The Budget Mage

Flowing gold and rolling silver. The coins rain from a heavy purse onto the table next to mine. The smug look on the man's face as my customers chase his overflow is nearly too much to bear, but I bear it, because I have a secret.

The woman before me shrinks with shame into her chair, her nuggets of raw copper laid out before me. She hungrily eyes the coins, knowing the risk she's taking on a rumor over food. She doesn't deserve this. Nobody does, not even this rich buffoon.

"Sir, would you mind sparing me a gold coin for a brief demonstration?"

"Perhaps if your customers weren't so lazy, you'd already have one."

He may not deserve it, but he sure is trying to earn it. No matter.

My grin widens. "Can anyone in line spare me a gold coin for a demonstration? I promise you'll get your money's worth and then some."

10 gold slam onto my table faster than the man can blink. The confusion in his face is delicious. He doesn't know it yet, but I've got a secret.

"Oh, how nice, they found the gold I dropped. I'll take it back now, please." A soft, manicured hand extends, palm up.

I primly drop the coins into his hand. The smile on my face has spread further, finding mouths in my line. They know that I've got a secret. Mr. Gold and Silver is now wearing a delightful confused frown.

I pull out 10 copper coins and lay them out with the 4 copper nuggets. As I touch the nuggets, they fall to pieces into a pile of copper coins of the same amount. The woman's face falls, but then brightens. "This isn't what I thought they meant..."

On each of the coins is a portrait of the king. I gently boop each tiny regent on the nose, and his frown turns to a smile.

The others are so excited to pick up their one copper, while silver & gold is staring with a mix of outrage and disbelief. My newest customer is starting to smile too. It won't be real magic to her until her belly is full, I know. It wasn't real for me until then either.

Months later, on a quiet day, Silver and Gold is back. Well, mostly. This time he's much more... cloth and dirt. He lays out a single copper coin. "All I have left. Why did this happen? The only thing I can think of is those smiling fools and their copper... what magic is this?"

I cannot hide the sadness from my face. "You would confuse the magic I make for them for the magic that unmade you? No, you received all that you paid for."

"What I paid for? I asked for magic that would make my servants happier, and that purse was worth more than this whole bloody town."

Behind his eyes, you could see a single copper coin slowly drop and bounce a few times. A flash of anger.

"Oh no. You don't know the worst part yet. They came to my line. They paid me too. Can you guess what they wished for?"

"My RUIN?!" he spat the word onto the table, a faint speckle of phlegm flying satisfactorily onto the table he'd so recently covered in coin.

"Would you believe it, but no! They were so grateful for their generous pay, comfortable quarters, and annual day off (all compared to your field hands) they asked for you to be just as happy as they. Their hearts were full of generosity, but they could only afford true magic."

"CHEAP magic!"

"Oh really? Can you afford it?"

A sullen silence for a few moments, followed by the jingling of a coin purse. A few silver totter out on to the table.

"All I have. Really."

He's desperate enough that it's true, and yet it's still not enough for me to feel better. His fear is just more of the yawning pit that I'm trying to fill with kindness. He won't pick up a shovel today and help, but at least the hole will be a tad smaller.

I boop the king on his copper on the nose. "Roll the coin down the street and follow it. Don't bother trying to remember the route, it's just me showing off my magic through a fancy teleportation scheme. The price is kindness. You'll know it worked when the king's nose glows. When it glows, boop it like I did."

"But why copper?"

"I told people to bring something that had no value to them. If they bring something valuable anyhow, I give them exactly what it's worth and not a copper less. It's a simple teleportation spell."

"What if they bring nothing?"

"Then I pay them a copper for their thoughts."

"How can you afford this?"

I stare at him for a while. I wave my hand and a meal appears. "Lunch?" another wave. "Dinner?"

"I ...... that doesn't answer my question."

"I waved my hand and food appeared. I waved it again and different food appeared. Magic right? How much food did you leave laying to rot in the sun last month while my line had to go on one meal a day, or none?"

An uneasy shift in his seat.

"You don't have magic, but we both know why you didn't wish for magic. You're educated enough to know the cost. How long before the mage you paid is dead? A decade? Two at most?"

His face darkens. "So what crimes are you atoning for then, budget mage?"

A good start?

> This BS probably works for you with younger dudes, but I've been in thinking capacity since the time it was called 'global warming', and it has always been about "everybody dies unless we stop fossil in ___ years".

Global warming and climate change refer to different things.

By the way, not everybody dies, just far more people than need to. They literally catalogue how many they anticipate in the source you provided.

> TS.C.6.3 Increased heat-related mortality and morbidity are projected globally (very high confidence). Globally, temperature- related mortality is projected to increase under RCP4.5 to RCP8.5, even with adaptation (very high confidence). Tens of thousands of additional deaths are projected under moderate and high global warming scenarios, particularly in north, west and central Africa, with up to year-round exceedance of deadly heat thresholds by 2100 (RCP8.5) (high agreement, robust evidence). In Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, urban heat-related excess deaths are projected to increase by about 300 yr-1 (low emission pathway) to 600 yr-1 (high emission pathway) during 2031–2080 relative to 142yr-1 during 1971–2020 (high confidence). In Europe the number of people at high risk of mortality will triple at 3°C compared to 1.5°C warming, in particular in central and southern Europe and urban areas (high confidence). {6.2.2, 7.3.1, 8.4.5, 9.10.2, Figure 9.32, Figure 9.35, 10.4.7, Figure 10.11, 11.3.6, 11.3.6, Table 11.14, 12.3.4, 12.3.8, Figure 12.6, 13.7.1, Figure 13.23, 14.5.6, 15.3.4, 16.5.2}

See what I mean?

> As far as I'm concerned we're already doing it. And we're already on positive trajectory as compared to those RCP scenarios that were extensively used in 90s and 2000s as mainstream scenarios.

Here's the CO^2 trendline. Where's the dip we'd see if we were doing this action?

Oh, and the 90s and 2000s mainstream scenarios? Here are some examples:

From the LA Times in 1989:

> Schneider’s forecast is considerably more ominous.

> “Six of the warmest years in the last 100 occurred in the ‘80s,” he said recently at a meeting of chemists in Miami. “And I’ll give you odds that the ‘90s will be warmer than the ‘80s.”

When that was published in 1989, we were at 0.27C increase. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed 8 years later in 1997, it was 0.33C.

Here's an article from 2012:

> "I am a fundamentally optimistic person, but it is getting more and more difficult, because I see the message of science has not fundamentally changed from when I started working in this field, which was 20 years ago," said Thomas Stocker, a professor of climate and environmental physics at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

> Based on two assumptions — that it is not economically feasible for nations to make emissions reductions of more than about 5 percent per year and that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have a moderate warming effect — he calculates a 2.7 degree Fahrenheit (1.5 degree Celsius) cap on warming, for which island nations vulnerable to rising sea levels have pushed, is already unrealistic. (That cap is often compared to a speed limit for warming; while some consequences — heat waves, species loss and so on — are expected to occur at lesser levels of warming, the repercussions are expected to become more dire as warming increases.)

> Reductions would need to begin by 2027 for the more widely accepted 3.6-degree F (2 degrees C) cap to be achievable, and a 4.5 degree F (2.5 degree C) cap becomes unrealistic after 2040, he calculates.

We were at 0.65C then.

Now, a year after the industrial world shut down to the point that rivers ran clear, it's 0.89C.

They tried the saving mission, and most countries ignored the recommendations at any meaningful scale. You want a positive outcome? Stop making excuses about the source of the messaging and start doing what the scientists recommend instead of claiming we’re already on a positive trajectory.

Edit: it bugged me so I had to address it. 10-20% of global GDP and millions of people is no longer “local.” Moreover, the catastrophes are not “looming,” they’re already happening as articulated by the scientists in your own source.

Uh… those are all suggestions about what we need to do more of. They’re not saying “this is fine because we’re doing these things.” They’re saying “this will be fine if we take action like Antonio has been begging you to do for years.”

> TS.D.4.5 Ecosystem-based adaptation measures can reduce climatic risks to people, including from flood, drought, fire and overheating (high confidence). Ecosystem-based adaptation approaches are increasingly being used as part of strategies to manage flood risk, at the coast in the face of rising sea levels and inland in the context of more extreme rainfall events (high confidence). Flood-risk measures that work with nature by allowing flooding within coastal and wetland ecosystems and support sediment accretion can reduce costs and bring substantial co-benefits to ecosystems, liveability and livelihoods (high confidence). In urban areas, trees and natural areas can lower temperatures by providing shade and cooling from evapotranspiration (high confidence). Restoration of ecosystems in catchments can also support water supplies during periods of variable rainfall and maintain water quality and, combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence). Restoring natural vegetation cover and wildfire regimes can reduce risks to people from catastrophic fires. Restoration of wetlands could support livelihoods and help sequester carbon (medium confidence), provided they are allowed accommodation space. Ecosystem-based adaptation approaches can be cost effective and provide a wide range of additional co-benefits in terms of ecosystem services and biodiversity protection and enhancement. (Figure TS.9 URBAN, Figure TS.11a) {2.6.3, 2.6.5, 2.6.7, Table 2.7, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.5, Box 4.6, Box 4.7, 12.5.1, 12.5.3, 12.5.5, 13.2.2, 13.3.2, 13.6.2, Box 14.7, 15.5.4, Figure 15.7, CCP2, CCP5.4.2, CCB NATURAL, CCB SLR}

Cool. Can you give me one of those positive paragraphs to talk about? I'm having trouble identifying one.

Man, I'm not sure why you're thanking me. These are your sources. Paper written in 2022, and has an excellent summary.

That said, it is a wonderful example that António Guterres is correctly echoing the sentiment of the reports.

Here's some of the detail you missed:

From Page 116:

> Latin America: "5.8 million people pushed to extreme poverty by 2030 (7; 11)"

That's 7 years from now, but who's counting?

> Worldwide: "Global GDP losses of 10–23% by 2100 due to temperature impacts alone (3; 12; 13)"

Note that they didn't say "lack of growth," they said "losses."

Or look at the map on page 81, where it shows the number of people who will be displaced by more severe costal flooding. Tens of millions of people in India by 2040.

Also take a look at page 80, where substantial portions of the world will be at risk of death from heat and humidity. It's literally a map of where it will be effectively uninhabitable because there will not be a single day in the year where it's safe to go outside. It will literally be too hot to live there.

Another problem would be the wildfires,

> "At a global warming of 2°C with associated changes in precipitation global land area burned by wildfire is projected to increase by 35% (medium confidence)." Page 55.

or as you put it: "bUrNing". Actually, you also claimed they didn't use the word "catastrophe", but a conjugation of it shows up 3 times in your source.

> Page 45: "Climate-induced extinctions, including mass extinctions, are common in the palaeo record, underlining the potential of climate change to have catastrophic impacts on species and ecosystems (high confidence)."

> Page 50: "Between 1970 and 2019, drought-related disaster events worldwide caused billions of dollars in economic damages (medium confidence). Drylands are particularly exposed to climate change related droughts (high confidence). Recent heavy rainfall events that have led to catastrophic flooding were made more likely by anthropogenic climate change (high confidence). Observed mortality and losses due to floods and droughts are much greater in regions with high vulnerability and vulnerable populations such as the poor, women, children, Indigenous Peoples and the elderly due to historical, political and socioeconomic inequities (high confidence)."

Note that they used the past tense there, as in catastrophic impact has already occurred.

> Page 87: "Restoration of ecosystems in catchments can also support water supplies during periods of variable rainfall and maintain water quality and, combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence). Restoring natural vegetation cover and wildfire regimes can reduce risks to people from catastrophic fires."

Note here that they use both the things you complained about, catastrophe and burning.

Like look man, I can't help but think you still aren't reading these since they directly contradict your thesis.

> That report is about projected warming of to ~2.8C by 2100, just like many other similar reports that put it into 2.5-2.8 range. And just like others it discusses possiblities and scenarios of getting in below 1.5 and 2C. Which are very illusional and those unreachable in rational terms scenarios

Says you, decidedly NOT a climate scientists. On the other hand, the climate scientists in that report seem to think they're necessary goals.

> Antonio uses to scream loud titles and get anxious clicks from modern "final day witnesses", despite there is nothing about "catastrophe", "bUrNing" or similar doomers' vocabulary in the report.

The title of the report is literally "The Closing Window Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies"

It discusses extensively the risk and impact of failure to address climate change.

> Why? You can't read yourself?

I can, and did. Did you? If so, you missed this in the third paragraph of the introduction:

"Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published two reports as part of its Sixth Assessment cycle, on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a) and Mitigation of Climate Change (IPCC 2022b). The reports record the vast impacts of climate change that we are already experiencing, and how the climate risks of the future are of a much greater order of magnitude. Once again, these reports document that the scale and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, finding that projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming. This year, as has repeatedly been the case in recent years, many countries have experienced an unprecedented number of climate events, with extreme weather leading to flooding, drought and wildfires, and causing food shortages, health problems, and major damage to ecosystems and human habitats, leading to internal displacement and migration around the world."

There's that doomer language you claimed wasn't in it. That's why I asked you to read it.

> Reports he gets from scientists are fine. Opinions he spits out in doomsday manner that are nowhere to find in those reports are full of shit.

Literally your second link has a link to the climate report he’s citing along with the names of the numerous contributors to the report. Ditto for the 4th link that has links to further reports.

The rest are written by third party news sources (whom he has no control over re: data transparency) or a press release linking to one.

Go read the reports and get back to me.

They're not trying to stop all greenhouse gas emissions. Just excess greenhouse gas emissions. The hope is that the temperature will gradually decrease back to near natural levels, thus averting further sea level rises and severe weather.

I know a few degrees C doesn't seem like much, but that's just because earth is so ridiculously huge. The epa has a good example of this here.

> For reference, an increase of 1 unit on this graph (1 × 10^22 joules) is equal to approximately 17 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year.

We'd have to build 17 duplicates of every power plant on earth to generate as much energy as the ocean absorbed. How can this be? Well, as it turns out there's a much bigger source of heat called The Sun.

Our little itty bit of extra carbon dioxide traps a little itty bit of extra energy from the sun. How much of a little itty bit? Well, from the data? 17x every power plant humanity has running right now. Relative to the giant ball of fusion we orbit? Tiny. Relative to us as a species? Pretty big.

edit: an exponent

Are you a climate scientist?

edit: I'm asking because, ya know, he got his reports from climate scientists. Just wondering if you have any data other than "this guy seems really worried about the climate."

suddenly directly relevent

In the article he said he lost everything when he lost his boat, so they're talking about getting him a boat and some stuff I think.

Yeah man! Gotta be careful that you don't strain yourself too far! I lucked out that the timing was good for me.

My state pairs it with other incentives like home energy efficiency upgrades and discounts on a whole class of energy upgrades. You get loans with preferential interest rates (like a couple % off the rate) if you let them do a home energy audit.

So like, I got heat pumps on a line of super cheap credit because I'm willing to let them help me plug holes in my sieve of a house. I get thousands of dollars in tax incentives back.

That same home energy audit is good for like a year? Maybe more? It also gets me major tax incentives on buying solar panels, which you can also get super cheap lines of credit. So whaddaya know, I'm doing that too.

Between the savings in heating and cooling costs, I don't think the whole rig will be free, but it'll be cheaper than keeping my existing heating cooling solution even without the leak seal I'm getting. From a real cost standpoint, provided electricity and oil don't become ludicrously cheap simultaneously suddenly, it's about what I would've paid to get old school central air alone and stay on grid power. Even if it does, I now have a system that lets me handle major power outages due to weather without being miserable. If it goes up, I'm better than break even.

'Murica or something! 🇺🇸

Oh my god I'm so jealous of your sealing. My place was oil fired, and even though electricity rates have gone up, oil went up more. My switch to heat pumps already saved me money over the oil furnaces it replaced this winter. The local utilities are jacking electricity rates up, so my next move was easy. Solar panels and a battery system up next!

Just replaced oil + some electric baseboards with heat pumps + the same electric baseboards. However, when it got down to -5F or so the heat pumps and baseboards were only able to keep the house at around 60F.

The main problem is the house leaks like a sieve. Even with oil it would get cold. I had a brief power outage on a cold day and it caused a 7F drop in temperature in like an hour. Now I've got to go through and seal up all the holes and air leaks and missing storm windows.

Even with the leaks, the heat pumps have so far saved me hundreds of dollars per month over last winter's oil.

One that jumped out at me:

“Importantly, the patient retains full control of their movements. The stimulation is assistive and strengthens muscle activation only when patients are trying to move.”

Doesn't this also carry major implications for prosthesis used by amputees?

I'm at about 8000 words now give or take...

Working on it as we speak!

Thank you so much! I'm already thinking about more chapters now :)

Ooooooooh, I like that idea. Thanks!

Ya know, I think I have a lot more of the story still in me! Where should I put it though? Just keep adding it to this thread?

As they reached the edge of the trees, they could already hear Glassmaker struggling to contain his laughter as muffled jets of flame shot into the air, followed soon after by Alder starting another bawdy limerick.

"--and then the baker's wife says, that's not flour!"

A gout of flame roared out of Glassmaker 30 feet into the field, singing the tips of the grass and sending a family of rabbits scattering.

"Aim higher! Don't want to burn down the neighborhood old friend! Cecil! Petra! So glad you could join us! Oooh, what's in the sack?"

They looked at the blanket laid out with some fine bread, honey butter with sesame seeds, a flagon of wine, a snifter of whiskey, and a huge glass jug of water.

"Limestone! To help our growing boy's teeth come in bright and strong!" Petra cheerfully hummed a song her grandmother used to sing when she was making dinner. It was in the southern dialect that she didn't learn until she was older, and it seemed the words were ever changing, so all she could remember is the tune and the last few lines. She broke into song anyhow, making up some new words for the first half. "Castles for dragon's teeth, grinning he shines! Biscuits for fair friends, sharing their rhymes! Ice in the whiskey, fire in the wine, the drink may be risky, but brings with it time."

She smiled to herself and looked up to see everyone staring at her except Cecil, who was staring at them staring at her.

"Wh..." Euphemia's voice quavered. "Where did you hear that song?"

"Have... have I offended you? My grandmother used to sing it at dinner when I was a child. The start was always different, but the last few bars were always the same. I finally learned what they meant when I was older."

"No you've done nothing to offend us! It was beautiful Petra." Alder put a gentle hand on her shoulder. "This song is very old. There are few who know it. Where was your grandmother from?"

"Arden. Why?"

Cecil put a comforting arm around his wife's shoulders. "What's going on? What's so important about the song?"

The three exchanged glances.

"Petra, do you trust Cecil?"

"WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT?!" She snapped back, fury flashing across her brow. Euphemia smiled gently. She cooled. "Of course. To the ends of time."

Suddenly Alder and Euphemia were gone, and in their place were two dragons, each double the size of Glassmaker.

They bowed gently. "My queen."

--and that friends, is where I'll pause for now.

Absolutely not. You cannot steal what is freely given. Take them and use them fellow DM :)

Thank you so much for the inspiration! This is a blast! I'm still posting as more of the story bubbles up :)