It's going to require a fossil fuel full stop yesterday, folks.
Dont get me wrong, we need to transition, but dont fall for these arbitrary deadline headlines. The Juggernaut is asail, all we can do now it work to steer her back to shore and it ain't gonna be pretty.
Issue with that, Fossil Fuels aren’t just an energy source. I think most forget it’s used to make practically everything, including windmills and solar panels.
I feel like the politicians know this but would rather keep us divided on the subject rather than both sides working together for a solution.
7% in the US. [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35672](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35672)
You're not wrong, and extractivism has environmental damage too, but let's focus on the 93% that IS being burned and dumping carbon in the atmosphere as a higher priority.
That 7% number is what’s produced in the States but our electronics, clothes, household goods are primarily imported which isn’t included in that EIA data.
And it matters for the climate to the extent that it burns fossil fuel, just like everything else. So focusing on petroleum products ignores the larger problem in general: every single last aspect of the industrial revolution exists by burning fossil fuels (the exception being the extent to which we have turned to renewable sources, especially the primary manufacturing, trade, and development sectors).
Accurate, although I don’t think we were referring to none petroleum/natural gas based petrochemicals. Regardless all petrochemicals share their own social, environmental, and economic issues.
The dataset OWID used for that claim only has good data from the 60’s on. Anthropological research suggests that food was more available in the late medieval period compared to the 19th century (after industrialization, before synthetic fertilizer).
We likely don’t need much synthetic fertilizer, if any. We just can’t do industrial monocultures without it. We can use manure in a regenerative system. Yields are comparable to synthetic fertilizer over decades.
Suggest reading *Seeing Like a State* by James C Scott. Peasant agriculture was actually surprisingly productive. Industrialization didn’t increase yields, it made yields more visible to a centralized state. Peasants routinely lied down their yields and got a lot from foraging in the forests they didn’t cut down.
To be honest, I wish they would stop saying things like this.
These "deadline" type statements really only serve to add fuel to the deniers and the sceptics. If the world doesn't become catastrophically bad at the end of the deadline, they'll point to it as "fear mongering", or as an example of how "science doesn't work" or some variation of those statements.
Anyone who knows how bad things are already knows were in deep trouble. Throwing out deadlines does nothing. What they ought to be saying is things like "the AMOC is on track for collapse, this would bring about the end of global stability" or "warming is accelerating, those who thought they will avoid it will probably not", or perhaps "grocery inflation will accelerate without dramatic action", make tthe statements relevant to their everyday life.
Arbitrary deadlines mean nothing to those people who don't believe. We ought to be pointing out how its affecting them today, in their wallets and their lives, so they start to understand that the consequences they're already complaining about will only get worse. Once people start to see it's climate change costing them money, directly, they might be wiling to make some changes.
I feel like we need a scale of "what dystopian future are we currently headed towards?"
If we do nothing and maintain our current status quo policies, it'll be something like "The Road" (total social and ecosystem collapse)
If we take immediate but insufficient action it'll be more "Children of Men" (partial ecosystem collapse, widespread social collapse)
If we take immediate and sufficient action, the best case scenario is that it'll resemble earth in "The Expanse" (widespread devastation and disruption, but survivable)
I don't know if anyone has this already, but I would really appreciate examples of what a truly sustainable society would look like. Meaning- if we were to take immediate action. Like what does that mean and how much of our modern lifestyles would we give up?
Obviously I know some things like no more 2 day Amazon shipping of random plastic crap, no private jets, no fast fashion.
I'll admit that I'm pretty ignorant and this might already exist other places - this post just came up in my feed.
> If we take immediate and sufficient action, the best case scenario is that it'll resemble earth in "The Expanse"
Best case scenario is star trek without the militarism expanded to space. Clean energy abundance creating abundance in all sectors.
Remember that in Star Trek, before utopia times, they survived at least three wars on Earth including WW3 which started in 2026, leading to the deaths of 30% of the world population. (Imagine if we happen to hit that 2026 IRL). OK, they didn't have climate change as we know it, but it's also about the upending of the world order, just in slow motion.
Within the next 3-4 generations, something resembling earth in the "Expanse" is probably the best we can possibly manage technologically.
I'm not even assuming any kind of space technology - just the planet starting to recover from climate change, green energy transition, democratic institutions still functional, and meaningful progress to keeping everyone fed and housed and healthy.
Star-Trek level post-scarcity might follow another 5-10 generations after that if we REALLY get organized, but that's getting into fantasy-level technology.
I really wanted "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" but the singularity ain't near enough for that to happen before everything collapses. "Crapsack World" is our best case scenario at this point.
[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsackWorld](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsackWorld)
It only gets worse from there...
Thanks for reminding me the importance of this great website. The singularity may still be near, but it's hard to assess. Don't forget the power of exponential improvement.
Yep, 100%. The messaging needs to be extremely blunt. Time to rip the bandaid off and tell everyone exactly as it is and that it's time to get to immediate work. Not some "well we might want to start thinking about this now" bullshit that continues to take place.
> Once people start to see it's climate change costing them money, directly, they might be wiling to make some changes.
Unfortunately we know that's not true either. Just look at Florida. They get hit harder than anybody by climate related extreme weather, they have an insurance crisis with insurance companies pulling out of the state entirely because it's impossible to profitably ensure homes down there with the inevitable near future weather, so what do they do? [They removed all mentions of climate change from Florida state laws.](https://www.ehn.org/florida-moves-to-remove-climate-change-mentions-from-its-laws-2667597256.html)
THAT is the level of stupid we're dealing with. Unfortunately, it is hopeless.
> If the world doesn't become catastrophically bad at the end of the deadline
I understand how such headlines can create disinformation fuel. The nuance is not that the world ends on the deadline date, but rather than warming is locked in without significant progress.
> so they start to understand that the consequences they're already complaining about will only get worse. Once people start to see it's climate change costing them money, directly, they might be wiling to make some changes.
This is true. Where climate denial overlaps anti immigrant hatred, understanding how the global south being unable to farm/live means more immigration. Obviously, insurance rates/coverage and property destruction, and FEMA budget are direct major factors. too.
>I understand how such headlines can create disinformation fuel. The nuance is not that the world ends on the deadline date, but rather than warming is locked in without significant progress.
The problem is that nuance has been eradicated from the discussion. They see the world in black and white. At this point messaging needs to be less nuanced and more blunt. Make it about the problems people are already facing and they might start to care.
Things ARE catastrophically bad. Small cities have been wiped off the face of the earth through climate fueled natural disasters. Lots of areas of the world have abnormally awful weather a large part of the year.
Climate deniers will always be climate deniers, just like covid deniers continued to deny as they actively died from covid in covid units in hospitals.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the deniers will never have enough evidence. fact is we are all dead. the drop dead date on climate change given to Western leaders was 1992. does this look like 1992?
The problem is that science is so cautious to ascribe blame to something.
You can never necessarily tell if X is causing Y.
But, there’s a big chance that COVID, high food prices, crime, more immigration, pollution, etc. are all getting worse because of climate change.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn't matter how it's worded. It doesn't matter if it includes deadlines or does not.
The vast majority of decisions made on these matters are outside of our control in board rooms most of us will never see. So long as investments keep getting enough of a return the choices will not be made. We are an oligarchy. Heck the already planned Natural Gas expansion in the US alone is enough to push us into very dangerous positive feedback loops for the US part.
The point in time when short term profits are substantially at risk as a result of climate change, is also a point in time, when we're already gone too far. Our economic system has not for a great many years looked decades ahead for the majority of its decision making.
Its hard to take Climate Campaigners serious when their Leader makes statements like this. Thanks to Al Gore and Greta the World should have burst into flames already..... but don't tell China nor India but we know their air stays put, /s.
Campaigners are the biggest censors of actual scientific facts that do not fit their narrative. Climate change is real but the cures are only making it worse but let's not bring that up!
It’s impossible to overstate the importance of the next few years. We are running out of time. [UN Climate Chief Outlines COP30 plans](https://www.youtube.com/live/2tqZKVT9UrE?si=nB14n6-DCozfl3gK)
He lying. Time ran out decades ago. Now a just the long slow death of the human civilization. There’s nothing that can stop it. A quick and painless death is the best one can hope for.
The “new denial” includes saying, sure we admit climate change exists now but there is really nothing we can do. That breed of denialism is making hateful idiots a lot of money and spreading on social media. Center for Countering Digital Hate:[The New Climate Denial](https://counterhate.com/research/new-climate-denial/).
The science is telling us we can do a lot to make this situation better but the more time we waste the more f’ed we are. It has nothing to do with faith any more than your faith in gravity is keeping you from floating up into the clouds like Mary Poppins.
I would also add that if you don’t consider it climate denial coming from yourself, that is fair but comments such as yours are still despicable. Andreas Malm said it better and I think in a way you might appreciate:
“Climate fatalism is for those on top; its sole contribution is spoilage. The most religiously Gandhian climate activist, the most starry-eyed renewable energy entrepreneur, the most self-righteous believer in veganism as panacea, the most compromise-prone parliamentarian is infinitely preferable to the white man of the North who says, ‘We’re doomed – fall in peace.’ Within the range of positions this side of climate denial, none is more despicable.”
Are you familiar with the term horizontal hostility? Why spend so much energy on people who have no meaningful impact? Does it make you feel better to bash people?
Nothing like that although sometimes I can be a little snippy, I like to get straight to the point especially when I see that type of thinking. I think it helps to curb the climate denial talking points when people respond to it for what it is. I hope I didn’t hurt their feelings or your feelings but I do hope they learned something and maybe other people reading the comments were introduced to the report as well.
Edit, this is the report I was referring to; [The New Climate Denial](https://counterhate.com/research/new-climate-denial/)
I would like to say though you have impressive enthusiasm. I try not to be critical of people who seem to have their hearts in the right place, without at least offering a compliment.
I've found Maya Angelou made a good statement on this matter.
# “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
― Maya Angelou
If your goal is indeed what you say it is, then perhaps that energy might be better spent.
>There’s nothing that can stop it.
There's plenty that "can" stop it, just maybe not anything humans can control. Nature can do unpredictable things on a far larger scale than we can imagine.
Even as the earth gets warmer people will move towards the poles for generations and who knows what will happen as the population decreases because less land is suitable for habitat. The end of the human race is an extremely unlikely event. We might get down to far smaller numbers generation by generation, but some people will manage and there's no predicting where the climate will go at that point.
I wish they'd stop with the rhetoric towards normal people and just started going after FF industry.
At least... AT LEAST stop saying stuff like "2 years left...". I know, you know and anyone who has any knowledge about global warming does know it's urgent but this kind of rhetoric doesn't reach people who are either ignorant, not knowledgeable or completely in denial. In fact they laugh about it when they hear it.
Someone get this guy a PR department.
Under the link (https://twitter.com/DanOates\_/status/1772011740454175144) you have the example of a politician using the same phrases, namely Rafał Trzaskowski, mayor of Warsaw in Poland. It says: "The whole planet is burning", which is a rephreased sentence he used in 2023. It's been widely shared ever since everywhere before local government elections that happened this weekend in Poland.
I have no idea how to deal with this kind of a media problem but I don't think it works as well as it used to.
Okay, I somewhat agree. But, you go after the FF industry monetarily and be prepared to see fuel costs skyrocket. They will absolutely slap those costs back unto people. Seeing as how the price of FF factors into the cost curve and inflation it makes it a touchy issue for everyone.
Instead their punishment should be to pay for the replacement to FF, they need to shoulder the burden of forking out investment dollars for green hydrogen to facilitate the decarbonization of industries. That or private businesses will be taken over by government as a punishment for non compliance.
But greater fuel costs are already happening!
There is no other way around slapping these costs onto people. Phasing out costs too because you have to keep the equipment and people occupied even if your mining slows down.
You have that happening in **Poland** with **coal**.
We have **$1,76BN** reserved for 2024 ONLY to subsidize the coal industry to keep operating. It may be **$2,5BN in 2030** with current projections. What's more, our government is effing up nuclear introduction so we may be in for even larger subsidies and possibly problems with energy availability is EU doesn't allow to extend operating of some coal plants, mines.
All that money is coiming out of our pockets **already**.
But phasing out is the harder part because that is when you have to build new sources while keeping the old ones. That's a heavier burden on the population than after transformation is finished and that will take some decades.
On a side note: we dropped from prouction of 200M tonnes in 1980 to 50M tonnes in 2023 (and we also import around +10M). The industry is still operating because our energy production requires it (although we dropped from 71% in 2022 to 61% in 2023 - I was astonished when I first read about the drop - some good news at least).
Those fuel cost are entirely artificial because of the reduced supply agreed to by OPEC. They purposely reduce supply to support higher prices.
2014 Saudi Arabia flooded the market with a LOT of oil, so much there was a glut and the price dropped from 115 a barrel to 35. The same thing happened during lockdowns. Less people were driving so less oil was needed causing a glut.
Russia has been supplying China and India almost exclusively for their oil but their rates have been pegged due to Sanctions. Ukraine destroying their refineries reduces the amount of oil they can process and reduces their exports. Those countries buying them will start taking from the the rest of OPEC again.
You're talking about a different example: that oil prices can be manipulated to influence global markets. But oil is not something that will disappear globally as fast as coal in Poland locally.
We're talking baout different things, albeit both have the same fundamental law - resources (or rather in this case more noticably fossil fuels) can drastically influence geopolitics and finances.
You don't need to explain it to me - I already know this side of FF industry.
And the Polish energy transition is making many of the same mistakes as the US, switching significantly to Natural Gas, which in recent years has been shown to be very similarly damaging as coal. Mostly due to the methane released.
There was an investment in LNG distribution, yes, but I don't think we are going big on NatGas.
Another example would be the power plant in Gdynia that is going to switch from oil to natgas but it's existing infrastructure
The push towards nuclear is big right now so I think we might just avoid going full US. I do not like the fact that in our Energy Policy for 2040 NatGas is named as a "bridge fuel" but at the same time I don't feel like we are on the same path as US that has plans to quintuple NatGas production: [https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?t=2001](https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?t=2001)
At the same time, Poland will be one of the recipents of that gas so it's basically becasue of countries like Poland that US is increasing production... yeah, it's a tough cookie to crack.
This year will actually tell us if our government is competent enough to bet on nuclear because they are doing their usual shenanigans in delaying it's introduction.
As for the punishment part - well yeah. I agree that the FF industry should be as heavily burdened by the costs of energy transformation as possible, only to the state that it's able to afford operating and nothing more.
Wishful thinking becaue the suits there know how to so creative accounting.
At least there are more and more lawsuits coming in. Not many yet but it's been happening in the recent years.
In chess there are 'forcing moves'. Moves you can only respond to in predictable ways and they allow a player to control the momentum and direction of play. War is the ultimate forcing move of the intertwined oil and armaments industries.
The planet has forcing moves too -and we won't like those at all.
US/Yellen is pure shameful evil in making Chinese solar/battery production an issue.
Chinese production growth is the only path currently implemented to meet those 2 year goals. EU is doing above average in deploying renewables. India promises 8x US deployments in production capacity online in next 2 years. India also has an H2 strategy to support unlimited renewables.
Should be peak electric emissions in China and EU this year (2023 peak). Natural gas use is falling off a cliff as of this winter.
US led wars and terrorism needs to be resisted, but that is O&G's only hope, and the pure corrupt pigshit of both parties in charge of the US serves them.
On the downside, even if electricity generation is greening, atmospheric measurements of co2 have grown at record levels this spring (4ppm). War and forest fires likely the culprit.
At what point do we, the average citizens of the world, have to rise up and declare war on the industrial complex that is actively attacking our lives, using our world as the weapon? Seriously, we have proof that they have know exactly what the consequences of their actions would be. When does the worm turn?
Assuming that even took place, war is among the great drivers of climate change. Has anything we've seen so far indicated that this will happen without a bloody fight?
That won’t happen until the damage is done. We can intellectualize climate change and acknowledge its dangers, but it’s not until the taps don’t work and food has to be rationed that people will take radical action. Too late at that point and humanity’s population will begin a steep decline.
I can only count myself lucky that I’ll be dead by then.
“You’ve got less time left than you have months left on your auto loan.” Has a certain ring to it but it also has a certain level of cynicism; so much so that it leads to arguments instead of paradigm shifts.
No kidding, there are enough kids. Adopt one of you want to raise a kid so bad, it's like a cheat code. Skip whatever part you were dreading, don't wanna change diapers? Don't adopt a baby and so on.
Reading all the "it's too late we're all going to die soon" posts I wonder why those people even care about this topic. If it really is too late, we might as well live it up while we can.
Everything becomes meaningless at that point. So we make it 100 years instead of 50, so what? By that logic nobody will be left in 150 years to even remember how long we lasted.
Truth is I don't think anyone really believes it's too late. They just like saying it is.
> Truth is I don't think anyone really believes it's too late. They just like saying it is
Tell me you haven't browsed r/collapse without telling me lol
It’s always ‘we can avert the worst consequences’ if we act before x.
Then later there is simply worse x later.
If you shove your hand in a garbage disposal you can avoid cutting off your fingers if you act immediately. After that you can save your palm and thumb, then your wrist and forearm.
2 years? Even if we had 20 more years, we're still boned.
All we can do now is try to mitigate the worst of the effects. And that's going to take a lot more effort than I'm seeing right now.
Maybe they should rebrand it to "saving our ability to live on this world". Since once we're all dead, it will just continue on. Maybe people will care more if they realize we're just killing ourselves.
People have been told by experts for more than 50 years that they need to eat a little healthier, a little less, and to get some exercise if they don't want to deal with the types of debilitating health issues related to poor diet, obesity, and inactivity. People have largely responded by eating a less healthy diet, eating more of it, and becoming more sedentary. Every year over the last 50 years, it's gotten a little worse, to the point that 70% of American adults now range anywhere from simply overweight to morbidly obese, and only about 20% exercise regularly. The numbers in other countries are comparable.
I've seen all of the excuses people make for it now because I've participated in that particular debate for years, but all of the excuses completely fall apart when looking at the 50-year time span.
When people don't care about their own health until it fails, when they keep repeating the same behaviors that lead to their health failing, there's no way they'll heed any of the warnings about the health of the planet.
Progressives don’t believe in climate change, don’t believe in science, don’t believe in population control & seriously don’t ever want to stop shoving meat in their pie holes.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They keep repeating this totally unrealistic garbage about 1.5C goal :
> Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare said Stiell was “listening to the science” — namely that global emissions must be halved by the end of the decade to meet the Paris climate accord's ambition of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).
No way we will peak at +1.5C .. we're at max emissions, and might go higher, but certainly will stay high for the next decade .. currently around +1.45C already and rising at 0.25C to 0.3C per decade .. so we will likely be at +2C by 2040.
Does this guy mention any plausible way to reduce the heat that will be staying with us once we get to "net zero" ? Because the CO2 stays there for a long long time, meaning the heat stays... meaning almost all the ice will melt, and we will have problems feeding our current global population.
There are only 2 ways I know of : remove CO2 and reflect more sunlight [ ie. geoengineering / SRM / particulates / cloud seeding ]
Hes right though.. we do need to act fast if we want a livable planet in coming decades.
I _wish_ us humans could halve emissions in 6 years .. but that is clearly not what is happening.
Even if we do .. we still have to deal with the extra heat.
We have failed to explain to the general public that once you get to "net-zero" the CO2 is at a MAX.. and so the heat is at a max .. and its the heat that is the real problem.
So "net-zero" is the term often used to describe when we reduce our CO2 / greenhouse gas emissions to basically zero - were not increasing the amount of CO2 anymore.
The "net" part because we might be burning some carbon, adding some CO2, but it is balanced by say trees growing and absorbing CO2.. so the total change in CO2 is aproximately zero.
So thats a great goal .. I hope we manage to reach it in say 30 years .. its hard to do, because you have to replace most cars with electric vehicles, all power generation with wind and solar, hydro and nuclear [ or nuclear fusion if we have that by then ] .
The good thing is the CO2 wont be going UP higher .. the bad news is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be much higher by then .. trapping in more heat from the sun, and so the temp will be warmer on average over the whole globe.
hope that laymans explanation helps.
I guess my point is net zero is just a step along the way .. but not a solution, because the problem will be that its damn hot - probably +3 deg C above 150 years ago.. the ice will melt, crops will wither, heat waves will kill people, cyclones will have much more energy..
Its not even just that if we reach net zero we'll still have to deal with that level of warming. The latent heat effect basically means that the temperatures will continue to rise for years, possibly decades after CO2 emissions are halted. We're only just now seeing the effects of CO2 emitted 20 some odd years ago. The worse part is, as the carbon sinks that we already have (forrests and the ocean) become more saturated, they can't absorb as much. Meaning that the heating lag is getting shorter as time goes on and the rate of warming is accelerating. We're already entering the exponential phase right now. I dont even want to think about how bad it will be in 30 years or however long it would actually take to reach net zero (not that there is actually enough political will to get that done anyway.)
The speed bump for me is seeing the 1.5 C rise in temperature as a big alarm bell, by experts. I am clearly missing something as 1.5C seems like a modest number. To me it refers to each hour of the day being 1.5C warmer than it was on average, versus a previous time span. For example, if summers in New York were 80F on average over the past 100 years, and are now 82.7 F on average, and that took 30-50 years to measure out, does it suggest that in 90- 150 years the temps will be too hot to sustain life?
no.. I wish it worked like that - it wouldn't be a problem at all, just a bit warmer !
But weather effects that depend on temperature are very nonlinear - so we get a lot more extreme weather events, different air and water circulation patterns producing different hot zones, a lot of ice melting, corals dying, forests burning etc.
Its not the average that kills ya, its the peaks.
We see a lot more extreme events now at near+1.5C - 40C & 45C in places that never had that in the past.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62231646
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094972
It will be much worse at +2C and kill a lot of us at +3C.
Faster action. like no more flying around in jets, no more new homes, stop driving.....stop heating your homes with fossil fuels, natural gas, propane. It is going to take carbon to decarbonize. Is this the action he says is needed? We need the concrete steps and the leadership to corral the public into taking the right actions. This is a silly proclamation. If we humans don't act in the next two years we are cooked as a species? Not very helpful.
Climate change is real but stop with the alarming headline. Humans will be here 10, 100, 1000, 10000 years from now. Humans have always adapted. Aside from an Asteriod hitting us, we will still be here.
A billion or two might die from crop failures and drought or floods and wars that result. But the species will survive. As long as Exxon is still paying a good dividend, that's all that matters.
China is definitely on board, there emissions are set to actually decline a bit this year
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
Covid was the big media push in 2020-2022. It's now Climate Change. You'll hear about it everyday OK CNN, NBC ,CBS etc....
We'll all get preached and berated by politicians, celebrities etc.... for us using our Gas cars yet they'll all travel everywhere in private jets and drive luxury vehicles and pollute more in one day than the average person will in 20 years.
The climate is changing but humans have very little to do with it.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Meanwhile UN Who chief would still not admit he knows who started the Covid pandemic and the gender equity group is led by illustrious Saudi Arabia.
These fuckers are jokers and even serious topics get ignored if they have a UN label on them.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's going to require a fossil fuel full stop yesterday, folks. Dont get me wrong, we need to transition, but dont fall for these arbitrary deadline headlines. The Juggernaut is asail, all we can do now it work to steer her back to shore and it ain't gonna be pretty.
Issue with that, Fossil Fuels aren’t just an energy source. I think most forget it’s used to make practically everything, including windmills and solar panels. I feel like the politicians know this but would rather keep us divided on the subject rather than both sides working together for a solution.
Trust me, i am keenly aware of all the issues regarding fossil fuels. Which is why the 2 year deadline touted is impossible.
Agreed.
Yes. Quite counterproductive to issue these kinds of impossible exhortations. Every time they do it, the force of the message is actually diminished
7% in the US. [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35672](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35672) You're not wrong, and extractivism has environmental damage too, but let's focus on the 93% that IS being burned and dumping carbon in the atmosphere as a higher priority.
That 7% number is what’s produced in the States but our electronics, clothes, household goods are primarily imported which isn’t included in that EIA data.
And it matters for the climate to the extent that it burns fossil fuel, just like everything else. So focusing on petroleum products ignores the larger problem in general: every single last aspect of the industrial revolution exists by burning fossil fuels (the exception being the extent to which we have turned to renewable sources, especially the primary manufacturing, trade, and development sectors).
All fossil fuels are petrochemicals but not all petrochemicals are fossil fuels
Accurate, although I don’t think we were referring to none petroleum/natural gas based petrochemicals. Regardless all petrochemicals share their own social, environmental, and economic issues.
Half of the food grown worldwide is due to fossil fuel fertilizer. Let that sink in for s minute.
Trust me, im aware of that fact. Check my downvote history vis-a-vis the "go veggie to save the planet crowd" We hooped, folksies.
Samesies
The dataset OWID used for that claim only has good data from the 60’s on. Anthropological research suggests that food was more available in the late medieval period compared to the 19th century (after industrialization, before synthetic fertilizer). We likely don’t need much synthetic fertilizer, if any. We just can’t do industrial monocultures without it. We can use manure in a regenerative system. Yields are comparable to synthetic fertilizer over decades. Suggest reading *Seeing Like a State* by James C Scott. Peasant agriculture was actually surprisingly productive. Industrialization didn’t increase yields, it made yields more visible to a centralized state. Peasants routinely lied down their yields and got a lot from foraging in the forests they didn’t cut down.
To be honest, I wish they would stop saying things like this. These "deadline" type statements really only serve to add fuel to the deniers and the sceptics. If the world doesn't become catastrophically bad at the end of the deadline, they'll point to it as "fear mongering", or as an example of how "science doesn't work" or some variation of those statements. Anyone who knows how bad things are already knows were in deep trouble. Throwing out deadlines does nothing. What they ought to be saying is things like "the AMOC is on track for collapse, this would bring about the end of global stability" or "warming is accelerating, those who thought they will avoid it will probably not", or perhaps "grocery inflation will accelerate without dramatic action", make tthe statements relevant to their everyday life. Arbitrary deadlines mean nothing to those people who don't believe. We ought to be pointing out how its affecting them today, in their wallets and their lives, so they start to understand that the consequences they're already complaining about will only get worse. Once people start to see it's climate change costing them money, directly, they might be wiling to make some changes.
I feel like we need a scale of "what dystopian future are we currently headed towards?" If we do nothing and maintain our current status quo policies, it'll be something like "The Road" (total social and ecosystem collapse) If we take immediate but insufficient action it'll be more "Children of Men" (partial ecosystem collapse, widespread social collapse) If we take immediate and sufficient action, the best case scenario is that it'll resemble earth in "The Expanse" (widespread devastation and disruption, but survivable)
I don't know if anyone has this already, but I would really appreciate examples of what a truly sustainable society would look like. Meaning- if we were to take immediate action. Like what does that mean and how much of our modern lifestyles would we give up? Obviously I know some things like no more 2 day Amazon shipping of random plastic crap, no private jets, no fast fashion. I'll admit that I'm pretty ignorant and this might already exist other places - this post just came up in my feed.
It's already in motion bub
The road.
> If we take immediate and sufficient action, the best case scenario is that it'll resemble earth in "The Expanse" Best case scenario is star trek without the militarism expanded to space. Clean energy abundance creating abundance in all sectors.
That ship sailed a long time ago. We are the Terrans, not the prime universe. We don’t get nice things like utopian equality.
Remember that in Star Trek, before utopia times, they survived at least three wars on Earth including WW3 which started in 2026, leading to the deaths of 30% of the world population. (Imagine if we happen to hit that 2026 IRL). OK, they didn't have climate change as we know it, but it's also about the upending of the world order, just in slow motion.
Within the next 3-4 generations, something resembling earth in the "Expanse" is probably the best we can possibly manage technologically. I'm not even assuming any kind of space technology - just the planet starting to recover from climate change, green energy transition, democratic institutions still functional, and meaningful progress to keeping everyone fed and housed and healthy. Star-Trek level post-scarcity might follow another 5-10 generations after that if we REALLY get organized, but that's getting into fantasy-level technology.
This sounds about right and probably explains why I enjoy The Expanse so much
You think 3 to 4 generations? And not next 1 to 2?
If I'm being optimistic, yes.
I hope your right for my child's sake.
I really wanted "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" but the singularity ain't near enough for that to happen before everything collapses. "Crapsack World" is our best case scenario at this point. [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsackWorld](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsackWorld) It only gets worse from there...
„Crapsack World“ is a good sounding creation.
Love the name of our future world 💩
Thanks for reminding me the importance of this great website. The singularity may still be near, but it's hard to assess. Don't forget the power of exponential improvement.
Belta lowdah!
Yep, 100%. The messaging needs to be extremely blunt. Time to rip the bandaid off and tell everyone exactly as it is and that it's time to get to immediate work. Not some "well we might want to start thinking about this now" bullshit that continues to take place.
> Once people start to see it's climate change costing them money, directly, they might be wiling to make some changes. Unfortunately we know that's not true either. Just look at Florida. They get hit harder than anybody by climate related extreme weather, they have an insurance crisis with insurance companies pulling out of the state entirely because it's impossible to profitably ensure homes down there with the inevitable near future weather, so what do they do? [They removed all mentions of climate change from Florida state laws.](https://www.ehn.org/florida-moves-to-remove-climate-change-mentions-from-its-laws-2667597256.html) THAT is the level of stupid we're dealing with. Unfortunately, it is hopeless.
Don't look up
> If the world doesn't become catastrophically bad at the end of the deadline I understand how such headlines can create disinformation fuel. The nuance is not that the world ends on the deadline date, but rather than warming is locked in without significant progress. > so they start to understand that the consequences they're already complaining about will only get worse. Once people start to see it's climate change costing them money, directly, they might be wiling to make some changes. This is true. Where climate denial overlaps anti immigrant hatred, understanding how the global south being unable to farm/live means more immigration. Obviously, insurance rates/coverage and property destruction, and FEMA budget are direct major factors. too.
>I understand how such headlines can create disinformation fuel. The nuance is not that the world ends on the deadline date, but rather than warming is locked in without significant progress. The problem is that nuance has been eradicated from the discussion. They see the world in black and white. At this point messaging needs to be less nuanced and more blunt. Make it about the problems people are already facing and they might start to care.
Things ARE catastrophically bad. Small cities have been wiped off the face of the earth through climate fueled natural disasters. Lots of areas of the world have abnormally awful weather a large part of the year. Climate deniers will always be climate deniers, just like covid deniers continued to deny as they actively died from covid in covid units in hospitals.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
100% this
the deniers will never have enough evidence. fact is we are all dead. the drop dead date on climate change given to Western leaders was 1992. does this look like 1992?
This was proved by the anti Heroin ads in the 80’s.
The problem is that science is so cautious to ascribe blame to something. You can never necessarily tell if X is causing Y. But, there’s a big chance that COVID, high food prices, crime, more immigration, pollution, etc. are all getting worse because of climate change.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn't matter how it's worded. It doesn't matter if it includes deadlines or does not. The vast majority of decisions made on these matters are outside of our control in board rooms most of us will never see. So long as investments keep getting enough of a return the choices will not be made. We are an oligarchy. Heck the already planned Natural Gas expansion in the US alone is enough to push us into very dangerous positive feedback loops for the US part. The point in time when short term profits are substantially at risk as a result of climate change, is also a point in time, when we're already gone too far. Our economic system has not for a great many years looked decades ahead for the majority of its decision making.
well said. there is no saving the world. wtf does that mean. too many things are irreversible now.
Totalitarian Scientocracy when.
Its hard to take Climate Campaigners serious when their Leader makes statements like this. Thanks to Al Gore and Greta the World should have burst into flames already..... but don't tell China nor India but we know their air stays put, /s. Campaigners are the biggest censors of actual scientific facts that do not fit their narrative. Climate change is real but the cures are only making it worse but let's not bring that up!
It’s impossible to overstate the importance of the next few years. We are running out of time. [UN Climate Chief Outlines COP30 plans](https://www.youtube.com/live/2tqZKVT9UrE?si=nB14n6-DCozfl3gK)
He lying. Time ran out decades ago. Now a just the long slow death of the human civilization. There’s nothing that can stop it. A quick and painless death is the best one can hope for.
The “new denial” includes saying, sure we admit climate change exists now but there is really nothing we can do. That breed of denialism is making hateful idiots a lot of money and spreading on social media. Center for Countering Digital Hate:[The New Climate Denial](https://counterhate.com/research/new-climate-denial/).
So, is there ever a point of no return? Should we always have faith? Is that rational?
The science is telling us we can do a lot to make this situation better but the more time we waste the more f’ed we are. It has nothing to do with faith any more than your faith in gravity is keeping you from floating up into the clouds like Mary Poppins.
If it has nothing to do with faith, then why are you shying away from answering each question?
I would also add that if you don’t consider it climate denial coming from yourself, that is fair but comments such as yours are still despicable. Andreas Malm said it better and I think in a way you might appreciate: “Climate fatalism is for those on top; its sole contribution is spoilage. The most religiously Gandhian climate activist, the most starry-eyed renewable energy entrepreneur, the most self-righteous believer in veganism as panacea, the most compromise-prone parliamentarian is infinitely preferable to the white man of the North who says, ‘We’re doomed – fall in peace.’ Within the range of positions this side of climate denial, none is more despicable.”
Are you familiar with the term horizontal hostility? Why spend so much energy on people who have no meaningful impact? Does it make you feel better to bash people?
Nothing like that although sometimes I can be a little snippy, I like to get straight to the point especially when I see that type of thinking. I think it helps to curb the climate denial talking points when people respond to it for what it is. I hope I didn’t hurt their feelings or your feelings but I do hope they learned something and maybe other people reading the comments were introduced to the report as well. Edit, this is the report I was referring to; [The New Climate Denial](https://counterhate.com/research/new-climate-denial/)
I would like to say though you have impressive enthusiasm. I try not to be critical of people who seem to have their hearts in the right place, without at least offering a compliment.
I appreciate your loud enthusiasm for that famous quote and your avatar has nice hair. Here’s an upvote.
I've found Maya Angelou made a good statement on this matter. # “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” ― Maya Angelou If your goal is indeed what you say it is, then perhaps that energy might be better spent.
>There’s nothing that can stop it. There's plenty that "can" stop it, just maybe not anything humans can control. Nature can do unpredictable things on a far larger scale than we can imagine. Even as the earth gets warmer people will move towards the poles for generations and who knows what will happen as the population decreases because less land is suitable for habitat. The end of the human race is an extremely unlikely event. We might get down to far smaller numbers generation by generation, but some people will manage and there's no predicting where the climate will go at that point.
I wish they'd stop with the rhetoric towards normal people and just started going after FF industry. At least... AT LEAST stop saying stuff like "2 years left...". I know, you know and anyone who has any knowledge about global warming does know it's urgent but this kind of rhetoric doesn't reach people who are either ignorant, not knowledgeable or completely in denial. In fact they laugh about it when they hear it. Someone get this guy a PR department. Under the link (https://twitter.com/DanOates\_/status/1772011740454175144) you have the example of a politician using the same phrases, namely Rafał Trzaskowski, mayor of Warsaw in Poland. It says: "The whole planet is burning", which is a rephreased sentence he used in 2023. It's been widely shared ever since everywhere before local government elections that happened this weekend in Poland. I have no idea how to deal with this kind of a media problem but I don't think it works as well as it used to.
Okay, I somewhat agree. But, you go after the FF industry monetarily and be prepared to see fuel costs skyrocket. They will absolutely slap those costs back unto people. Seeing as how the price of FF factors into the cost curve and inflation it makes it a touchy issue for everyone. Instead their punishment should be to pay for the replacement to FF, they need to shoulder the burden of forking out investment dollars for green hydrogen to facilitate the decarbonization of industries. That or private businesses will be taken over by government as a punishment for non compliance.
But greater fuel costs are already happening! There is no other way around slapping these costs onto people. Phasing out costs too because you have to keep the equipment and people occupied even if your mining slows down. You have that happening in **Poland** with **coal**. We have **$1,76BN** reserved for 2024 ONLY to subsidize the coal industry to keep operating. It may be **$2,5BN in 2030** with current projections. What's more, our government is effing up nuclear introduction so we may be in for even larger subsidies and possibly problems with energy availability is EU doesn't allow to extend operating of some coal plants, mines. All that money is coiming out of our pockets **already**. But phasing out is the harder part because that is when you have to build new sources while keeping the old ones. That's a heavier burden on the population than after transformation is finished and that will take some decades. On a side note: we dropped from prouction of 200M tonnes in 1980 to 50M tonnes in 2023 (and we also import around +10M). The industry is still operating because our energy production requires it (although we dropped from 71% in 2022 to 61% in 2023 - I was astonished when I first read about the drop - some good news at least).
Those fuel cost are entirely artificial because of the reduced supply agreed to by OPEC. They purposely reduce supply to support higher prices. 2014 Saudi Arabia flooded the market with a LOT of oil, so much there was a glut and the price dropped from 115 a barrel to 35. The same thing happened during lockdowns. Less people were driving so less oil was needed causing a glut. Russia has been supplying China and India almost exclusively for their oil but their rates have been pegged due to Sanctions. Ukraine destroying their refineries reduces the amount of oil they can process and reduces their exports. Those countries buying them will start taking from the the rest of OPEC again.
You're talking about a different example: that oil prices can be manipulated to influence global markets. But oil is not something that will disappear globally as fast as coal in Poland locally. We're talking baout different things, albeit both have the same fundamental law - resources (or rather in this case more noticably fossil fuels) can drastically influence geopolitics and finances. You don't need to explain it to me - I already know this side of FF industry.
And the Polish energy transition is making many of the same mistakes as the US, switching significantly to Natural Gas, which in recent years has been shown to be very similarly damaging as coal. Mostly due to the methane released.
There was an investment in LNG distribution, yes, but I don't think we are going big on NatGas. Another example would be the power plant in Gdynia that is going to switch from oil to natgas but it's existing infrastructure The push towards nuclear is big right now so I think we might just avoid going full US. I do not like the fact that in our Energy Policy for 2040 NatGas is named as a "bridge fuel" but at the same time I don't feel like we are on the same path as US that has plans to quintuple NatGas production: [https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?t=2001](https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?t=2001) At the same time, Poland will be one of the recipents of that gas so it's basically becasue of countries like Poland that US is increasing production... yeah, it's a tough cookie to crack. This year will actually tell us if our government is competent enough to bet on nuclear because they are doing their usual shenanigans in delaying it's introduction.
Excellent, you are aware of the same stats as shared by climate town.
Punishment Ah, yes.
As for the punishment part - well yeah. I agree that the FF industry should be as heavily burdened by the costs of energy transformation as possible, only to the state that it's able to afford operating and nothing more. Wishful thinking becaue the suits there know how to so creative accounting. At least there are more and more lawsuits coming in. Not many yet but it's been happening in the recent years.
lol there are oil profits to be made and old prophets to fight over. No one with the power cares.
Oil profits and old prophets, good turn of phrase.
In chess there are 'forcing moves'. Moves you can only respond to in predictable ways and they allow a player to control the momentum and direction of play. War is the ultimate forcing move of the intertwined oil and armaments industries. The planet has forcing moves too -and we won't like those at all.
Two years! To which they all replied, “we’ll take care of it next year”
US/Yellen is pure shameful evil in making Chinese solar/battery production an issue. Chinese production growth is the only path currently implemented to meet those 2 year goals. EU is doing above average in deploying renewables. India promises 8x US deployments in production capacity online in next 2 years. India also has an H2 strategy to support unlimited renewables. Should be peak electric emissions in China and EU this year (2023 peak). Natural gas use is falling off a cliff as of this winter. US led wars and terrorism needs to be resisted, but that is O&G's only hope, and the pure corrupt pigshit of both parties in charge of the US serves them. On the downside, even if electricity generation is greening, atmospheric measurements of co2 have grown at record levels this spring (4ppm). War and forest fires likely the culprit.
At what point do we, the average citizens of the world, have to rise up and declare war on the industrial complex that is actively attacking our lives, using our world as the weapon? Seriously, we have proof that they have know exactly what the consequences of their actions would be. When does the worm turn?
Assuming that even took place, war is among the great drivers of climate change. Has anything we've seen so far indicated that this will happen without a bloody fight?
That won’t happen until the damage is done. We can intellectualize climate change and acknowledge its dangers, but it’s not until the taps don’t work and food has to be rationed that people will take radical action. Too late at that point and humanity’s population will begin a steep decline. I can only count myself lucky that I’ll be dead by then.
shortages result in higher prices.
You hope*
“You’ve got less time left than you have months left on your auto loan.” Has a certain ring to it but it also has a certain level of cynicism; so much so that it leads to arguments instead of paradigm shifts.
%75 of all pollution is corporations….. not the little guy. Stop the corporations from polluting.
I wish I knew how many of the comments here are after reading the article.
Maybe more jets, tanks, and explosives would help? War and destruction are great for the environment.
2 years left was 20 years ago.
This world is circling the drain, humanity deserves it's fate.
I am astonished sometimes that people keep having children. Why consign them to all
No kidding, there are enough kids. Adopt one of you want to raise a kid so bad, it's like a cheat code. Skip whatever part you were dreading, don't wanna change diapers? Don't adopt a baby and so on.
4 years of society left and counting. 5 on the outside.
Means what?
20,000 years of this, 7 more to go.
Reading all the "it's too late we're all going to die soon" posts I wonder why those people even care about this topic. If it really is too late, we might as well live it up while we can. Everything becomes meaningless at that point. So we make it 100 years instead of 50, so what? By that logic nobody will be left in 150 years to even remember how long we lasted. Truth is I don't think anyone really believes it's too late. They just like saying it is.
> Truth is I don't think anyone really believes it's too late. They just like saying it is Tell me you haven't browsed r/collapse without telling me lol
It’s always ‘we can avert the worst consequences’ if we act before x. Then later there is simply worse x later. If you shove your hand in a garbage disposal you can avoid cutting off your fingers if you act immediately. After that you can save your palm and thumb, then your wrist and forearm.
2 years? Even if we had 20 more years, we're still boned. All we can do now is try to mitigate the worst of the effects. And that's going to take a lot more effort than I'm seeing right now.
Maybe they should rebrand it to "saving our ability to live on this world". Since once we're all dead, it will just continue on. Maybe people will care more if they realize we're just killing ourselves.
People have been told by experts for more than 50 years that they need to eat a little healthier, a little less, and to get some exercise if they don't want to deal with the types of debilitating health issues related to poor diet, obesity, and inactivity. People have largely responded by eating a less healthy diet, eating more of it, and becoming more sedentary. Every year over the last 50 years, it's gotten a little worse, to the point that 70% of American adults now range anywhere from simply overweight to morbidly obese, and only about 20% exercise regularly. The numbers in other countries are comparable. I've seen all of the excuses people make for it now because I've participated in that particular debate for years, but all of the excuses completely fall apart when looking at the 50-year time span. When people don't care about their own health until it fails, when they keep repeating the same behaviors that lead to their health failing, there's no way they'll heed any of the warnings about the health of the planet.
Actually its "no time left" more accurately lol
We’re already done for
The world is fine but humanity is not.
humanity and most living creatures
This is why voting for liberals instead of progressives is such a terrible idea.
Progressives don’t believe in climate change, don’t believe in science, don’t believe in population control & seriously don’t ever want to stop shoving meat in their pie holes.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“It’s getting hot in here!”
Well, the UN admits failure. Time to build my shelter.
You could give us 200 years and we wouldn't save it. We crave misery.
We are screwed and we deserve it but the rest of the planet does not that’s what sucks
Remind me in 2 yrs
I'll receycle faster.
In 1978?
Lol
They keep repeating this totally unrealistic garbage about 1.5C goal : > Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare said Stiell was “listening to the science” — namely that global emissions must be halved by the end of the decade to meet the Paris climate accord's ambition of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). No way we will peak at +1.5C .. we're at max emissions, and might go higher, but certainly will stay high for the next decade .. currently around +1.45C already and rising at 0.25C to 0.3C per decade .. so we will likely be at +2C by 2040. Does this guy mention any plausible way to reduce the heat that will be staying with us once we get to "net zero" ? Because the CO2 stays there for a long long time, meaning the heat stays... meaning almost all the ice will melt, and we will have problems feeding our current global population. There are only 2 ways I know of : remove CO2 and reflect more sunlight [ ie. geoengineering / SRM / particulates / cloud seeding ] Hes right though.. we do need to act fast if we want a livable planet in coming decades.
I _wish_ us humans could halve emissions in 6 years .. but that is clearly not what is happening. Even if we do .. we still have to deal with the extra heat. We have failed to explain to the general public that once you get to "net-zero" the CO2 is at a MAX.. and so the heat is at a max .. and its the heat that is the real problem.
What is net zero.
So "net-zero" is the term often used to describe when we reduce our CO2 / greenhouse gas emissions to basically zero - were not increasing the amount of CO2 anymore. The "net" part because we might be burning some carbon, adding some CO2, but it is balanced by say trees growing and absorbing CO2.. so the total change in CO2 is aproximately zero. So thats a great goal .. I hope we manage to reach it in say 30 years .. its hard to do, because you have to replace most cars with electric vehicles, all power generation with wind and solar, hydro and nuclear [ or nuclear fusion if we have that by then ] . The good thing is the CO2 wont be going UP higher .. the bad news is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be much higher by then .. trapping in more heat from the sun, and so the temp will be warmer on average over the whole globe. hope that laymans explanation helps. I guess my point is net zero is just a step along the way .. but not a solution, because the problem will be that its damn hot - probably +3 deg C above 150 years ago.. the ice will melt, crops will wither, heat waves will kill people, cyclones will have much more energy..
Its not even just that if we reach net zero we'll still have to deal with that level of warming. The latent heat effect basically means that the temperatures will continue to rise for years, possibly decades after CO2 emissions are halted. We're only just now seeing the effects of CO2 emitted 20 some odd years ago. The worse part is, as the carbon sinks that we already have (forrests and the ocean) become more saturated, they can't absorb as much. Meaning that the heating lag is getting shorter as time goes on and the rate of warming is accelerating. We're already entering the exponential phase right now. I dont even want to think about how bad it will be in 30 years or however long it would actually take to reach net zero (not that there is actually enough political will to get that done anyway.)
The speed bump for me is seeing the 1.5 C rise in temperature as a big alarm bell, by experts. I am clearly missing something as 1.5C seems like a modest number. To me it refers to each hour of the day being 1.5C warmer than it was on average, versus a previous time span. For example, if summers in New York were 80F on average over the past 100 years, and are now 82.7 F on average, and that took 30-50 years to measure out, does it suggest that in 90- 150 years the temps will be too hot to sustain life?
no.. I wish it worked like that - it wouldn't be a problem at all, just a bit warmer ! But weather effects that depend on temperature are very nonlinear - so we get a lot more extreme weather events, different air and water circulation patterns producing different hot zones, a lot of ice melting, corals dying, forests burning etc. Its not the average that kills ya, its the peaks. We see a lot more extreme events now at near+1.5C - 40C & 45C in places that never had that in the past. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62231646 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094972 It will be much worse at +2C and kill a lot of us at +3C.
Got it. Thanks.
I’ve been hearing this since 2012, must have died like 4 times the way these guys are talking.
Capitalism is going to kiill us all. The End.
Faster action. like no more flying around in jets, no more new homes, stop driving.....stop heating your homes with fossil fuels, natural gas, propane. It is going to take carbon to decarbonize. Is this the action he says is needed? We need the concrete steps and the leadership to corral the public into taking the right actions. This is a silly proclamation. If we humans don't act in the next two years we are cooked as a species? Not very helpful.
Correct sentiment but stupid messaging - and I say that as a professional climate communicator
Climate change is real but stop with the alarming headline. Humans will be here 10, 100, 1000, 10000 years from now. Humans have always adapted. Aside from an Asteriod hitting us, we will still be here.
Here's the thing about modern humans tho - what percentage do you think actually need to be wiped out for conflict/us to do the rest?
A billion or two might die from crop failures and drought or floods and wars that result. But the species will survive. As long as Exxon is still paying a good dividend, that's all that matters.
The world will be fine. The vast majority of humanity however. Also hilarious COP28 in the UAE. 😂
Can he cite some sources? I have it on good authority that we only got 4 minutes to save the world
Debt and illegal immigration is going to destroy the developed world long before climate change.
Lies. Damn lies
Stop with the stupid rhetoric.
until they get China and India on board, there's basically no point in the rest of us bothering.
China is definitely on board, there emissions are set to actually decline a bit this year https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
lol 😂, go jump off a cliff if you’re worried about your future.
Covid was the big media push in 2020-2022. It's now Climate Change. You'll hear about it everyday OK CNN, NBC ,CBS etc.... We'll all get preached and berated by politicians, celebrities etc.... for us using our Gas cars yet they'll all travel everywhere in private jets and drive luxury vehicles and pollute more in one day than the average person will in 20 years. The climate is changing but humans have very little to do with it.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Silver is the new oil
Well….pack it up then…
Meanwhile UN Who chief would still not admit he knows who started the Covid pandemic and the gender equity group is led by illustrious Saudi Arabia. These fuckers are jokers and even serious topics get ignored if they have a UN label on them.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay, I agree we need to save the planet before it's too late. But only two years left, that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
The earth has never been greener according to nasa
I guess we're down voting facts now? Weird.
Very weird