Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says
Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says
Jim Skea, the new head of the UN's IPCC climate panel, said it was not helpful to imply that temperature increases of 1.5 degrees Celsius posed an existential threat to humanity.
In short, we aren't on track to an apocalyptic extinction, and the new head is concerned that rhetoric that we are is making people apathetic and paralyzes them from making beneficial actions.
He makes it clear too that this doesn't mean things are perfectly fine. The world is becoming and will be more dangerous with respect to climate. We're going to still have serious problems to deal with. The problems just aren't insurmountable and extinction level.
You're viewing a single thread.
Well by all means, let's make it seem less serious than it is! That'll get people moving
Signed, an actual fucking climate scientist
Literally "This is fine."
Ignore the triple digit temps in the ocean, that's not apocalyptic! Relax!
So what if a few people died of heat exhaustion just by... Walking outside for a few minutes. Normal. Not apocalyptic.
So what if regular rains are delivering hurricane levels of flooding. That's just nature doing it's thing, dude. Quit overreacting.
Malaria is in NJ, but like, mosquitos fly so that was probably bound to happen.
And really, like, 110 isnt that hot, especially if it's not humid.
Relax.
He's technically right, though; climate change isn't going to drive us to extinction. Yes, it's going to cause the total collapse of modern society in our lifetimes and more death and sufferring than any other event in recorded history, but there will almost certainly be tens or hundreds of millions of survivors. Maybe even billions.
Give it to me straight Doc, how much money do I need to survive the apocalypse?
$3.50
God damn Loch Ness monster creating global warming so he can get my tree fiddy!!
No joke, there are billionaires scouring the futurist community looking for a reassuring answer to that question.
Douglas Rushkoff wrote a whole book about it.
https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest-escape-fantasies-of-the-tech-billionaires/
I think he means that doomsaying is going to make even more people not take it seriously.....
I think there are loads of people who take it seriously but can't do anything about it. The biggest CO2 polluters are mega corporations and things like airplanes and cargo ships. Ordinary people can't fight that. One family living off the grid and producing zero CO2 won't help anything.
Ergo, most people are apathetic, as they should be. You're not going to change the minds of governments and mega corps.
Exactly. At least 70% of emission are caused directly by corporate and military activity, and that's just the sanitized, conservative, government/corporate approved statistic. Realistically, the number probably much higher.
Using paper straws, sorting your recycling, and turning the hallway light off does fuck all for climate change, and it will never make a meaningful difference without a harsh crackdown on, if not a total overthrow of global corporate hegemony in this decade. We all know how likely that is...
The 70% that comes from corporations comes from people. The people who use the products that the corporations provide. So, if Exxon is one of those major polluters, that is based largely on the people who purchase Exxon products and use them.
This 70% number comes from a 2017 study that measured emissions from 1985-2015. So while those corporations are selling the product that pollutes, when we order some stupid shit from Amazon and it has to come from China on a ship to get here, we are responsible for using that product. When we get UberEats delivered, we are responsible. Ordinary people can fight that by not buying stupid shit we don't need from China and in so many other ways. Yes, the corporations produce those products, but it is US that consumes it and we are ultimately responsible for the emissions. It's a fun way to try to say "it's not me, it's them," but the fact is, it's all of us.
People buy the shit because corporations make it and, at best, tell us we want it, and at worst, design our entire infratstructure and society around it so that we more or less have to buy it.
Nobody was asking for cars, or at least very few were, until companies started pushing them on people. Same goes for the vast majority of shit we own.
Well if everyone is just buying shit because corporations tell them to and the world is that fucking stupid, then we deserve what's happening.
It's got nothing to do with stupidity. We were all born and raised in, and indoctrinated by a society that pushes intense consumerism in every aspect of our lives. That didn't happen overnight, and it's not the result of a person making astupid choice. It happened incrementally over centuries, slowly enough that most people take for granted as just the way things are and never really question it.
That's why only strong government regulation can fix this, and why "durr just stop buying stuff" is an ignorant, asinine take.
We all know how likely that is…
Probably because people give up
Probably because people give up
As opposed to what, Soviet style revolution? People today don't have the same mettle as their forebearers, it's not going to happen. Occupy Wall Street and the George Floyd protests showed to the powers at be that people aren't willing to embrace violent protest for change.
sounds like giving up to me
The biggest CO2 polluters are [...] cargo ships.
No, this is a misunderstanding. Cargo ships are a major source of sulphur pollution, not carbon. Cargo ships use the cheapest fuel they can. Cheap fuel is rich in sulphur. They can do this because there are no emission regulations on the open sea. A commonly cited figure is that a single cargo ship releases more sulphur than all the cars in North America.
This figure is then misinterpreted by people who failed basic chemistry to mean that cargo ships are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, the opposite is true; cargo ships are one of the most efficient ways to move stuff over large distances. Only electric trains are better, and only if the source of the electricity is not fossil.
Perhaps I too failed basic chemistry, but I do believe you are grossly incorrect -- maritime shipping is a massive contributor to CO2 emissions:
Ships release about 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, according to the IMO, roughly equal to Texas and California’s combined annual carbon output.
Marine transportation is one of the contributors to world climate change. The shipping industry contributes 3.9% of the world’s carbon dioxide output equivalent to 1260 million tons of CO2 and this is one of the large sources of anthropogenic carbon emitters.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484722020261
I do believe you are grossly incorrect
What makes you think that? None of the sources you provide disagree with what I wrote.
This figure is then misinterpreted by people who failed basic chemistry to mean that cargo ships are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, the opposite is true;
Perhaps it's just poor word choice or phrasing, but it reads like you mean that "the opposite is true" in that they are NOT a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, when in fact they are a huge contributor, more than California and Texas combined.
Fair.
The point was not to imply that shipping is not a large source of CO2, but:
- More than once, I have seen it stated that a small number of cargo ships dwarfs the world's car fleet in terms of CO2 emission. This is wrong, and originates with abovementioned conflating of sulphur and carbon.
- At 3.9% of all GHG emissions, it is hardly correct to refer to shipping as one of the "biggest CO2 polluters".
- It's not low hanging fruit. Moving cargo by sea is really very efficient, and we're not going to reduce that carbon source by switching to other means of transport. The only way to reduce it is to move less stuff.
The reason so much stuff is shipped around the world is that it’s produced in low-income countries because it’s cheaper, not because it’s actually necessary to be produced there. Often, the raw materials come from somewhere else as well, so stuff is shipped around the world twice.
I dunno, maritime shipping producing more CO2 than California and Texas combined seems like a pretty big CO2 polluter to me, and we have to reduce where we can, ~4% is still a good start.
It actually is low hanging fruit. For 4000 years the human race engaged in maritime trade and commerce using solely wind powered vessels, and humanity thrived just fine without internal combustion engines. We could easily go back to clipper ships or design a wind-powered vessel based on shipping containers.
But efficiency will go down drastically! Transit times will increase massively! Yes, but these aren't existential threats. So people have to wait a bit longer to receive their shiny new laptops or Steam Decks, big deal. Maybe Norway won't have bananas anymore, not a big loss.
The real problem with climate change is that nobody wants to drastically inconvenience their modern lifestyle. Unfortunately, given the short window available to do something meaningful, drastic action is necessary which will result in large inconveniences and disruption for billions of people, but nobody wants that, and no politician will get elected selling that.
This is why you don’t substitute social media for primary sources if you want to learn anything.
Ships and planes ARE NOT the biggest CO2 emitters. Random big corporations ARE NOT the biggest CO2 emitters.
Transport (I.e driving your car) and energy (I.e. running the AC) are the biggest CO2 polluters by far, with over 50% of emissions from those 2 sectors.
Everyone can make a difference very easily by driving less and using less power…with the happy side effect of sticking it to the corporations you say are the biggest polluters.
Because - no surprise - the biggest corporate polluters are almost all oil and energy companies.
My guess is you're quoting this? https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
The problem with your statement is fragmentation. Yes, "transportation" is the biggest single CO2 polluter followed by electricity, but there are billions of individual cars and lorries out there, across many different nations and laws, so the marginal effect of any single car is infinitesimal, and too difficult to go after. But things like maritime shipping, aviation, and railroads are monolithic, and transnationally regulated, so much easier to make an impact. Commercial transport also accounts for a way, way larger chunk of the 28% than residential transport.
In terms of most bang for buck, we should be targeting electricity generation and industry, as these are not nearly as fragmented, and easier to directly regulate and enforce regulation. If you immediately outlawed the top 100 corporations on the planet, you'd make a way bigger impact on CO2 than say, every residential house in America giving up their personal automobiles. Commercial lorries pollute far more than residential autos.
There's also another big reason why fixing energy generation is top priority: the way to fix maritime shipping, aviation and personal transportation is to move them to electric trains, which needs more electric power.
And heating, and cooking
My brother from a “red” state just relayed the latest conspiracy theory he heard: electrifying everything is just a way to trap us so “they” can raise rates and we have no options
It would only take between 50 and 500 people to save the human race. We had a population bottleneck event back during the Toba eruption that reduced humans to about 10,000 people and we were fine afterwards. 500 is the limit for genetic drift and 50 is the limit for severe inbreeding.
We’re we fine afterwards, are you sure about that?
Are we taking applications for the 500?
I want to be one of the 50!
Yes, technically it's not really about the planet or the environment, or society. It is about finding a solution of an optimum between money spent and living conditions for the majority of people. I actually think we should start talking about it more from that angle.
We could go to almost zero emissions tomorrow but it would wreak absolute havoc and billions of people would die. We could go full zero carbon emissions in our energy grid, but it would cost an absolute shitton, which means the living conditions go down. More realistic is a mix of investments between avoidance and adaptation. And I don't think there is any realistic chance without nuclear energy.
Nuclear power takes a long time to build which is a problem because action should have started 40 years ago.
Too many people can only think in binary. They see your argument and decide that doing anything would result in higher prices, lower living standards, etc. they don’t seem to be able to grasp a goal of riding that line for best results
Why would living conditions have to go down?
Because it costs money. It's not just "jobs", it's actual time and effort that we can't spend on other things, which ultimately increases prices and means fewer people can afford things. And while in the West that means maybe cutting back a little, in other regions it can mean a life in poverty and premature death.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that we cannot dig ourselves out of this hole without hurting ourselves in the short term. It's decades too fucking late for that. Fixing this will cause unavoidable suffering; not accepting that is going to cause exponentially more suffering. Suffering that has already begun. We as a global society had every opportunity to avoid it, but we chose not to. There is no painless solution anymore. We can all suffer now and mostly make it through to the other side, or we can try to cling to our cushy lives of excess and convenience while the vast majority of us die. Pick one; those are the only choices.
Yet I don’t see why we need any suffering - we have the technology to take us a lot of the way.
While you can argue the focus on cars, EVs will make a big difference, are available for essentially no lifestyle change, and getting close to price parity. We are at the point where scaling up will tip us past. While it’s too little, too late, this is only 10-15 years. The only losers are companies that can’t change but at that rate the global car companies will be Tesla, Hyundai, and a couple Chinese brands
While you can argue storage, renewable energy generation is growing even faster. It’s 20 years behind what we need but it is getting there
For my part,I just paid ridiculous amounts to an electrician, a plumber, and an appliance retailer, to convert my cooking from gas to induction (one small step to reduce my carbon impact and improve my respiratory health). The technology exists, it should not impact my lifestyle, but at least here in the US, it needs people willing to pay more to establish the market
And these are assuming you don’t change anything. It will be such a huge lifestyle improvement to plug my car in overnight just like my phone. Such a huge improvement to only visit a refueling station a handful of times per year. Such a huge environmental improvement to watch the whole gasoline refining and distribution industries dry up and blow away. Such a huge lifestyle improvement as more people can get convenient transit through high speed trains. So much less pain if/when the entire natural gas infrastructure is no longer needed: so much less digging and construction, so much money that could be invested elsewhere
Literally none of this is viable on a massive enough scale to matter in the slightest. 2/3 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and spending power has been steadily plummeting for decades with no positive change in sight. Most people can't afford a new car, or even a relatively new used one, and wil likely never be able to. For most, owning a home in their lifetime, or even renting from a decent landlord, is also pure fantasy, let alone the idea of overhauling one to be green and energy efficient. You're part of a very small and shrinking bubble of people who have the extreme luxury of making even one of these choices, let alone all of them. In poorer countries, the situation is far worse.
It is entirely viable though. I am far from wealthy but do recognize the privilege of above average financial situation.
My state has set a deadline of 2035 for all new cars to be EV. After that point, all recent used cars will also be EVs. Ten years after that, most used cars will be EVs. It will happen. The goal is to make it realistic before then
Natural gas hookup bans are also a really good idea but much longer term. When you’re building a house, is the only time it doesn’t cost to convert to electric everything. Of course houses last much longer and most places don’t build enough, so this will take a very long time. My house is pushing 80, and we certainly can’t afford to wait that long for less polluting houses. However encouraging people who can, to convert when replacing a major appliance, will eventually make a difference
The problem is that we are talking too little about actually quantifying this. You make pretty bold statements that sound good, but that contain not much we can use to guide policy decisions. And that matters.
How much will we suffer? For how long? How much will the climate impacts cost, how much adaptation measures, how much will avoidance cost? In terms of money, human lives and living conditions. Who is impacted? We have to put numbers if we want to find an optimum solution.
I think he is just saying people shouldn't doom post. I think there is a fine line because a lot of zoomers i interact with are hopeless and have given up. This is a generation who never experienced a functional (American) government who worked for the people. So they just don't care and you can see it reflected in their memes.
I don't know the rhetorical path we should take. We need to get people motivated and fired up but not apathetic and despairing. I mostly want to see politicians crumble and the rich eaten and i think that's messaging many will get behind.
It's not even that Gen Z doesn't care. Many of us just hit a point where everything feels numb. You can only get so upset/depressed/etc until your brain just kind of shuts down a bit.
There's grief over everything that we'll probably never get to see/have. There's grief over the backsliding of progress that actually seemed real to us at one point. There's grief over the many people who just die, everywhere, for terrible and avoidable reasons. There are many animals we will already never get to see.
Everywhere you look, people almost seem to feel pride in not knowing things. One member of Gen Z managed to have her voice heard about the planet, and she was ridiculed by grown adults. Multiple governments are now trying to decrease education, and some people somehow see that as a good thing. Wildfires are blazing like never before, the smoke is totally hazing new areas, yet people still refuse to see. Why is Gen Z expected to be the magical cure to global warming? People won't even listen to Greta! We're just as human as any other generation. Of course we'll try, but the focus on solving the climate problem should have already been happening generations ago. Just THINK of all the progress we could have already made!
Lucky us, huh? We're also regularly encouraged to shove all of these emotions down because we could not possibly have similar problems to older adults. Fuck that, respectfully.
Yeah, I've got to say, sometimes it's damn hard to have any hope.
I do think more of us need to vote, even if it only feels like there's a 3% chance that something actually changes for the better...
No one expects Gen Z to be the magical cure to climate change. Rather, it is expected that Gen Z will continue and escalate work that is already being done.
That's a pretty normal thing to expect of upcoming generations.
Was the pressure the same, though?
The pressure isn't on you. The pressure is on older generations right now, and things are moving. Your job there is to continue the work.
Ideally by the time Gen Z is 40, they'll have a whole new crisis. Nearly every generation does.
Right, we got the plastics/forever chemicals crisis lined up
Exactly. There will always be new challenges
You lazy idiots aren't about to demand anything of a young kid. Shut the fuck up, grow up, and do it yourselves.
I prescribe reading this list until you feel better. Yes the worst of humanity was the noisiest as usual, but there was also a lot of recognition
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg#Honours_and_awards
I am sorry that other Millennials just gave in to their trauma and were unable to do anything to fix the problem. I am sorry Boomers and Gen-Xers caused it in the first place.
I am a millennial and I am going to act to solve the problem in my lifetime. I might need your help, but I don't expect you to be burdened with responsibility for older generations' actions. We all can hold the evil shitty people accountable, and build a better and brighter future if we work together.
Never experienced a warm summer day nor a windshield full of dead bugs.
Did you even read the article, Mr/Ms climate scientist?
He’s asking people not to talk like the world is going to catastrophically end once we hit that 1.5 degrees milestone, because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.
And he’s totally right. If the government told people a meteor the size of Texas was going to impact earth in 12 hours, there would be effectively zero effort to stop it. If you tune in to a lot of the conversation around climate change from people who are not climate scientists, but who want to leave a better world for their kids and believe climate scientists, they feel hopeless. It feels like a foregone conclusion that we are going to go over the 1.5 degree goal (probably because it is), and if we think the biosphere is going to collapse when it does, it is really, really hard to take action.
It’s not saying to undersell the risks, he’s saying to be truthful about the risks. We can definitely still salvage complex life on earth with optimistic, consistent effort, but recent media coverage has been giving the impression that it’s too late. This is bad and counterproductive.
Keep on fighting the good fight brother/sister.
I hope, greatly, for the future. But know that any real change will have to include everyone, everywhere. Even the chuds that drive jacked up pickups covered in skulls and toting firearms. And they will never change willingly. The oil industry will continue to sow doubt and enable these idiots with cheaply available petrol, so it's not likely we'll even be able to get serious mpg regulations, much less a renewable transportation network. When florida's coast is under water, maybe that'll change a few minds... but I'm sure they'll turn it into some kind of conspiracy to persecute them even then.
Really hope I'm wrong tho.
The chuds driving jacked up pickups aren’t contributing very much to global CO2 emissions actually.
The tendency of individuals to place far more blame on passenger vehicles (of which medium and heavy trucks constitute less than 1/4th in the US- likely far less elsewhere) as a contributor to global warming than they are actually responsible for actually had a name; The Transportation Fallacy.
Exact numbers vary by year and country, but it seems like passenger transportation accounts for about ~7% of global CO2 emissions. To put that in perspective, the same source indicates that we can remove the same amount of CO2 by eliminating food waste as we would by taking every passenger vehicle on earth off the road.
The auto manufacturing lobby wants you to sell your current working vehicle and buy a Tesla or a Prius, even though the carbon debt of manufacturing that vehicle won’t break even with an IC engine for ~300,000 miles. And even when it does break even with your current vehicle, if everyone on earth did the same thing, it would barely dent our global emissions.
They want you to feel satisfied about doing your part in a way that earns them revenue, instead of focusing your energy on things that will cost the energy lobby money but actually have an effect.
Sorry, long rant, but I wish more people realized how convenient of a scapegoat the type of car someone drives is. Yes, a more fuel efficient car is better than a gas guzzler, of course. But that’s such a small part of the problem, yet it gets such a huge amount of the mental energy that people spend trying to reduce personal emissions. Eat less meat, push for nuclear power generation, make sure your home is well insulated and uses efficient appliances, fight for working from home where possible, switch from grass to native plants. Drive less. The chuds rolling coal are idiots, but they’re a very, very small part of the problem. So many better ways to spend our energy.
They want you to feel satisfied about doing your part in a way that earns them revenue, instead of focusing your energy on things that will cost the energy lobby money but actually have an effect.
What a perfect way to phrase it.
I see what you mean about those gas guzzlers. While they do make me irrationally upset, a much bigger problem is forcing millions upon millions of workers on daily commutes. This isn't just about WFH, which would be a solution, but also of insisting on putting almost all employment opportunities at the end of the same clogged roads miles away from where anyone lives.
I think you're right to point out that the argument against individualising the problem/solution should be applied evenly. It's easy to individualise the problem when someone seems to be doing the exact opposite of helping.
That said, I've one challenge, which is about insulating your home. I've heard that a good air source heat pump will save more emissions than insulation (some leaky homes might be the exception) and at much lower overall cost to the consumer. They have to be set up right, though. Maybe it depends on building materials? It might be different for timber framed houses that have some insulation built in, anyway. Makes sense to put in better stuff during ordinary construction and maintenance of those.
You seem to think that just because someone didn't specifically cite lifetime investment in each platform that it negates their premise.
I disagree.
Stop apologizing for people who have gone far outside the norms, intentionally, simply to pollute more.
Don't confuse it with someone who bought a 2005 honda and are simply getting their useful life out of the vehicle. The US Truck fetish is counterproductive to the needs of actual trucks, and wasteful in resources and disgusting in motivation.
This is conspicuous, intentional overconsumption that not only consumes valuable resources but emits much, much more exhaust products than it should, for the exclusive point of intentionally polluting by reducing combustion. To own the libs, they like to call it.
Is it equal to air carriage or maritime transport? No. No one asserted these things.
But it's more pollution dumped into everyone's atmosphere, more consumption at the pump, all for the purpose of being assholes. Those emissions aren't hypothetical, they're real. Really unnecessary too. A fucking kei truck is more useful than the average american lifted dipshit hauler. Much more efficient too.
But knowing there are people ready to jump in and snipe apocrypha peripherally related to the premise reinforces my doubts that humanity will get it's shit together before we're doomed (if not already). Have a good one.
I’m not apologizing for anyone, I’m suggesting that we would be better served by focusing our efforts on major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions instead of getting personally butthurt over a globally tiny number of individuals who are contributing an extra fraction of a percent of global emissions relative to their peers.
Yup, read you loud and clear, there's no reason to stop the chuds because it's only a tiny fraction - and this why we can't have nice things, like an ecosystem.
see sport, the tiny percentages add up over time. acting like it's not a consequence is merely shitting even more on the next generation.
You must be one of those goofballs who thinks millennials can’t by houses because they keep buying coffee.
See sport, enormous percentages add up way faster than tiny ones. Pissing your pants over how bad your feelings are hurt when you see a scary bad man in a truck while you are eating meat 10 meals a week and driving your Corolla to and from work instead of biking is just shitting even more on the current, and every future, generation.
Sad how many people put their personal feelings ahead of objective data, and hold back meaningful progress in the process.
Pointless waste is the most egregious. Nothing would be more pointless than wasting more time on you and you incorrect, but I suspect, personal projections. I'm a cyclist. I eat mostly fish and veg. I don't drive a car unless it's going out of town, and it gets decent mileage. Thanks for over-sharing, it's like you strive to be wrong and sadly ridiculous with each new reply.
Gonna help you with that problem and block you.
Please, for the love of God, block me. It seems like that’s what it is going to take to get you to stop obsessing over this wild pissing contest that you’ve manufactured.
You forget those clowns buy new gas guzzling trucks in large part to spite the left and climate efforts as a whole, which negates your point.
That absolutely does not negate any of the points that I made but god bless you for trying buddy.
New large trucks actually get way better gas mileage than older ones.
I don't care if you feel convinced or not. It's the truth. New large trucks will always put out more CO2 than electric cars, even considering manufacturing, and that doesn't change just because you don't want to hear it. And that's the end of the debate.
Who in this conversation do you think is claiming that large trucks don’t emit more greenhouse gasses than electric cars? That’s an impressive strawman you’ve got there. It looks really good right next to the goalposts that are speeding towards the horizon.
And I’m happy to hear that you’re done debating with yourself in a conversation that you can’t seem to keep up with.
because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.
That's the thing I don't get. How to come to such a conclusion?
If you ever have been on a sinking ship, you know how suddenly even the worst enemies will cooperate willingly quite well in face of time pressure and a life threat. Some might even be willing to sacrifice themselves when in such a situation, even a few minutes gained can make a huge difference. But aswell if the situation seems hopeless.
It's totally atypical for most humans to just accept fate and relax in any life threatening situation. Humans tend to die fighting/ defending.
climate change unstoppable != scary life threatening consequences
Those are two entirely different narratives.
(And I didn't get past the paywall.)
Homie I’m trying to explain what you’re obviously not understanding about this, and you keep responding with arguments about how you’re correct to not understand or something?
Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.” We shouldn’t be acting like the scary life threatening consequences of climate change are unstoppable. That is one narrative, you silly goof.
Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.”
Then he's wrong. But it's more likely you misread the study since that's not the conclusion.
My guy I can only imagine how hard it must be to go through life completely illiterate.
“The belief that climate change is unstoppable reduces the behavioural and policy response to climate change and moderates risk perception.”
So you are saying
"The belief that climate change is unstoppable"
is the same thing as
"a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity"
Those are fundamentially different things and you just pulled some study you think is fitting to OPs article. But allright... I'm the one who's illiterate.
they want a slow boil, keeps the panic down and diminishes the odds there will be a 'bastards up against the wall' moment for the ones responsible.
there will be a 'bastards up against the wall' moment for the ones responsible.
i can't see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without "state of emergency") lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.
we're going to have the angry people mad that their children will grow up in a hellscape, and the deniers still sticking their heads in the sand saying petroleum is fine. gonna be real fun when these two groups meet up.
Yes but my point is that the world is already burning... People are dying... Homes are sinking into the ocean... Countless species are being lost. Pray tell, when is it bad enough that it is no longer sensationalistic?
Oh, if only people were as passionate about abortion. I mean, they're not killing that many babies, right? Why the fuss?
Edit: also, 1.5 C is catastrophic. Millions will move or die. Refugees will be pouring out of countries in numbers like we've never seen. Food production won't keep up with demands. Entire ecosystems like corals will be decimated and survive in only tiny pockets. Stop me if I'm being too hyperbolic and making anyone feel paralyzed with inaction though. Better we gently sweep it under the rug as we have done since the 1970s, because then it's not a problem!
Millions will move or die
So not an existential threat to humanity, then.
This person was picked for the job because their job is to encourage effective means of fighting climate change, and encouraging hopelessness is not effective.
We are likely to see 1.5C. The world will go on, because it has to. Being prepared to deal with 1.5C means not assuming 1.5C is the end of the world.
Stop me if I'm being too hyperbolic
Stop.
I'm glad you're fortunate enough not to live in a place where climate change does threaten your very existence...your family... Home... Livelihood
I guess it's just tough luck for people whose homes are falling into the sea or the tens of thousands who are dying from record heat across Europe
If that's what you took away from my post, it's an even better thing you're a junior scientist and not running the IPCC.
If that's all a Ph. D wielding senior scientist like you has to bring to the table, then it's a good thing we don't listen to you ivory tower dorks.
You're either responding to the wrong person, or a complete dipshit, and this applies to both posts you've made to my comments.
I'm sorry, do many people dying not constitute an existential threat to all of humanity? Like, are you seriously arguing the semantics?
All I'm saying is that a gentle hand at the wheel hasn't worked. It isn't working currently. What we have now is a moderate response to an existential threat. We should have done a lot more a lot sooner. I guess 2 becomes the new 1.5...then 3 becomes the new 2... And if we lose a billion or so peeps, that's ok. Just the cost of ensuring we're not all wringing our hands bc the head of the IPC said not to.. Whew!
And thanks for taking a dog at my credentials. I'll have you know my h index is looking mighty fine 😘
No, some people dying is not an existential threat to humanity. "Existential" means that the threat will make humanity extinct.
These are not meaningless semantics. This is core to the message of the article.
You may in fact be some form of scientist, but you are completely incapable of a realistic discussion of mitigation of and solutions to climate change.
Reading your post history, you seem like a concerned citizen giving reasonable advice. That's good.. My advice: get angry! We needed to be confronting this challenge yesterday. Advocate for your fellow humans. Our way of life is irrevocably lost
Anger is, generally, a useless emotion.
I am already an advocate.
You may find this article illuminating, if reading is your thing: Even if humanity does reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to stave off the worst effects of climate change—and learn to adapt to some warming that is already inevitable—Setiya says that climate change remains an existential threat to a host of human cultures, traditions, and languages
You might want to avoid the preceding paragraph though, as it states "There is a genuine possibility that within the coming century, we will hit temperatures that are deeply incompatible with the continued existence of human life." Such rampant fear mongering will make you too scawed and make peepee
I am a literal climate lobbyist, so you don't need to worry about either my knowledge or my inaction due to fear.
What are you doing about this problem? If the answer is "doomposting on Lemmy," thanks for proving everything I'm saying correct.
I work with national and international governments to develop and deploy effective, data-driven, nature-based solutions to mitigate climate impacts and conserve and/or restore natural systems
We're on the same side.. Let's fight together!
I hate to break it to you, but things don't just work the way you want them to simply because you need them to. Reality is in no way obligated to meet your needs or conform to your sensibilities
I understand his sentiment. I have an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness because most CO2 emissions aren't even made by normal every day people but the entities that do create a majority of it don't care. This means anything we attempt to do is as a whole is only a drop in the bucket compared to what these entities are producing. I purchased a hybrid vehicle to curve my driving emissions and I recycle. I planted grass and a tree in my yard to prevent run off and produce oxygen. I am looking into getting solar power for my home but I am not a rich man so the price is a little beyond me right now. Things I can do I try to do but in the end regardless of what I do entities are polluting our water and air, producing plastics, and are trying to place the blame on normal people. It can be a little heavy on the soul.
Add a few wildflowers to your grass, it's better for insects (and should not be that expensive).
That's a good idea but how to I mow it with flowers in it?
Honestly I think we should stop trying to stop climate change and start adapting to it.
Because at individual scale all actions to limit climate change are almost meaningless, whatever we do we will not see the consequences of it. On the other hand we can adapt to climate change at individual and community level.
Start planting trees in our community, build a way of life that does not require fossil fuel since we are running out of them, installing solar panels and improving home insulation to help during externe weather events, buy less products and focus on repairing them instead ...
All of that can directly improve our life, present and future, without relying on everyone doing their share
AND, as a side effect, all the action we do to prepare yourself to live in a post growth world are also great to reduce our CO2 emissions.
You can only adapt so much before you just fucking die though, corporations are not going to stop pumping out carbon and if things don't change, we won't be able to survive as a people.
I'd love to install solar panels, I have a flat rubber roof with no tree coverage that's perfect for it. A $35,000 upfront cost is an absolute nonstarter for me. I have it, but that's basically my entire emergency fund. If someone would pay me to have them installed, hell yeah, let's do it.
I agree. Colorado Springs has adopted a system where the company installs the Solar panels free and you just pay the solar company for wattage which ends up being less.
Because adapting is the same situation. Yes, you can make changes personally, but there are overwhelming societal issues that you can’t begin to touch, that require huge investments, but is from politicians and corporations. Most importantly, adapting is more expensive than prevention
That's a good and healthy way to approach this. Nicely put.
Bettering the world's situation is a legislative/political issue. Bettering you and your immediate community is something you can help with, even if it's only at the margins.
The problem with all this, however, is that there are a lot of the things that you can do to help your personal situation that are definitely not helping the overall situation. For example installing air conditioning, watering your lawn, etc. They might make things more comfortable for you, but they're by no means better for the world. We still need to incentivize the right things through the right tax breaks and financial/industry incentives, which lead us back to politics being the actual thing that we need to make meaningful personal and global change possible.
I don't know lemmy's demographics, but I imagine it skews overwhelmingly north American, white, and with a reasonable and stable income. I.e., The people who are most capable to "adapt"
We must also focus on unreserved communities, those without the means to make life comfortable, or to repair their homes or to move to avoid sea level rise or hurricanes or other damaging impacts of climate change.
Excuse my trickling down, but I’ll respond the same way as with EVs. The best way to make it affordable is to put more of it in the hands of people who can afford it now. As manufacturing scales Up, it gets less expensive. As more is bought new, more is available for the used market.
This does work with manufactured goods where scale matters and there is both a market for new sales and pre-owned sales
Hang in there. It will eventually get so bad it will mandate action. Humanity is resilient. But I do feel for the many people who have died and will die, or be left homeless, or without a country to call home on the way there...
Also, put pressure on your elected officials, vote in every election, encourage your friends and peers to vote. Run for local office where a lot of decisions are made that can help
I live in Colorado and I feel we have a fairly good turnout for elections and the state is move quickly to renewables. However, this does not stop other state and companies from polluting to their hearts content. Companies need the hammer brought down on them.
I’m actually pretty optimistic about EV adoption. There’s too large a portion of the US hostile to the idea, but a dozen or so states establishing a 2035 deadline to phase out new gas powered cars. However those states are also some of the strongest economies
I believe many European countries, or maybe the EU have similar targets.
That may be enough for car manufacturers to completely switch over. If you needed to focus on products for the leading economies.p, why would you even build gasoline cars that couldn’t be sold there. The backward states may have no choice
I believe that we need to switch to EV when the solid state battery is more easily manufactured. A real concern with everyone switching to EV is the power grid and it's ability to handle that.
So true, but it’s a problem of coordinating and prioritizing thousands of corporate entities over more than a decade. In a mostly capitalist economy, the only realistic way is to set a deadline and milestones
Electric grids very add only need a lot of improvements plus we need more power generation, but these are costs to utilities, not profits, so won’t happen unless forced to
Agreed
I already feel helpless. I try to use my vehicle less and use public transport. I just moved somewhere walkable so there are days that I don't use my vehicle (will be weeks eventually when I get used to it). I try to buy local and reduce my waste.
I live in a southern state though so my vote doesn't do shit. Even if I did, this feels like a political issue at this point and neither the right or the left of the country has the will to "do what needs to be done".
Capitalism is exploitative by its nature and the market will never solve the problem until we have extracted all the fossil fuels in the earth.
I know it is not your problem, but how can we NOT feel helpless?
I think the issue here is who you're looking at for the audience. At this point, we can agree that anyone who doesn't think there's a problem is delusional, and it's a waste to time to convince them otherwise.
If we assume the audience is all people who believe this is an issue, then this message makes sense. It's trying to convince people that they should still care and not be nihilistic about it.
God that must be depressing work.
I think climate change is a big fucking problem, full stop.
That being said, do you know how much of a relief it is to read "we're not going to turn into Mars, just keep trying to fix the problem we got this humanity"? I legitimately have had existential dread due to the messaging around climate change. At least now I can continue trying to do my best to fix it without asking "what's the fucking point?"
Exactly. It's not like this is an existential threat to human civilisation and the current ecosystem of the planet... oh wait, that's exactly what it bloody is!
The reason for all the apathetic people is because they see the writing on the wall. It's not too late now, but by the time the assholes up top actually pull their heads out, it will be.
Title rage baited?
What’s weird is you claim to be a scientist yet don’t understand fundamental social science.
Any scientist worth their weight has a basic understanding and any effective scientist understands how to use the field to their advantage. He is not wrong at all.
LOL WUT
So first off, climate science is data driven. Social politics should play no part in how to interpret the result that shit is getting hotter and people are dying... That's pure statistics baby
But in terms of communication, sure, understanding psychology helps. But look where a poor understanding of social psychology got us...
And social science is not the same as psychology. Social science means integrating diverse perspectives into environmental decision making. Which many in this thread are failing to do
You’re overly ignorant of social science and you’ve shown to have zero understanding of what it is. Statistics are a huge component.
Climate change is human created and you think we can fix it without the human science. Good luck with that.
lol no
Statistics are a summarization of data
All fields use it.
A statistic is that the climate will increase more than 1.5 degrees by the end of the century
How we operationalize that information requires other statistical summaries BUT that does not negate the fact that we have passed a tipping point and people are dying because of it..
That doesn't absolve us of action now.. Or risk of overstating the threat
Another statistic is that most people don't understand statistics
Signed, an actual fucking statistician
Again ignoring the point and proving mine to what, prove an elementary understanding of…statistics? So you don’t understand social science at all. Got it.
Sorry to have disappointed you. I'll go ahead and tender my resignation later today. I guess I can't help the planet after all... 😢
What really got me worried was a warning ( warning collapse per 2025) about a projected collapse of the Atlantic Gulfstream.:
"The Gulf Stream system could collapse as soon as 2025, a new study suggests. The shutting down of the vital ocean currents, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) by scientists, would bring catastrophic climate impacts."
That would be very bad news for Europe and The Atlantic and other sea currents in general.
No. It wouldn't. Yes, it would get colder in Europe, but there are lots of ways and means to deal with that. Heck, European homes generally are optimized for the cold and not the heat - which is where a lot of the issues and deaths regarding heat stroke come from. Also, European homes are not getting blown away by some heavy gusts.
Florida will get the most shit and probably will cease to exist. Though, one could argue that that's not such a bad thing...
And the Gulf stream has stopped a few times in earth history, it isn't the only current.
Stop fear mongering, FFS, and do things differently. Yes, it will get uncomfortable for a lot of people and we have to ask ourself as a society if we deal with it properly - or not and face the consequences, but even 2°C won't collaps humanity at once. It all depends what we do with the cards we are going to get dealt.
European homes generally are optimized for the cold and not the heat
cries in British
No youre not
Lol, what do you disagree about? Is a 1.5°C rise apocalyptic?
There are quite a few hypothetical tipping points where the climate can go catastrophically wrong. We don’t understand them as well as climate change, can’t as easily predict how likely they are or when they’re inevitable, but we’d like to avoid them.
The 1.5°C target is where we expect significant disruptions to society, expensive impact, hardship for the most vulnerable. But we can deal with it if it stops there. However as we shoot past that target, those disruptions get bigger and more expensive but also those tipping points become more likely. I really really hope we can avoid them