. If Nuclear war is worst then why is Japan still in existence?

We are in the midst of a man made disaster of humanities making. Unless we change our ways our children and grandchildren will have no future.

[oldsoftie]

15. Because todays nukes are about 100x more powerful than those dropped on Japan.

And there are a LOT more than TWO likely to be used.

[EX500rider]

39. "If Nuclear war is worst then why is Japan still in existence?"

Because 2 small A-bombs are nothing like the 10,000+ H-bombs the US and Russia could use on each other and other targets?

[kimbutgar]

44. Excuse my ignorance

[ck4829]

7. K&R

[Think. Again.]

10. Thank you posting this...

...and especially, Thank You President Biden for breaking your recent silence and once again voicing the hard truths that we all must begin to face.

I hope President Biden continues to voice these truths, begins to make aggressive proactive efforts to reduce and eliminate CO2 emissions, and works consistently to educate and enlighten, and to support any and all actions to mitigate the ecological devastation we are forcing onto the world's next generations.

[ancianita]

11. As has the Pentagon. For years now.

[Martin68]

17. This is absolutely true, and I've been disappointed that some on DU are still not taking the threat

seriously. I'm being told, "but the US is cutting back on GHGs." I'm afraid a lot of people still don't realize the meaning of "existential threat." Perhaps the term has been overused and doesn't resonate the way it should. I'm 71, so I won't experience the worst of the coming crisis.I don't have children, but I still care about the rest of the world. I was lucky enough to dive on unspoiled coral reefs and walk pristine tropical rain forests on multiple continents. So you might say "I got mine." But I want future generations to experience some of the richness of the ecosystems that now exist but that are in danger of disappearing forever. We should be turning out in the streets in tens of thousands to demonstrate for the painful but necessary change in our lives that cutting out the use of hydrocarbons will require. Our biggest problem is that to reduce hydrocarbons usage significantly will mean a lowering of our standard of living, and any politician or party that tries to do that will be voted out of office. Like the Dutch, we need to demand a change that most people just can't accept. But we achieved Civil Rights legislation, so I think we can do this if we push hard enough. But its would take 100s of thousands of us marching in the streets to force a change. Not violent revolution. Just force of numbers in peaceful demonstrations. If we don't, sooner or later violent revolutions will inevitably come.

[PSPS]

22. "in the next decade or two" -- I wish I were as optimistic.

[LudwigPastorius]

53. Yes.

Chances are that we will exceed 1.5C in five years.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-is-likely-to-breach-the-1-5-degrees-c-milestone-within-5-years/

By ten years? That's almost a sure thing at this point.

[cstanleytech]

23. Depends on how you look at it as in the short-term nuclear war is far more dangerous as climate

change significantly enough to a threat as big is unlikely to happen faster.
Now in the long-term climate change is a greater threat because some of the population is likely to survive a nuclear war but if we continue to pour pollution into our oceans and kill most of not all the plankton that produces most of the planets oxygen it will greatly effect the planets climate.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. "Depends on how you look at it as in the short-term nuclear war is far more dangerous as climate"

"Climate change" did this -

(Hurricane Harvey 2017 - Cat 4 @ landfall) -






(Hurricane Michael 2018 - Cat 5 @ landfall)






(Multi-county KY tornado outbreak 2021)






(Dixie Fire 2021 - California)






(Hurricane Ian 2022 - Cat 4 @ landfall- 2022)






Literally month after month of "short term" catastrophic damage that "makes the news" for maybe a couple weeks or so as it happens and just after, and then it it is "forgotten" as other things take over the news cycle. The property damage hasn't magically been repaired.

(Hurricane Idalia 2023 - Cat 3 @ landfall) -






It's been over a decade since Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy (2012) and hundreds still haven't had homes rebuilt -

[cstanleytech]

32. Those are all minor things in the short-term compared an all out nuclear war.

I'm not arguing that there isn't an effect due to climate change rather I am simply pointing out that as of right now a nuclear war today is more likely to be more devastating than the weather for all of next year.
Now 10 or 100 years from now could be a different story if our species doesn't pull it's head out of its ass and stop fucking up the planet.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. That's not "minor" because it is happening *DAILY*

In fact, in multiple locations daily. It is the "here and now". Hundreds of thousands are being impacted. And these aren't "cyclical" types of events like you see monsoons in India.

An "all out nuclear war" is still hypothetical at this point and is not considered "imminent".

I didn't even include Lahaina, Maui (2023) in my earlier post -





And this is going on globally.

This just got reported today in Libya (a subtropical cyclone/"Medicane"in the Mediterranean affecting a country that is sitting in the middle of the desert) - https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/11/storm-and-floods-kill-at-least-150-people-in-libya-says-red-crescent.html

This was the same storm a few days earlier after it hit Greece (including Volos in central Greece and Athens in southern Greece) -





It's headed for Egypt.

None of the above is "hypothetical". It is having a REAL and serious impact NOW.

[cstanleytech]

37. How many people are effected by that at max? Probably 20 to 60 million.

The world population is about in the 8 billion range and an all out nuclear war would involve thousands of nukes, not a few dozen or even a few hundred but "thousands" so as of right now a nuclear war would be far more devastating.
Again, I'm not trying to downplay the events from above rather I'm honestly trying to put them in perspective of what is as of today the bigger threat right now and that's nukes.
And no, I'm not saying we should put the issue of nuclear war ahead of addressing climate change because I personally believe we can do both at the same time.

[BumRushDaShow]

41. I haven't even touched the surface of the extreme weather events this year

and I am a 50+ year weather hobbyist. And yes you have "downplayed" what is happening FOR REAL. RIGHT NOW. I am still not sure why you are dismissing this but this year is really showcasing what can happen with "extreme" weather events.

There are agricultural areas that have been in extreme drought and that impacts crops used for food by many millions. Similarly, floods have impacted other agricultural areas with the same result. The temperature swings have now impacted certain varieties of crops that can no longer grow in certain areas.

I literally saw an article last week where an orchard is now testing "warm season" apples (for cider) because their traditional ones are doing poorly - https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/09/01/climate-change-growing-season-new-england-farmers-crops-apples

The orchards they are talking about are near where I went to college - UMASS/Amherst - where the orchards are in Hadley and Belchertown.

"Mother Nature" does that "balance" of dry/wet globally. The Earth wants to "come into equilibrium" and it is doing so violently at the moment.

Plus your assumption of "thousands of nukes" being launched makes zero sense. They are not considered "conventional weapons". All you need is one or two (e.g., Minuteman type). The "thousands" appear to have been built more as a "competition" to underscore the so-called "MAD" (Mutual Assured Destruction) principle, with the shear numbers being "the deterrent".

One of the "benefits" (if you can call it that) of a "conventional" war is having "booty" left at the end. And although Putin is now as unstable as he has ever been, basically scorched earth, I expect there are plenty of oligarchs there who would make sure they take care of "the problem" before it takes care of them.

Even with the end of START II and the partial (by Russia) dismissal of New START, both the U.S. and Russia (that have the most globally) are still far below what they had in the past - https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/



https://www.newsweek.com/putins-sarmat-nuclear-missiles-compared-us-minuteman-rockets-1783487

No one is going to launch "thousands", let alone a handful, without any kind of interception. The current Minuteman IIIs are being retired and will be replaced with a new ICBM - Sentinel.

Russia has experience first hand now with what happens when troops go traipsing around contaminated areas like Chernobyl with their tanks, kicking up the radioactive dust that had finally settled just below the surface after almost 40 years. Even worse, they had troops who had literally dug trenches in marked contaminated areas.



But then Russia crashed on the moon while India had their first successful landing and rover mission.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

45. I don't think it's downplaying,

but I have the same reaction. It's a bad comparison and bad wording.

As I read it, he was comparing climate change to an actual nuclear war

that not even nuclear conflict poses a similar danger


That's just absurd. I've other links below that at least 5 billion die and the global climate is decimated for at least 10 years if not permanently and the oceans die.

Climate change has winners and losers - full exchange nuclear war doesn't because it destroys everything including the infrastructure needed to rebuild.

I think it bloviating for headlines...

[BumRushDaShow]

46. I expect the intent

was to elevate the "immediate" danger of climate change, which is literally ongoing right now and is not "hypothetical" like "thousands of nukes" being deployed at once (although the very worst impacts of climate change could be extrapolated for hypothetical outcomes).

I.e., it was NOT to minimize a potential aftermath of what has become a "cold war" / "duck and cover"-entrenched older population.

Believe it or not, the cheapest type of "nuclear weapon" (in quotes) is the "dirty bomb", which is more a "terror bomb" - https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html

That (or a bioterrorism) type of thing would be something that would be the choice of anyone avoiding MAD, with the intent of extracting maximum effect, but keeping the "spoils of war" for themselves.

Hell, here we are 22 years later and people are STILL "mailing white powder" to others as a threat.

[Harker]

24. We must not allow a mineshaft gap! n/t

[NNadir]

28. Since climate change has a 100% probability of occurring and...

...nuclear war has been observed one time and one time only in 78 years, I would suggest you look into the concept of "expecation values."

[twodogsbarking]

29. You said it best. 100% vs Unknown.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

30. Biden said "nuclear war"

not a "threat of nuclear war".

Clearly, a full nuclear exchange among the nuclear powers is far worse than climate change.

In fact, a nuclear war would invoke climate change, along with a myriad of long term radiation issues.

[NNadir]

31. There is a huge difference between could and is.

Nuclear war has always been possible and always will be possible since uranium exists.

It has actually been observed once.

Climate change and air pollution are continuously observed.

About 70 million people are killed each decade by air pollution. It is absolutely certain that extreme weather driven by climate change matches in death toll Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Right now, dangerous fossil fuel waste is demonstrably worse than nuclear wars have been or are.

To my mind fetishes about what could happen are driving what is happening. Nuclear fetishes are not helping.

[cstanleytech]

33. Only in the short-term as more than likely at least some of our species would survive a nuclear war.

In the long-term climate change could potentially be worse if we screw up our oceans bad enough that it kills most of not of the plankton because it's a bit hard to breathe without enough oxygen.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

35. I agree above with NN about how useless the comparison is

but people forget how bad a global nuclear war would be:

Nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill more than 5 billion people – just from starvation, study finds
Climate destruction would last longer than a decade

Even a small nuclear exchange would be very, and immediately, destructive

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-war-5-billion-people-starvation-deaths-study/
https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/nowhere-to-hide-how-a-nuclear-war-would-kill-you-and-almost-everyone-else/#section4

[cstanleytech]

38. How much of a difference would the long term radiation be from what's around Chernobyl?

If it's nearly the same then the radiation alone probably wouldn't be an issue. The real worry over what the result of an all out war should be over what effect it would have if any on the plankton in the ocean either due to the radiation, debris in the atmosphere or chemicals that get swept into the ocean from the wreckage.
If it kills enough of th plankton off then all bets are off on how much complex life survives.

[EX500rider]

40. Depends how many are ground bursts Vs air bursts

Ground bursts create vastly more radioactive material then air bursts.

A 1 megaton ground burst would loft 300,000 tons of radioactive debris.

If several thousand H-bombs are ground burst the radiation around those areas would be lethal months/years and maybe for decades.

A Russian attack aimed at US strategic targets would involve many ground bursts and leave radiation plumes down wind with lethal doses in this pattern: (Fallout pattern in a February attack on U.S. strategic nuclear targets.)



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219165/

[NNadir]

42. This is pure speculation, however, since nuclear wars have not been observed since 1945...

...as opposed to climate change; climate change is actually happening.

It follows that the risk of climate change is 100%. The theoretical risk of nuclear war and its consequence is unknown, but the experimentally we observe risk since the ability to wage nuclear war was observed, is 1/78, less than 2%.

From a technical standpoint, I have argued, sometime back and on another website that it is not possible to eliminate the possibility of nuclear war; it has always been possible; but that the risk can be minimized.

On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

I made the argument almost 10 years ago, during the intervening period the number of nuclear wars that occurred was zero, but I still stand by the arguments therein.

One might argue, although I don't, that MAD, mutually assured destruction is actually preventing this speculative event.

I favor the use of the plutonium in nuclear warheads to save the world rather than to destroy it. The side product of such use would be to lower the risk of nuclear war, although nuclear war will never be impossible, because nuclear war has been observed:

Once.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

47. Damn you got me running down the rabbit hole

with you're old post - and I enjoyed every bit of it and was bookmarked, so thank you!

I still think a full nuclear exchange is worse than climate change even though the chances are remote.

As I've said above, a bad comparison. Comparing the threat of CC versus threat of war, I agree, but that's not what was said (at least in how I read the post).

[NNadir]

43. The reference, by the way, is a 1986 reference from Von Hippel...

...who has spent his life arguing that the only thing we should fear is radiation.

It's been a tiresome argument for more than 30 years, but it did help whip up hysteria enough to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with conventional weapons.

Hysteria can kill people as well as radiation can.

[womanofthehills]

49. One yr ago: "Biden calls the prospect of Armageddon' the highest since the Cuban missile crisis."l

From NYT - Oct 6, 2022

“President Biden delivered a striking warning on Thursday night that recent threats from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could devolve into a nuclear conflict, telling supporters at a fund-raiser in New York City that the risk of atomic war had not been so high since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/world/europe/biden-armageddon-nuclear-war-risk.html

[harun]

34. Increased CO2 PPM poses a greater threat to civilization/human life than nuclear

war does. He is correct.

[womanofthehills]

51. No one really knows what poses a greater risk

Both are equally a risk to life on earth. Nuclear would probably be faster.

[harun]

57. Guess it depends on how many

Big difference between 3 nukes and 3000 .

[LiberaBlueDem]

48. Americans will have to sacrifice!

Carter said that in 1979

And he was voted out in favor of allowing climate change.

40 years later and here we are. Hot!

Kids these days, I swear. They think we owe them a safe planet.
We can't afford a safe planet. Too much money to be made.
Rents up, wages down, the changers are winnng! /sarcasm

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

50. Sacrifice to do what?

If the US went to zero GHG tomorrow, China and India's growth will throw all that sacrifice away in a few years.

This is just the facts - science. Those two are THREE TIMES bigger than the US now, let alone how fast they are growing their GHG emissions. APAC is 80% of the GHG. Heck, China surpassed the US 20 years ago and hasn't slowed down. They use more coal than the rest of the planet combined, so how much is my EV here in the US going to help?

What sacrifice here in the US will make a difference, all else staying the same?

[NNadir]

52. Jimmy Carter's energy program included "coal to oil."

That was hardly involved with concern about climate change or, in fact, any environmental issue at all.

Fischer-Tropsch chemistry is extremely dirty.

I voted for Jimmy Carter twice, but basically his energy ideas were very poor in retrospect.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/20/archives/fuel-hopes-spur-dynalectron-work-begun-on-process-in-1963.html

[Happy Hoosier]

59. There is a ton of money to make...

… in green energy. Just not by the people currently making a boatload.

[LiberaBlueDem]

54. Carter's energy program was

To get us to conserve.
He put solar water heaters on the WH
Put money into solar research
55 mph speed limit

He knew we had to change course, to sacrifice some of our luxuries for the good of America and the panet.

[PufPuf23]

56. Climate change is out of the tube and something humanity has no choice but to adapt.

The impact of climate change and human overpopulation is a global extinction event. Extinction is not about the attractive iconic beings but about the web of life down to the water films and soil particles and in the deep ocean trenches

Nuclear war would put the cherry on top the impending human disaster.

Biden should not have said climate change is a greater risk to humanity in any case.