For better or worse (definitely worse), we’re going to stroll right into the horrors that global warming is going to give us. We won’t start making necessary changes until it’s way way past any tipping points.
The people that care have no power. The people in power are driven by capitalist profit motives.
If you’re a sci-fi nerd like me we can hope aliens or a true AGI will take over and save us lol. Short of that I have no confidence, mad max dystopia by 2100 or sooner.
It doesn’t take aliens or a true AGI; it takes stopping fossil fuel use, ending deforestation, and phasing out a few trace chemicals. Do that, and we end the rising temperatures
Making that happen is a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.
Oh I totally agree with you, but
a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.
This is the problem. To say this wouldn’t be easy is a huge, gargantuan understatement.
The power and control is so far reaching and deep into the foundation of our society, I can’t help being cynical. By using politics and propaganda techniques huge portions of the population have been convinced that global warming either isn’t real, isn’t important, or is actually a good thing. And this is only one hurdle to overcome along with many others.
The question is how do we seize power back.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
I’m a bit dubious that revolutions can be effective nowadays against a well organised oppressive state with present tools (propaganda, police, surveillance, corruption). All revolutions have failed over the last few decades (Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Tunisia then Arab Spring, etc.).
The answer varies a lot between countries. In ones where elections determine who holds power, they’re a viable path to achieving change.
chile says no, elections serve the powerful.
And the odds of any of that actually happening? How exactly are you going to regulate the growth of industries internationally in a way that doesn’t just end up offshoring the pollution to poor countries like it already has been for centuries?
Dudes right, we need a dues ex machina to save us. We won’t make meaningful changes until it’s profitable to do so. So expect to see a lot of companies transition into cooling and environmental control. Because they won’t address the core problem, just sell you bandaids for the symptoms. The next advancement won’t be “less emissions”, it’ll be “this new coolant cools 35% better”.
Look at heat pumps. Its literally just an AC unit that can swap the hot and cold side with a valve. It’s nothing new. But it’s the new “miracle cure” to all your heating and cooling needs. Just run your electricity that most likely comes from a coal power plant and smugly think about how you personally aren’t using gas to do it!
We won’t fix it ourselves without major intervention.
Realistically, you couple domestic regulation with a carbon tariff, assessing incoming goods a fee based on differential pollution in their country of origin.
Ok. You did that. China is still selling to other countries and polluting all over the place.
Now what?
Somalia is still burning our recycling. What about that?
For every hole you plug, there are 10 more. But sure, we can call agree on this one thing even though the entire history of humanity has basically been “I disagree, let’s fight a war over it”.
Well yeah but…
Even if tomorrow we start really working on getting the CO2 levels down (protip: we won’t), humanity will be spending half their world energy budget for the next 50-100 years at least to get CO2 levels back to what they should be (pre industrialized levels). Even if we go for something more semi reasonable, say pre 1980 levels, we’ll still be spending half our entire world energy budget on this for like a decade. This ain’t an easy problem
No not easy. It’s way cheaper to avoid making it worse than it is to try and put things back the way they were.
The next generations after us are facing shit storms. This all boils down to thermodynamics. We took energy at the cost of generating CO2. Taking that CO2 back, aggregating, filtering, converting, storing… Add in losses (be generous and take 50% conversion rates), we will need multiple times all the energy we took over the last two centuries to take all that CO2 out.
When I said decades of spending half our energy budget, I was very VERY generous. Reality is that we might have to be doing that for centuries, maybe.
Most studies say it’s already too late to stop a lot of it. There’s tons and tons of studies and models that say if we magically cut off all sources of climate forcing we’d still see an increase from the damage already done for centuries. We can obviously make things a LOT better for ourselves by stopping or limiting ourselves right now but a lot of damage is already done. Plus any significant changes will most likely take a decade plus to really get momentum and actually take place anyway.
That’s why now you’re starting to see a lot more research into mitigation rather than prevention cause we’re starting to move into the “well how are we going to fix this” phase rather than the “we need to stop this from happening phase”
The biggest indicators are the oceans. Just take a gander at oceanic temperatures over the last like 25 years. since they absorb something like 95% of our thermal extremes we’re seeing some bonkers changes out there…
we need both to cut emissions and to heavily invest into carbon sinks. It’s doable. But would require coordinated effort where some of the money spent on mindless consumption and cars will have to go towards climate. And ain’t nobody cares enough for that!
I’d gladly vote to send my tax money to infrastructure, Medicare, education, and climate. I don’t want to subsidize other shittier states anymore, and I sure as shit don’t think the militaries need more money.
The great filter is upon you.
Whenever I thought about the great filter, I never considered greed, but it makes a lot of sense.
The great filter is
uponyou.
Exactly. Does anyone care? It’s more like I’m done caring.
If nobody gives a damn, me doing so will only harm myself.
Might as well enjoy commercial aviation in its prime while it lasts. And when in 10 years we will shut it down cuz the world is falling apart, I’ll be happily not traveling anywhere, knowing it’s for the common good.
Right on. I hate being cynical and pessimistic but why struggle hard when the majority are either working against a positive goal or don’t care at all.
I’m gonna enjoy the little things while I can.
But, if a time ever comes… I personally volunteer for the job of guillotine operator…lol. Although at some point this position might be very competitive.
I’ll accept an unpaid internship with a sawzall.
I prefer enjoying rail travel and bicycles. I am not going to participate in this madness, just because the others do.
2100 is conservative. That’s our world in 2040 at the latest if we don’t change.
Removed by mod
I hate when they seem to think that everyone doesn’t care, but only the billionaires and a few corporations are causing the majority of the climate change.
Why does everyone have to give up eating meat, so that companies like SpaceX can dump more Methane than cows burp in a a year because they save money on Methane fuel?
Why does everyone have to buy new super expensive electric cars without any increases in minimum wages in 15 years?
Why do we all have to live in mega cities with mass transit and walking everywhere, but I’m disabled and walking everywhere will send me back into a wheelchair.
It bugs me that everything in the climate change news puts it on everyone, instead of calling all of the major polluters to account and their politicians who keep pushing the gas petal for money.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m pretty sure most of the regular people just can’t afford to make the needed changes because the economy is so top-heavy that no corporation is willing to increase their labor costs because of greed.
But, maybe it’s just me.
Unfortunately we have to do both. We need big industry to reduce but we also need a massive change in our behaviors. Industry must be forced to make these changes because they are purely profit driven and don’t take into account 2nd order costs of their actions. People can make choices to improve their personal impact on the environment, and every little bit counts.
For example, if everyone who can uses more public and active transportation, then that leaves more capacity for those who can’t. Making less cars is better than making more EVs. Personal transport is a significant source of pollution even if it’s not close to the biggest.
That’s the thing that scares me the most, actually. That in order to ensure humanity’s survival, all we need to do is cure the dark greed in every man’s heart.
Otherwise, we’ll just end up with carbon credit style solutions that ensure we transfer ownership of emissions at a heavily discounted rate, rather than making less emissions.
The problem isn’t curing greed, it is using an economic and governmental system that enables the people to be intentional about production and consumption. Capitalism isn’t it, it explicitly relies on markets which is an opaque tool which makes it difficult to live intentionally. Markets tell you to just “trust” that the price reflects the impact of that product or commodity.
The problem is greed. The solution is punishing it. Severely.
but I’m disabled and walking everywhere will send me back into a wheelchair.
…if you were disabled, a city built towards accessibility would be ideal.
perhaps I’m not understanding what you mean by the above.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You pay those corporations to pollute in the process of getting you the things you refuse to live without. You vote for those politicians to enable your consumerism and then blame corruption for the policies they pass to give you what you want. You claim that regular people can’t afford the needed changes, yet you insist on eating meat and using cars to get around as if those are free. You claim to want corporations to increase their operating costs to be more sustainable, but you complain about your purchasing power decreasing. You blame corporations for greed, but you insist on a personal electric car because you would rather spend >$50k than learn the difference between walkability and only being traversible on foot.
Not all corporate emissions are for private consumption, but most of them are. Not the whole decrease in personal purchasing power is from decolonization and switching to more sustainable production processes, but a decent chunk of it is. You will have to sacrifice products if you want any hope of a better world.
If there is one ray of hope I can offer you, it is that you seem to have too little faith in the quality of life in a degrowth economy. Modern walkable cities are more pleasant to traverse for more disabled people than car-centric ones, with mobility scooters and public transit chauffeurs. Alternatives to meat are delicious if prepared by a competent cook, and it’s easier to get a competent cook to make a fancier meal for you if you share meals with flatmates. Without SpaceX-raised satellites your internet and television connection might be worse, but as you share a meal your human connections can be stronger.
Corporations have spent the past 150+ years permeating every form of media about how necessary it is for you to consume and consume and consume. You don’t need their products nearly as much as you think you do, at least in the long term if we work together.
Nah, more oil drilling, more trucks and SUVs.
They’re just so big and safe!*
*not for the other drivers, or the pedestrians who get nailed by a rolling wall of a frontend.
or in the case of parents buying SUVs to make their own children safe, children are 8 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV versus a passenger car. (ie: in their own driveway) And that’s not even factoring the added risk of blindspots for children too small to be seen from the driver seat!
children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to those struck by a passenger car
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810
They also have significantly higher rollover risk which is why the best deaths per million kilometer stats belong to big sedans and wagon not SUVs.
“I like driving in a higher position, it makes me feel safer”
Well, technically we’ll reduce out emissions. Just, it’ll likely be after a mass extinction event.
“The planet is fine. The people are fucked.”
Will the rotting corpses cause a spike in carbon emissions or would it immediately drop?
Rotting corpses can’t order scop from Temu that ships on old bunker fuel ships, oddly in private jets that account for hundreds of cars worth of emissions per flight.
I think humans are mostly carbon-neutral, but decomposition might release gasses that are worse than just CO2. Burning them directly would probably be better.
Stupid rolling stone.
It’s SO FAR. Fixed
As in “We haven’t cut emissions to zero yet.” We can, and will. It’s a question of whether we do it quickly enough to preserve a civilization-supporting climate.
Likely not. The next years will be hell. Then, after 10 years or so - maybe sooner -, 2024 will be remembered as one of the more pleasant years with still bearable temperatures and comparably few catastrophes. We even still had affordable coffee and olive oil.
We should probably start with reducing the rate of increase first. Then talk about reducing emissions per year. As for zero emissions, I fail to see how we have a civilization of any sort without some emissions. Maybe that’s the point. Was “Net Zero” a hidden word for collapse all along?
Emissions have been falling in the US and EU since ~2005 or so, and look to be about to start falling in China, which means that they’ll be falling worldwide after this year.
But…they’ll likely be falling slowly, rather than rapidly, which is a problem.
That’s a really hopeful reading of that chart. What I see in that chart is that even a year or two of falling emissions could quickly be wiped away. Just look at 2022.
It’s a bit more than that; there are policies in place which make Chinese emissions likely to slowly drop from here on out
Did you just homer simpsoned a headline? 😅
Yes. But it makes the second sentence make more sense.
And for the answer, the Jurassic Park “see, nobody cares” meme would fit in well.
Like I understand what they are trying to say, but yeah really ticks me off when people say “ever” when they mean “yet”
we truly fucked ourselves huh
We’re at the point where we’ve stepped into a minefield, where each step forward risks losing major ecosystems. We need to take immediate steps to stop walking further into it.
no 😞
I care, but I’m week to week. Bread and circus.
Jokes on you tho. I’ve been desperately sick and stuck inside with air conditioning and cats🫅 battling that deadly virus that shut the world down a few years ago which scientists expect may happen more and more often bc climate change (pfff… whatever nerds). It was nice and cool in here, so I don’t know what the crying is all about. Just burry your head as deep as possible and the most dense and tightly packed sand you can get ahold of and, voilá, problem solved once and for all!
I absolutely care. It’s why I bought acres in place that had a high of 56f yesterday.
I’ll note that moving into the boreal forest is also a high-risk decision; those are all burning, burning more intensely, and burning more often.
I don’t think mature California coastal redwoods are boreal.
Don’t you need a permit to cut a single one down? Having property where those grow always seemed like a nightmare.
Why would I cut them down? I bought the property because of them. 200 ft tall trees, some in rings around the mother stump. It’s beautiful and fun.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nope. I live in Canada and I like heat.
Hope you like wide spread crop failure, rising food prices and climate migrates.
You like forest fires? You monster.
“Only you can prevent wildfires”…by consuming less…and boycotting polluters.
