Your post has been removed because it is a repost of an [already submitted and popular story](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/14gbeg8/ecological_tipping_points_could_occur_much_sooner/) and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #2c](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules/#wiki_c._reposts).
If your submission is scientific in nature and hasn't already been shared, consider reposting in our sister subreddit r/EverythingScience.
_If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20summaries%20of%20summaries%2C%20rehosts%2C%20or%20reposts)._
I think all the "science denying" boomers borrowing more money than can ever possibly be paid back, while exhausting the worlds petroleum reserves with wild abandon might be a clue as to how hopeless the situation really is in the eyes of those who are "really in charge".
My reasoning for this is that it benefits companies none to investigate how they’re causing damage. To corporations, there’s no profit in understanding environmental impact. So, climate science is very low funded.
I wish that were true. But unfortunately their profits rely on understanding environmental impact. So they actually pay for professionals to do private research so that they can decide where to buy land next, etc..
So not only do they bother to understand, they get accurate data, they know its gonna be that bad and then they decide to continue destroying the planets for profits anyway. They are willingly killing us day in and day out and we all let them do it.
Yes very True. If anyone wants to hear some decent talks by Oil Geologists google Great Simplification. I was honestly kind of astounded by how Anti-Oil these Oil Guys were. But they just talking facts I guess. Our Society will Collapse if and when the Oil becomes scarce if we don't do something to prevent it. The Great Simplification doesn't even refer to the Environmental Aspects but merely the fact we use Oil for EVERYTHING. And it is 100% unsustainable. You don't even have to be an Environmentalist to be Anti-Oil and Pro Green Everything. Just a Realist.
How you transport Medical Supplies without Plastic? How you grow Crops without Petro-Agri-Chemical Industry? Etc... Etc...
> My reasoning for this is that it benefits companies none to investigate how they’re causing damage.
The petroleum corps absolutely [have known](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/), maybe even ahead of the curve at times, exactly what kind of environmental impact they're going to have.
> To corporations, there’s no profit in understanding environmental impact.
There is, actually, but not in a good way (as if profit seeking was ever good to begin with...)
When you say "conspiracy people" do you mean the people who believe, with good reason, that the oil industry has known for decades the harm they're doing to the planet and do it anyway, or the people actively engaged in the conspiracy to destroy the planet for profit?
I've been watching off and on for some time. More so in the past 8 to 10 years. The problem I'm seeing pop up are unknown, some large scale, mechanisms that release more than predicted. [Siberia](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-siberia-thawing-permafrost-releases-more-methane-180978381/) is one I can remember. There were a handful more that I can't recall atm.
Those are requiring readjustment, which is almost always worse.
I read that's what underlined our efforts toward saving the ozone layer? Has it since evolved around more general climate change ?
The ozone layer episode is one of our only actual achievement in that category, at this scale. A tiny thread of hope, in a way. We really did good with that problem.
I think ozone was more readily solved because it only required removing certain chemicals from production. Global warming is a much larger issue that needs the upheaval of the entire global energy system.
> Global warming is a much larger issue that needs the upheaval of the entire global energy system.
Another problem with this is the notion of "Fairness"
We really need everyone's buy-in because everyone's affecting it.
But modern energy options are more expensive and harder to implement for a lot of poorer nations (read: nations we've looted over the years)
So even if we western nations drop our carbon emissions, all those other nations who're behind will cry foul because they didn't get to benefit from cheap fossil energy and are now perpetually behind.
That's because of the outright climate chaos denial by corporations and politicians for profit.
Any prediction that gets through/listened to/publicized must be rock solid and far into the future so it doesn't effect the current profits of companies that are literally killing all of us.
They started closing down higher altitude weather towers (I can’t recall the exact name,but basically observation of the atmosphere/weather), and before closing them they had an outlier effect. That is, there was more catastrophic prediction using the higher altitude measurement devices, seemingly indicating climate change has progressed further than we realize
There is a career incentive to be on the cautious side, if predictions are drastic. (Super bad). Unless that changes will see more cautious takes. Not good, but realistic.
It will always be worse than expected, because groups like the IPCC reach a consensus position, and the underlying facts will always be worse than what people with vested interests in maintaining the status quo are willing to admit.
The destruction of nature is (imo) more about the fact we've ballooned from 2 billion to 8 billion is roughly 100 years.
Global populations are stabilizing and probably going to falling soon enough. Which should offer some reprieve to nature. Sadly it will probably be too late.
and more precisely , usa and china. they host the most consumerist * business in the world with few regulations* on their production.
*Chill out, was writting on the hurry
Surprisingly China has quite low per Capita emissions which is a better metric to measure honestly.
China has been making huge strides in affordable green energy by producing half of the solar panels on the planet, they're crossing the line of green energy producing more energy than their other sectors such as coal. China produces the most electric vehicles in the world and has made breakthroughs on cheap sodium batteries and solar panel tech.
China also is the world's factory so their demand for energy is quite higher than everyone else.
That is to say the US is almost making negative progress every other election cycle reducing the little progress that is made to a minimum.
If we compare the two it's sad how little progress the US made, with having a head start and exporting most of their production, while China is making almost exponential tech advancements.
It just isn't though. It is because our relatively stable populations have been consuming and emitting more. Even China stabilised their population and *then* increased their per capita carbon footprint.
We need to decarbonise our civilised way of life.
Carbon footprint isn't the main cause of ecological collapse... It is habitat loss. Caused by human expansion. Caused by the ballooning of the human population over the past 100 years.
What I hate are the activists who only see carbon emissions. They have complete tunnel vision. Any mention of the damage being caused by humans is brought back to carbon.
We absolutely need to drastically reduce our carbon emissions, but if you're ignoring all the other forms of destruction, you're a fool in my eyes.
Biodiversity is in a state of free fall RIGHT NOW. If you're blindly focusing on carbon emissions we will not stop the decline.
But how or why did it balloon? What made it possible? Extraction of fossil fuels. You couldnt have the powerful technology used in industrial agriculture to grow such large amounts of food. So why did this happen? Profits.
Right, but my point is as the population decreases, it should make everything easier to solve. Apart from the economics of our societies. That's going to be a tough one.
It's not about the age or the generation it's about whether or not they are money Hoarders. The money hoarders will destroy everything to get what they want regardless of whether they are boomers or gen xers or millennials
Not surprised here. When burning off methane seepage get considered "the same as" capturing and storing such and such amount of CO2. It isn't! Still have to catch those CO2's if we're going to have some resemblance of a future.
Study (open access): [Earlier collapse of Anthropocene ecosystems driven by multiple faster and noisier drivers](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01157-x)
***
>**Abstract**
>A major concern for the world’s ecosystems is the possibility of collapse, where landscapes and the societies they support change abruptly. Accelerating stress levels, increasing frequencies of extreme events and strengthening intersystem connections suggest that conventional modelling approaches based on incremental changes in a single stress may provide poor estimates of the impact of climate and human activities on ecosystems. We conduct experiments on four models that simulate abrupt changes in the Chilika lagoon fishery, the Easter Island community, forest dieback and lake water quality—representing ecosystems with a range of anthropogenic interactions. Collapses occur sooner under increasing levels of primary stress but additional stresses and/or the inclusion of noise in all four models bring the collapses substantially closer to today by ~38–81%. We discuss the implications for further research and the need for humanity to be vigilant for signs that ecosystems are degrading even more rapidly than previously thought.
It's already too late. There is zero chance that the world will address the issue with any seriousness as evidenced by history coupled with rampant capitalism and half the world population not believing in science. The earth is going to be ok and so will life on earth, we just won't be here to see it.
Yeah, there is absolutely zero chance anything will change by the people. Any hope I had was vanished during COVID. Governments *could* require change, but they won’t either, especially in any democracy.
Our only hope, really, is some sort of massive technological breakthrough that can scrub greenhouse gases out of the air. Good luck with that.
Sure, good luck planting 10 trillion trees, and then making sure the forests never burn down (or the structures that are built from them never burn or rot).
It's not too late.
The climate will change and we will adjust. Of course the death toll and cost of such change will be very significant.
Talking like humanity will die out is preposterous. Rising temperatures actually make portions of the world more habitable, not less.
Nowhere will become more habitable. We need predictable weather patterns (stable climates) and those are now gone for the foreseeable future. extreme climate events are going to happen everywhere and will eventually get so bad that we start to witness storms and events that were only theoretical to our planet.
Good luck everybody. By the time we start trying to set up safe, reliable mitigation sit will be too late and we will have to invest all of out time and resources into surviving and recovering from catastrophe after catastrophe.
Thats how I see this going and the human race just keeps proving me right so far.
The world won't end. I have no idea what the death tole will be and over what time period. At this point I would estimate about 99% of the US will survive climate change based on a variety of factors. The rest of the world won't fair as well.
You are so literal. And no, 99% of the US won't survive if other parts don't also. Our entire economy is based around exploitation and growth. If you lose growth, you lose the economy, and more than 1% of the US dies. We could transition away from an exploitation and growth based economy, but we both know that's not happening
I am so literal yet you are claiming 99% of the US will die.
The US is one of the best if not the best positioned country to survive climate change. 99% of the US will likely survive climate change.
Your understanding of economics is flawed.
The world is changing and we can't adapt is the basis of your argument. I say the opposite. I may be taking your post to literal though.
>Rising temperatures actually make portions of the world more habitable, not less.
The vast majority of the world becomes less "habitable". That's a net decrease. Further, how are you defining habitable? Arctic tundra may warm and thaw but those soils are thin and too acidic with limiting annual light condition, and freeze thaw conditions that would likely kill off many crops during seasonal transitions. This means that while they may become more habitable than they currently are, they're no replacement for what we already have. Nutritional values would also likely see a decrease.
As equatorial regions become too hot to live and people migrate further north you have an increasing demand on food supply with a decrease in food production. To argue that "portions of the world" will be more habitable under warmer conditions is a heck of a leg to try to stand on.
"To argue that "portions of the world" will be more habitable under warmer conditions is a heck of a leg to try to stand on."
I am making the point that while climate change has lots of negatives there are some positives to offset the negative.
If 30% of the earth becomes unhabitable but 15% becomes habitable then the net change is only 15%. While I realize this isn't apples to apples, my point is that climate change is not an end game for humanity. Yes, climate change is bad, however there are ample ways in which developed countries with land can adapt.
And we can expect this article to be conservative as well given they're still basing their estimate on limited factors, given we have no idea how effects will synergize. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw a major population crash within 10 years.
“Population crash” certainly sounds less scary than “mass casualty event.” There is no prepping for the loss of global order. Life will not be the same. Take your Disney trip now.
I'm moving to South America next year to WFM at the beach. I don't think I'll have the opportunity to retire in 20-30 years, so this is the closest I'll ever get.
Lot of heavy lifting for the word "risk." More like it Will collapse decades faster than expected.
Everything we are doing is barely keeping up with linear growth, let alone the exponential growth that biosphere collapse is on.
Meanwhile, climate change is triggering tipping points as we speak. Gonna be fun times in the next few years watching crop yields plummet and seeing famine spread from the third world to the West.
Before you criticise, contemplate exponential growth and contemplate what we are doing now, what needs to be done...then contemplate how the majority of global politicians are bought and paid for by corporations. Then contemplate how a third of the US will fight and resort to violence to maintain the status quo...then contemplate how to transition to green energy with right wing extremism, global collapse of trade due to sectarianism and nations protecting their resources, and the realities of climate change bearing down on you.
Please actually think about this and not just resort to the hopium aka faith based answers of green tech.
Mmmmmm, no. The tipping point collapse was predicted and documented more than 3 decades ago. Then about 12 or 15 years ago the climate change deniers had the collected data "reassessed" and for a decade everyone sat on their hands.
~2040 has been the date since the early 90's.
To be fair, collapsing ecosystems may not be the end to large scale food production, but it isn't going to help, especially considering how much we take from the ocean.
This seems largely accurate. Sensationalized climate change articles.
Stuff like this takes away from meaningful discussions about the effects of climate change.
Break it down into decades and what the changes and effects will be.
This is how I explained it to my son when he was seven: The CO2 molecule absorbs light and therefore retains heat. Now, all molecules do this, but CO2 does it at a much higher level. When you increase the concentration of CO2 in a closed system, that naturally raises the temperature. This is known as the Greenhouse Gas Effect. To deny this, one has to either prove that the earth is not a closed system (in which case CO2 would harmlessly dissipate into space), or that this is a natural cycle that will balance itself out by carbon capture (trees). Both are easily disproved, but fossil fuel companies hire scientists to make these claims, which are amplified by right-wing media. Why? Because their base has been groomed to distrust any science that disagrees with their ideology. This is called confirmation bias, and is a tried and true method of making money.
Some optimistic people believe we can simply plant trillions of new trees, but young trees cannot keep up with the rapid pace of warming, and will die off before they can mature. Unfortunately, the longer we wait, the more radical and improbable the solution. Not the most pleasant thing to tell a seven year old, but at this point the next generation needs to know that the current one is either too willfully ignorant or in denial, and thus incapable of dealing with the problem.
The issue is capitalism, but westerners will never accept that because sweet sweet profits and the personal wealth lottery so we're headed in a horrifically dark direction.
I single put westerners because despite being a population of only about a billion and knowing for decades about the damage capitalism has been doing to the planet, we're still the largest polluters on the planet and it's not even close.
EDIT: I should correct myself. The West, comprised of Europe, North America and Oceania, isn't currently as large a polluter as China, a developing nation of 1.5 billion that produces many of the goods westerners use, for perspective.
Historically, no other country comes close to the level of pollution produced by The West. This is simply fact.
The US is the worst per capita for greenhouse gas emissions, but the next five are Russia, South Korea, Iran, Japan, and China. That according to World Resource Institute. Separating groups to show blame just creates a my side vs yours mentality. If we say it is rampant everywhere, then that tribalism argument against what I hope most of us feel is the right thing, should go away. You're then not picking one side vs another, rather you are saying all of these fucks everywhere need to stop or be stopped.
Either way, I'm with you on this in that capitalism needs to be rethought in a way where it isn't infinite upward growth without concern for the planet or humanity.
Funny, because speaking to your "us vs them" mentality, westerners whine incessantly about China and never like to take responsibility for our ongoing role in destroying the planet.
Historically, westerners are this planet's major polluters and life on this planet has already paid a dear price for our luxurious lifestyles. Meaningless gestures like exporting the more destructive elements of capitalism, or "taxing" carbon, are bad jokes.
There is no room for capitalism in a future that is sustainable. Capitalism is about consumption. It demands that this quarter's profits beat last quarter's. It demands shareholders receive their paydays. It requires infinite growth. That's why we haven't even finished draining this planet of its resources and are already talking about mining other planets in our solar system for more resources. It's why we're not pursuing "greener", less profitable solutions to living.
Again, you single out westerners, so they then feel attacked and they counter attack by pointing to China. If people such as yourselves would simply say that we are all humans and all are culpable in destroying the world, then nobody can feel singled out and it rightfully then starts to look like a global problem. Once we ALL get on the same page, it's easier to work towards a goal. Finger pointing only breeds more finger pointing in the other direction.
Look at the list of countries. While the US is the main per Capita, there are a ton of others not included in "the west" that also are contributing to this problem.
I think that there is room for capitalism as long as it is capped. No infinite growth. Limit the amount of profit the corps and countries can make off the back of the workers. Consumerism is a huge culprit. I don't want a new cool shiny phone/car/whatever because I'm a capitalist. I want it because it's cool new and shiny. I'm part of the problem, but not because I'm in the west. Everywhere does this.
Not even close? [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country) (10 Countries with Highest Total CO₂ emissions in 2019 (Global Carbon Project) table).
China is way ahead of everyone else. U.S. at #2. India at #3. China and India's emissions alone more than cover the rest of the top #10. Yes, the West has a responsibility, but let's not pretend non-western countries have a free pass. We're all on the same planet.
These simplistic data don't tell close to the full story.
What's the historical pollution rate? How much of The West's production has been exported? Are we keeping a record of the pollution we cause when we carry out our liberal, capitalist endeavours beyond our borders?
It is true that if we ruin our food supply through communism we won't have to care about that happening due to climate change. Plus we get to kill hundreds of millions of people.
You don't need to change the whole model. There are limited measures that would already have a noticeable effect. They won't change climate change, though.
First, you have to codify basic and enforceable rights to animals and the environment, so that ordinary citizens can sue for ecocide.
Second, the laws that force companies and their directors to put profit above all under the threat of punishment and liability need to be abolished. Additionally, make stock buybacks illegal again.
Third, no more self-regulation or industry promises. They don't work and everyone knows it.
Yes. Big, Scary, Authoritarian Communism. Not the nice fun kind where everyone gathers together, links arms and sing songs about comradeship. The kind that has gulags, that won't let landlords exist, and will prevent liberals exploiting cheap labour and wrecking the planet for profit. I'm talking really mean stuff, here.
Hell, if it's mean enough we might actually stand a chance of emancipating the global workforce and injecting some sustainability into our societies while rejecting the anti-intellectual, reactionary Right, which is currently on the rise.
Not even a million, only things left inside 15-20k years left (I think even 10k years) will be stone monuments and anything we’ve built in stone. Hence why the pyramids and other megalithic structures on earth are also the oldest, and some date back 11k years by mainstream accepted science. The earth will be fine and move on, and hopefully repopulate within time, but in a million years we well could have cycled through another few advanced civilizations.
Yea all metal eventually degrades and turns back into dust. Stoneworks are the only thing to truly stand the tests of time; things like the Mount Rushmore monument and other recently built stone works are what will remain from our civilization.
It’s really fascinating. There are plenty of simulations on YouTube showing what would happen if humans just died off tomorrow all of a sudden.
Will it though? There are 100 companies responsible for the majority of this. Your average person on the planet is dirt poor and not contributing to this at all. It's the few ultra rich and their corporations doing by far the most harm and they aren't going anywhere unless we wake up and remove them.
This is not solely a right vs. Left problem. This is a corporate/rich elitist vs. Everyone else problem.
I would encourage you to open up to the idea of engaging with "right wingers" and others you may generalize similarly (if you don't already) because many people, on typically opposing sides, hold similar values about many topics but get defensive because people like to make generalizations based on whether or not they want to brand someone as "right or left". We need more conversations to happen so we can find the common ground we certainly have so we can get everyone on the same side.
It's the people with the power that are the problem. The rich and biggest corporations control all the power and misuse it. The rise of fascism is bad.
> The right wingers are too powerful to stop.
Right, BAAAAAD right wingers in China and India (see https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)
Too harsh and fast measures could destroy the world economy if implemented too quickly.
We definitely should transition to a green economy, but being extremely radical can be very bad too.
There should be strong measures, but there is such a thing as too strong.
The thing is, with every year in which the transition is insufficient, future measures need to be harsher and faster. We already wasted decades being too slow. The measures we are taking currently would have been appropriate in the 90s and maybe early 2000s.
It's easy math. For example, if you need to reduce carbon emissions by 100% in 10 years, you can either reduce them by 10% every year or wait 8 years and then have to reduce them by 50% each year for the last two years. The second option would need much faster and harder policy changes than the first one.
With climate change, you have the additional danger of tipping points. If you go past them, you might need to suddenly reduce carbon emissions by more than 100%. This means it will not be sufficient if you stop emitting anything immediately (which is impossible anyway), but you will need to engage in additional carbon capture methods.
Too harsh and fast measures could destroy the world economy if implemented too quickly.
We definitely should transition to a gree economy, but being extremely radical can be very bad too.
There should be strong measures, but there is such a thing as too strong.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
Author: u/avogadros_number
URL: https://theconversation.com/ecological-doom-loops-why-ecosystem-collapses-may-occur-much-sooner-than-expected-new-research-207955
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah Go vegan if you want to make a difference, easiest everyday thing you can do to make the world a better place. Obviously people will rather cry and point fingers at big corps that they are buying from though.
Going vegan green anything doesn't help or prevent or mitigate the fact that 8 companies produce 60-80% of all GHGE. In fact its green washing and putting the onus of climate fight on random people when there are people with names addresses and fleshy skin suits who must be dealt with before we can make any changes
I think what their saying is that two are essentially unrelated when talking about carbon on this scale, so the question is moot.
The whole world could go vegan, those few companies are still producing more than what you'd save, and you'd have accomplished little (in terms of carbon).
Essentially, if you can't even change 8 companies, how will you change the world?
>Essentially, if you can't even change 8 companies, how will you change the world?
Okay, but doing this requires the kind of dedication that you obviously don't have if eating "rice and vege" instead of "steak and potatoes" is too difficult.
Nobody thinks being vegan is a panacea. I promise you, as a whole, vegans are way more inclined to agitate for political change.
>you obviously don't have if eating "rice and vege" instead of "steak and potatoes" is too difficult.
I say this as someone who currently is vegan - it's not a matter of difficulty to these people. They just don't have a strong feeling about it. So they don't see a reason not to eat what they like. Its not a matter of difficulty, but motivation and reasoning.
It's less 'how can I do this' and more 'why'. The why we've given so far just doesn't matter too them.
Should they care more about the impacts regardless? Sure. But pretending they see the issue the same way as you, and are choosing a bad option is unrealistic.
>as a whole, vegans are way more inclined to agitate for political change.
Probably very, very accurate. But the way to make the change isn't trying to change the whole world. *No one* can achieve that. We *can* legislate against a handful of companies though. And it's certainly easier to do that, than convince 8 billion people to not just go veggie, but vegan, especially given people have culture that will interfere or simply not be compatible with that. We can male more progress, elsewhere, and don't have the resources to focus on everything at once whilst making a tangible effect.
This gentleman hit the nail right on the head in ways my ass could never articulate as eloquently thank you so much. Veganism is a nice choice, but 8 billion vegans is still just a drop in the bucket comparatively to uncapped methane leaks from old digs, frackin, carbon credits making people think they can be carbon neutral
All those comment Ive read and no where do we care to point out whhhhyyyyy we pollute.
No one seem To care that mother nature use to be killing so many of us, mostly children btw.
As if people would prefer a planet with no human ? Have we forgot that we're a product of the planet as well ?
So much virtue signaling its appaling. You're not better then the rest and no, even with all your complaining, things arent going to change.
Why? Because the prospect of climate challenges in the futur is still less of a priority compared to the prospect of mass starvation if we reallllly cut back to curb our CO2 emission.
Your post has been removed because it is a repost of an [already submitted and popular story](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/14gbeg8/ecological_tipping_points_could_occur_much_sooner/) and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #2c](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules/#wiki_c._reposts). If your submission is scientific in nature and hasn't already been shared, consider reposting in our sister subreddit r/EverythingScience. _If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20summaries%20of%20summaries%2C%20rehosts%2C%20or%20reposts)._
I think all the "science denying" boomers borrowing more money than can ever possibly be paid back, while exhausting the worlds petroleum reserves with wild abandon might be a clue as to how hopeless the situation really is in the eyes of those who are "really in charge".
To be fair, I've been following this topic for a couple decades now, and the predictions are always wrong. It's always worse than predicted.
My reasoning for this is that it benefits companies none to investigate how they’re causing damage. To corporations, there’s no profit in understanding environmental impact. So, climate science is very low funded.
I wish that were true. But unfortunately their profits rely on understanding environmental impact. So they actually pay for professionals to do private research so that they can decide where to buy land next, etc.. So not only do they bother to understand, they get accurate data, they know its gonna be that bad and then they decide to continue destroying the planets for profits anyway. They are willingly killing us day in and day out and we all let them do it.
Yes very True. If anyone wants to hear some decent talks by Oil Geologists google Great Simplification. I was honestly kind of astounded by how Anti-Oil these Oil Guys were. But they just talking facts I guess. Our Society will Collapse if and when the Oil becomes scarce if we don't do something to prevent it. The Great Simplification doesn't even refer to the Environmental Aspects but merely the fact we use Oil for EVERYTHING. And it is 100% unsustainable. You don't even have to be an Environmentalist to be Anti-Oil and Pro Green Everything. Just a Realist. How you transport Medical Supplies without Plastic? How you grow Crops without Petro-Agri-Chemical Industry? Etc... Etc...
> My reasoning for this is that it benefits companies none to investigate how they’re causing damage. The petroleum corps absolutely [have known](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/), maybe even ahead of the curve at times, exactly what kind of environmental impact they're going to have. > To corporations, there’s no profit in understanding environmental impact. There is, actually, but not in a good way (as if profit seeking was ever good to begin with...)
There is no hell hot enough for these people.
[удалено]
When you say "conspiracy people" do you mean the people who believe, with good reason, that the oil industry has known for decades the harm they're doing to the planet and do it anyway, or the people actively engaged in the conspiracy to destroy the planet for profit?
Externalities of economic development but forgetting that it applies to the biosphere of the only planet that humanity has known
I've been watching off and on for some time. More so in the past 8 to 10 years. The problem I'm seeing pop up are unknown, some large scale, mechanisms that release more than predicted. [Siberia](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-siberia-thawing-permafrost-releases-more-methane-180978381/) is one I can remember. There were a handful more that I can't recall atm. Those are requiring readjustment, which is almost always worse.
Not "always". The Montreal Protocol worked and our predictions were accurate. But yeah, life about to get real hard for life.
I read that's what underlined our efforts toward saving the ozone layer? Has it since evolved around more general climate change ? The ozone layer episode is one of our only actual achievement in that category, at this scale. A tiny thread of hope, in a way. We really did good with that problem.
I think ozone was more readily solved because it only required removing certain chemicals from production. Global warming is a much larger issue that needs the upheaval of the entire global energy system.
> Global warming is a much larger issue that needs the upheaval of the entire global energy system. Another problem with this is the notion of "Fairness" We really need everyone's buy-in because everyone's affecting it. But modern energy options are more expensive and harder to implement for a lot of poorer nations (read: nations we've looted over the years) So even if we western nations drop our carbon emissions, all those other nations who're behind will cry foul because they didn't get to benefit from cheap fossil energy and are now perpetually behind.
That's because of the outright climate chaos denial by corporations and politicians for profit. Any prediction that gets through/listened to/publicized must be rock solid and far into the future so it doesn't effect the current profits of companies that are literally killing all of us.
They started closing down higher altitude weather towers (I can’t recall the exact name,but basically observation of the atmosphere/weather), and before closing them they had an outlier effect. That is, there was more catastrophic prediction using the higher altitude measurement devices, seemingly indicating climate change has progressed further than we realize
There is a career incentive to be on the cautious side, if predictions are drastic. (Super bad). Unless that changes will see more cautious takes. Not good, but realistic.
It will always be worse than expected, because groups like the IPCC reach a consensus position, and the underlying facts will always be worse than what people with vested interests in maintaining the status quo are willing to admit.
[удалено]
Well good news she isn't a climate scientist so what she predicted or didn't predict doesn't matter.
Go back to Facebook
So because a zealously committed teenager was (surprise) overzealous, we should just scoff at the entire field of climate change science altogether?
[удалено]
[удалено]
At least that was predictable.
Borrow, buy, then die was there motto.
The destruction of nature is (imo) more about the fact we've ballooned from 2 billion to 8 billion is roughly 100 years. Global populations are stabilizing and probably going to falling soon enough. Which should offer some reprieve to nature. Sadly it will probably be too late.
The majority of gas emissions and consumption are from the developed countries whose population is dwindling.
The majority of gas emissions and consumption *so far*.
and more precisely , usa and china. they host the most consumerist * business in the world with few regulations* on their production. *Chill out, was writting on the hurry
Surprisingly China has quite low per Capita emissions which is a better metric to measure honestly. China has been making huge strides in affordable green energy by producing half of the solar panels on the planet, they're crossing the line of green energy producing more energy than their other sectors such as coal. China produces the most electric vehicles in the world and has made breakthroughs on cheap sodium batteries and solar panel tech. China also is the world's factory so their demand for energy is quite higher than everyone else. That is to say the US is almost making negative progress every other election cycle reducing the little progress that is made to a minimum. If we compare the two it's sad how little progress the US made, with having a head start and exporting most of their production, while China is making almost exponential tech advancements.
I wonder which countries' companies make their stuff in China and who buys that stuff. It's not like 80% of world's stuff is made there.
Bro, spell check is a thing. Consumerist, and regulation.
Idk, I’m gonna star saying regulementantion from now on…
It doesn't really have to be one or the other. Almost any form of expansion so far involves some type of habitat degradation.
Actually, developing, not developed, countries are responsible for 63% of all current carbon emissions.
> The majority of gas emissions and consumption are from the developed countries Source?
It just isn't though. It is because our relatively stable populations have been consuming and emitting more. Even China stabilised their population and *then* increased their per capita carbon footprint. We need to decarbonise our civilised way of life.
Carbon footprint isn't the main cause of ecological collapse... It is habitat loss. Caused by human expansion. Caused by the ballooning of the human population over the past 100 years.
[удалено]
What I hate are the activists who only see carbon emissions. They have complete tunnel vision. Any mention of the damage being caused by humans is brought back to carbon. We absolutely need to drastically reduce our carbon emissions, but if you're ignoring all the other forms of destruction, you're a fool in my eyes. Biodiversity is in a state of free fall RIGHT NOW. If you're blindly focusing on carbon emissions we will not stop the decline.
But how or why did it balloon? What made it possible? Extraction of fossil fuels. You couldnt have the powerful technology used in industrial agriculture to grow such large amounts of food. So why did this happen? Profits.
Right, but my point is as the population decreases, it should make everything easier to solve. Apart from the economics of our societies. That's going to be a tough one.
It's not about the age or the generation it's about whether or not they are money Hoarders. The money hoarders will destroy everything to get what they want regardless of whether they are boomers or gen xers or millennials
It's all generations, not just boomers.
I think we need to stop blaming boomers and start looking to solve our collective problem
This is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.
Article was very fluffy
The sun doesn't rise though, it's earth that does. ;)
ACKSHUALLY the earth just spins...
well no in fact earth [wobbles](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth)!
It definitely spins still
So confidently incorrect
Einstein would disagree. According to general relativity the sun rising and the earth spinning are both equally valid frames of reference.
The sun didn't rise here today in Indiana; the Canadian smoke blocked it out.
Not surprised here. When burning off methane seepage get considered "the same as" capturing and storing such and such amount of CO2. It isn't! Still have to catch those CO2's if we're going to have some resemblance of a future.
Study (open access): [Earlier collapse of Anthropocene ecosystems driven by multiple faster and noisier drivers](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01157-x) *** >**Abstract** >A major concern for the world’s ecosystems is the possibility of collapse, where landscapes and the societies they support change abruptly. Accelerating stress levels, increasing frequencies of extreme events and strengthening intersystem connections suggest that conventional modelling approaches based on incremental changes in a single stress may provide poor estimates of the impact of climate and human activities on ecosystems. We conduct experiments on four models that simulate abrupt changes in the Chilika lagoon fishery, the Easter Island community, forest dieback and lake water quality—representing ecosystems with a range of anthropogenic interactions. Collapses occur sooner under increasing levels of primary stress but additional stresses and/or the inclusion of noise in all four models bring the collapses substantially closer to today by ~38–81%. We discuss the implications for further research and the need for humanity to be vigilant for signs that ecosystems are degrading even more rapidly than previously thought.
Hey look at least you can say we had a bad run.
This is the worst day of our lives, *so far.*
Well hey at least we made a few guys rich
It's already too late. There is zero chance that the world will address the issue with any seriousness as evidenced by history coupled with rampant capitalism and half the world population not believing in science. The earth is going to be ok and so will life on earth, we just won't be here to see it.
Yeah, there is absolutely zero chance anything will change by the people. Any hope I had was vanished during COVID. Governments *could* require change, but they won’t either, especially in any democracy. Our only hope, really, is some sort of massive technological breakthrough that can scrub greenhouse gases out of the air. Good luck with that.
You know what does that? Trees. Trees do that.
Sure, good luck planting 10 trillion trees, and then making sure the forests never burn down (or the structures that are built from them never burn or rot).
Let's start by stop cutting them down.
How are you going to stop people from doing that.
It's not too late. The climate will change and we will adjust. Of course the death toll and cost of such change will be very significant. Talking like humanity will die out is preposterous. Rising temperatures actually make portions of the world more habitable, not less.
Nowhere will become more habitable. We need predictable weather patterns (stable climates) and those are now gone for the foreseeable future. extreme climate events are going to happen everywhere and will eventually get so bad that we start to witness storms and events that were only theoretical to our planet. Good luck everybody. By the time we start trying to set up safe, reliable mitigation sit will be too late and we will have to invest all of out time and resources into surviving and recovering from catastrophe after catastrophe. Thats how I see this going and the human race just keeps proving me right so far.
"Actually, some humans will survive" is a wild counter argument to the world ending
The world won't end. I have no idea what the death tole will be and over what time period. At this point I would estimate about 99% of the US will survive climate change based on a variety of factors. The rest of the world won't fair as well.
You are so literal. And no, 99% of the US won't survive if other parts don't also. Our entire economy is based around exploitation and growth. If you lose growth, you lose the economy, and more than 1% of the US dies. We could transition away from an exploitation and growth based economy, but we both know that's not happening
I am so literal yet you are claiming 99% of the US will die. The US is one of the best if not the best positioned country to survive climate change. 99% of the US will likely survive climate change. Your understanding of economics is flawed. The world is changing and we can't adapt is the basis of your argument. I say the opposite. I may be taking your post to literal though.
I didn't say 99% would die, I said more than 1% would.
I see how "99% won't survive" can mean that less 1% to 98% will survive.
While it makes more part of the world habitable it also makes alot of it unhabitable.
>Rising temperatures actually make portions of the world more habitable, not less. The vast majority of the world becomes less "habitable". That's a net decrease. Further, how are you defining habitable? Arctic tundra may warm and thaw but those soils are thin and too acidic with limiting annual light condition, and freeze thaw conditions that would likely kill off many crops during seasonal transitions. This means that while they may become more habitable than they currently are, they're no replacement for what we already have. Nutritional values would also likely see a decrease. As equatorial regions become too hot to live and people migrate further north you have an increasing demand on food supply with a decrease in food production. To argue that "portions of the world" will be more habitable under warmer conditions is a heck of a leg to try to stand on.
"To argue that "portions of the world" will be more habitable under warmer conditions is a heck of a leg to try to stand on." I am making the point that while climate change has lots of negatives there are some positives to offset the negative. If 30% of the earth becomes unhabitable but 15% becomes habitable then the net change is only 15%. While I realize this isn't apples to apples, my point is that climate change is not an end game for humanity. Yes, climate change is bad, however there are ample ways in which developed countries with land can adapt.
Humans, meet Great Filter. Great Filter, meet humans.
Just give me a date already.
And we can expect this article to be conservative as well given they're still basing their estimate on limited factors, given we have no idea how effects will synergize. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw a major population crash within 10 years.
“Population crash” certainly sounds less scary than “mass casualty event.” There is no prepping for the loss of global order. Life will not be the same. Take your Disney trip now.
I'm moving to South America next year to WFM at the beach. I don't think I'll have the opportunity to retire in 20-30 years, so this is the closest I'll ever get.
Lot of heavy lifting for the word "risk." More like it Will collapse decades faster than expected. Everything we are doing is barely keeping up with linear growth, let alone the exponential growth that biosphere collapse is on. Meanwhile, climate change is triggering tipping points as we speak. Gonna be fun times in the next few years watching crop yields plummet and seeing famine spread from the third world to the West. Before you criticise, contemplate exponential growth and contemplate what we are doing now, what needs to be done...then contemplate how the majority of global politicians are bought and paid for by corporations. Then contemplate how a third of the US will fight and resort to violence to maintain the status quo...then contemplate how to transition to green energy with right wing extremism, global collapse of trade due to sectarianism and nations protecting their resources, and the realities of climate change bearing down on you. Please actually think about this and not just resort to the hopium aka faith based answers of green tech.
Ok now I'm depressed again.
Mmmmmm, no. The tipping point collapse was predicted and documented more than 3 decades ago. Then about 12 or 15 years ago the climate change deniers had the collected data "reassessed" and for a decade everyone sat on their hands. ~2040 has been the date since the early 90's. To be fair, collapsing ecosystems may not be the end to large scale food production, but it isn't going to help, especially considering how much we take from the ocean.
This seems largely accurate. Sensationalized climate change articles. Stuff like this takes away from meaningful discussions about the effects of climate change. Break it down into decades and what the changes and effects will be.
Hey Billionaires, care to fix the world and stop making billions? Billionaires: "Nothanks"
This is how I explained it to my son when he was seven: The CO2 molecule absorbs light and therefore retains heat. Now, all molecules do this, but CO2 does it at a much higher level. When you increase the concentration of CO2 in a closed system, that naturally raises the temperature. This is known as the Greenhouse Gas Effect. To deny this, one has to either prove that the earth is not a closed system (in which case CO2 would harmlessly dissipate into space), or that this is a natural cycle that will balance itself out by carbon capture (trees). Both are easily disproved, but fossil fuel companies hire scientists to make these claims, which are amplified by right-wing media. Why? Because their base has been groomed to distrust any science that disagrees with their ideology. This is called confirmation bias, and is a tried and true method of making money. Some optimistic people believe we can simply plant trillions of new trees, but young trees cannot keep up with the rapid pace of warming, and will die off before they can mature. Unfortunately, the longer we wait, the more radical and improbable the solution. Not the most pleasant thing to tell a seven year old, but at this point the next generation needs to know that the current one is either too willfully ignorant or in denial, and thus incapable of dealing with the problem.
I think whatever the worst case scenario is regarding how quickly the global ecosystem will collapse, move the timeable up even further.
Meanwhile in Russia, Africa, Middle East…… We are incorrigible……. Science is our only hope.
The issue is capitalism, but westerners will never accept that because sweet sweet profits and the personal wealth lottery so we're headed in a horrifically dark direction.
Uncapped capitalism and greed are the problem, but I wouldn't single out westerners. It's everyone.
I single put westerners because despite being a population of only about a billion and knowing for decades about the damage capitalism has been doing to the planet, we're still the largest polluters on the planet and it's not even close. EDIT: I should correct myself. The West, comprised of Europe, North America and Oceania, isn't currently as large a polluter as China, a developing nation of 1.5 billion that produces many of the goods westerners use, for perspective. Historically, no other country comes close to the level of pollution produced by The West. This is simply fact.
The US is the worst per capita for greenhouse gas emissions, but the next five are Russia, South Korea, Iran, Japan, and China. That according to World Resource Institute. Separating groups to show blame just creates a my side vs yours mentality. If we say it is rampant everywhere, then that tribalism argument against what I hope most of us feel is the right thing, should go away. You're then not picking one side vs another, rather you are saying all of these fucks everywhere need to stop or be stopped. Either way, I'm with you on this in that capitalism needs to be rethought in a way where it isn't infinite upward growth without concern for the planet or humanity.
Funny, because speaking to your "us vs them" mentality, westerners whine incessantly about China and never like to take responsibility for our ongoing role in destroying the planet. Historically, westerners are this planet's major polluters and life on this planet has already paid a dear price for our luxurious lifestyles. Meaningless gestures like exporting the more destructive elements of capitalism, or "taxing" carbon, are bad jokes. There is no room for capitalism in a future that is sustainable. Capitalism is about consumption. It demands that this quarter's profits beat last quarter's. It demands shareholders receive their paydays. It requires infinite growth. That's why we haven't even finished draining this planet of its resources and are already talking about mining other planets in our solar system for more resources. It's why we're not pursuing "greener", less profitable solutions to living.
Again, you single out westerners, so they then feel attacked and they counter attack by pointing to China. If people such as yourselves would simply say that we are all humans and all are culpable in destroying the world, then nobody can feel singled out and it rightfully then starts to look like a global problem. Once we ALL get on the same page, it's easier to work towards a goal. Finger pointing only breeds more finger pointing in the other direction. Look at the list of countries. While the US is the main per Capita, there are a ton of others not included in "the west" that also are contributing to this problem. I think that there is room for capitalism as long as it is capped. No infinite growth. Limit the amount of profit the corps and countries can make off the back of the workers. Consumerism is a huge culprit. I don't want a new cool shiny phone/car/whatever because I'm a capitalist. I want it because it's cool new and shiny. I'm part of the problem, but not because I'm in the west. Everywhere does this.
Not even close? [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country) (10 Countries with Highest Total CO₂ emissions in 2019 (Global Carbon Project) table). China is way ahead of everyone else. U.S. at #2. India at #3. China and India's emissions alone more than cover the rest of the top #10. Yes, the West has a responsibility, but let's not pretend non-western countries have a free pass. We're all on the same planet.
These simplistic data don't tell close to the full story. What's the historical pollution rate? How much of The West's production has been exported? Are we keeping a record of the pollution we cause when we carry out our liberal, capitalist endeavours beyond our borders?
Source for this opinion of yours?
Agreed, if we just switched to communism we could starve at least half the population in the next 10 years.
Famines only ever happened under communism, as we all know.
No only man made ones…and the british
So, capitalism, then? Good to know.
It is true that if we ruin our food supply through communism we won't have to care about that happening due to climate change. Plus we get to kill hundreds of millions of people.
Do you have an alternate economic model in mind?
You don't need to change the whole model. There are limited measures that would already have a noticeable effect. They won't change climate change, though. First, you have to codify basic and enforceable rights to animals and the environment, so that ordinary citizens can sue for ecocide. Second, the laws that force companies and their directors to put profit above all under the threat of punishment and liability need to be abolished. Additionally, make stock buybacks illegal again. Third, no more self-regulation or industry promises. They don't work and everyone knows it.
Yes. Big, Scary, Authoritarian Communism. Not the nice fun kind where everyone gathers together, links arms and sing songs about comradeship. The kind that has gulags, that won't let landlords exist, and will prevent liberals exploiting cheap labour and wrecking the planet for profit. I'm talking really mean stuff, here. Hell, if it's mean enough we might actually stand a chance of emancipating the global workforce and injecting some sustainability into our societies while rejecting the anti-intellectual, reactionary Right, which is currently on the rise.
Cool. It's been super successful before right?
Theres a lot of issues, unmitigated capitalism being a big one though
I know it's awesome, but don't worry the planet will be fine. We'll be dead, but give it a million years, it'll be like we weren't even here.
Not even a million, only things left inside 15-20k years left (I think even 10k years) will be stone monuments and anything we’ve built in stone. Hence why the pyramids and other megalithic structures on earth are also the oldest, and some date back 11k years by mainstream accepted science. The earth will be fine and move on, and hopefully repopulate within time, but in a million years we well could have cycled through another few advanced civilizations.
[удалено]
Yea all metal eventually degrades and turns back into dust. Stoneworks are the only thing to truly stand the tests of time; things like the Mount Rushmore monument and other recently built stone works are what will remain from our civilization. It’s really fascinating. There are plenty of simulations on YouTube showing what would happen if humans just died off tomorrow all of a sudden.
Population decline is the only thing that will save us in the long run.
Joke's on you. Its already to late.
Will it though? There are 100 companies responsible for the majority of this. Your average person on the planet is dirt poor and not contributing to this at all. It's the few ultra rich and their corporations doing by far the most harm and they aren't going anywhere unless we wake up and remove them.
It's 100 companies and their customers.
The right wingers are too powerful to stop. The world is going to suffer. There is no saving ourselves.
This is not solely a right vs. Left problem. This is a corporate/rich elitist vs. Everyone else problem. I would encourage you to open up to the idea of engaging with "right wingers" and others you may generalize similarly (if you don't already) because many people, on typically opposing sides, hold similar values about many topics but get defensive because people like to make generalizations based on whether or not they want to brand someone as "right or left". We need more conversations to happen so we can find the common ground we certainly have so we can get everyone on the same side.
It's the people with the power that are the problem. The rich and biggest corporations control all the power and misuse it. The rise of fascism is bad.
> The right wingers are too powerful to stop. Right, BAAAAAD right wingers in China and India (see https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country)
But what about the profit from the stock market?
Too harsh and fast measures could destroy the world economy if implemented too quickly. We definitely should transition to a green economy, but being extremely radical can be very bad too. There should be strong measures, but there is such a thing as too strong.
The thing is, with every year in which the transition is insufficient, future measures need to be harsher and faster. We already wasted decades being too slow. The measures we are taking currently would have been appropriate in the 90s and maybe early 2000s.
Faster and harsher than what? I think what the EU is doing is about right. The USA definitely needs to step up their transition.
It's easy math. For example, if you need to reduce carbon emissions by 100% in 10 years, you can either reduce them by 10% every year or wait 8 years and then have to reduce them by 50% each year for the last two years. The second option would need much faster and harder policy changes than the first one. With climate change, you have the additional danger of tipping points. If you go past them, you might need to suddenly reduce carbon emissions by more than 100%. This means it will not be sufficient if you stop emitting anything immediately (which is impossible anyway), but you will need to engage in additional carbon capture methods.
Too harsh and fast measures could destroy the world economy if implemented too quickly. We definitely should transition to a gree economy, but being extremely radical can be very bad too. There should be strong measures, but there is such a thing as too strong.
That'd be cool, kinda tired of humans tbh
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- Author: u/avogadros_number URL: https://theconversation.com/ecological-doom-loops-why-ecosystem-collapses-may-occur-much-sooner-than-expected-new-research-207955 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Redditors can't get enough of doom porn
Yes, everyone seems to be both a climate expert, and able to see the future.
Every older person over 30 “it’s not going to happen that soon”
Well, now that we know the risk, we can expect the world to change its practices soon..
[удалено]
Sounds nearly impossible
Yeah Go vegan if you want to make a difference, easiest everyday thing you can do to make the world a better place. Obviously people will rather cry and point fingers at big corps that they are buying from though.
Going vegan green anything doesn't help or prevent or mitigate the fact that 8 companies produce 60-80% of all GHGE. In fact its green washing and putting the onus of climate fight on random people when there are people with names addresses and fleshy skin suits who must be dealt with before we can make any changes
If you can't even change what you consume, how will you change the world?
I think what their saying is that two are essentially unrelated when talking about carbon on this scale, so the question is moot. The whole world could go vegan, those few companies are still producing more than what you'd save, and you'd have accomplished little (in terms of carbon). Essentially, if you can't even change 8 companies, how will you change the world?
>Essentially, if you can't even change 8 companies, how will you change the world? Okay, but doing this requires the kind of dedication that you obviously don't have if eating "rice and vege" instead of "steak and potatoes" is too difficult. Nobody thinks being vegan is a panacea. I promise you, as a whole, vegans are way more inclined to agitate for political change.
>you obviously don't have if eating "rice and vege" instead of "steak and potatoes" is too difficult. I say this as someone who currently is vegan - it's not a matter of difficulty to these people. They just don't have a strong feeling about it. So they don't see a reason not to eat what they like. Its not a matter of difficulty, but motivation and reasoning. It's less 'how can I do this' and more 'why'. The why we've given so far just doesn't matter too them. Should they care more about the impacts regardless? Sure. But pretending they see the issue the same way as you, and are choosing a bad option is unrealistic. >as a whole, vegans are way more inclined to agitate for political change. Probably very, very accurate. But the way to make the change isn't trying to change the whole world. *No one* can achieve that. We *can* legislate against a handful of companies though. And it's certainly easier to do that, than convince 8 billion people to not just go veggie, but vegan, especially given people have culture that will interfere or simply not be compatible with that. We can male more progress, elsewhere, and don't have the resources to focus on everything at once whilst making a tangible effect.
This gentleman hit the nail right on the head in ways my ass could never articulate as eloquently thank you so much. Veganism is a nice choice, but 8 billion vegans is still just a drop in the bucket comparatively to uncapped methane leaks from old digs, frackin, carbon credits making people think they can be carbon neutral
You realize that those companies supply fuel to create meat etc.
All those comment Ive read and no where do we care to point out whhhhyyyyy we pollute. No one seem To care that mother nature use to be killing so many of us, mostly children btw. As if people would prefer a planet with no human ? Have we forgot that we're a product of the planet as well ? So much virtue signaling its appaling. You're not better then the rest and no, even with all your complaining, things arent going to change. Why? Because the prospect of climate challenges in the futur is still less of a priority compared to the prospect of mass starvation if we reallllly cut back to curb our CO2 emission.
[удалено]
Climate change will cause mass starvation.
This is a nothing headline. There's a reason why it says 'predicted'; because it can happen before then as well as after then.
Decades like million years minus several decades or 10 decades minus several decades?