meanwhile -
the billionaire class thanks you for your service
View: https://x.com/citizenfreepres/status/1787506722933805165?s=46&t=Ggu9XwDIEXbnnAwANmPFLg
View: https://x.com/a1inetheo/status/1751745813582110809?s=46&t=Ggu9XwDIEXbnnAwANmPFLg
I hear that, but it's also not really negative to point out that as much as 2.7 might be a huge improvement it would still be terrible for hundreds of millions of people and will cause untold fundamental upheaval that we can't even conceive of. That's just a fact we should all be aware of to help ensure we don't get there. It wasn't that long ago that 1.5 was the limit and looked how that turned out.
I think it's clear we are all going to have to make some sacrifices or changes at some level if we're to get the best case scenarios from this point, and we need to be honest about the risks of not doing so if we're to get there. It may seem like I'm just shitting on any optimism but that's not my intention.
I said if people have optimism they should use it. Use it and fight fight for every tenth of a degree in a way you can manage as it will reduce suffering for hundreds of millions of people. It's part of why I'll be taking direct action in the summer, I'm not giving up. Thinking your individual actions and choices don't matter is exactly what these billionaires and fossil fuel companies want you to think.
I appreciate your posts and perspective by the way.
What the fuck, just that top 10 list is probably like 5,000+ peoples carbon output.
That's not the main reason many people are not having kids.
It's not to reduce the population, it's because we're probably dooming them to live in a hellscape.
There very little that can convince me at this point there's any hope for the future. Forums like era sometimes cherry pick optimistic metrics but if you look at the full picture things are incredibly bleak.
The response to the COVID 19 pandemic ended my remaining hope. The fact we have outcomes like people vaccinating their kids less with established vaccines shows just how broken we are. Our systems enable conspiracy thinking to propagate effectively and those narratives counter any positive progress we want to make. The continuing misinformation pandemic, now accelerated by AI, has no solution and helps fuel the influx of folks into conspiracy territory.
We're going to set the planet on fire and even as it burns, people will deny it's because of climate change, the same way people on their death bed denied they had COVID-19 because the pandemic was a hoax. People will watch their house burn down and be looking for the space lasers that did it in order to build a 15 minute city.
I'm not bringing kids into a world that I view as almost certainly fucked. And "if you don't bring those kids into the world, we're definitely fucked" is not a good motivator.
That's completely fair; I can't disagree with anything you've said here. Keep fighting the good fight.
Every time I see a private jet overhead, and I see them constantly because I live near an airport, I feel like putting on clown make up. Let's all adapt our lifestlyes so the rich can keep theirs intact.
The average American's carbon footprint is 16 tons per year. Taylor Swift's footprint alone is equal to 518 Americans.
Edit: Missed a decimal point.
How does that math work? Wouldn't that be more like 500?
10 people are 160, 100 people are 1600, so yeah around 500.
Normalizing 2.7C and selling it as a win is some real goalpost shifting (not intended to the poster above). It's nearly double the 1.5C target and feels like some Silicon Valley venture capital funded start up's quarterly report where they "only" lost 490% of everyone's money and not 800% or saying "only" 1500 nuclear warheads were fired and not 1700 in some upcoming, nuclear war.
It's an improvement, but it feels like we shouldn't be aiming put the bar so low, given the real life ramifications.
Let's see how warm we get under another Trump presidency then!
No one can't stop me from buying that 8K PS5 PRO to play Balatro. NO ONE.
According to this graph Hillary Clinton posted on X, neither President will the hit the target and it's possible for the ranges to be the same under both. So I'm not sure it will necessarily make a huge difference.
View: https://x.com/hillaryclinton/status/1782400479743324603?s=46&t=T945Q7VlrGtSZfl4lGBSLA
Perhaps this is why climate scientists are "dooming"?
But if my single vote decides the election, we were already doomed to begin with.
The important thing is that people not use missing 1.5 as an excuse to just give up altogether. Aiming for 2.0 or so is still do-able even if 1.5 is missed, and it's still worth striving for.
I could be wrong, but I think that is just the emissions from her plane alone so that number is gonna be waaaaay higher.
The graph you posted shows the ranges under both being extremely different, though? The Biden trajectory even hews close to the target through the end of his term in 2029, at which point the trajectory will be determined by who is elected for the term after that.
The ranges almost meet up as well so it's possible that it won't make a huge difference.
Neither of them hit the target which is the biggest problem.
Regardless, it's not my vote that will decide anyway.
Are we looking at the same graph? The trajectories are extremely different through 2030. The only places the ranges overlap is as they rapidly diverge at the very beginning.
The Biden trajectory is a steep decline for the next 5 years at least, the Trump trajectory is about 80% less.
The target line isn't a binary good/bad threshold. Being 80% of the way to the target is infinitely better than being 20% of the way there, and it keeps it within range from 2030 onwards. That was the consensus of climate organizations after the passage of the IRA, and it's the same thing the graph is showing here.
Trump's lowest almost touches Biden's highest at the end of the graph in 2050.
To you and to them it's not. To me, it is. Don't make a promise if you can't keep it.
I'm actually surprised to see that US carbon emissions have been declining since 2005. I assume the world is still getting hotter due to industrializations around the globe
It's basically that. A new Ember study in a different thread on here says they suspect 2023 was actually peak fossil fuel emissions as renewables keep growing fast.
Yes, because there is inherently tons of uncertainty in forecasting out to 2050, given that there will be multiple other administrations between now and then and we don't know what they will or won't do. Biden and Trump won't be in charge of what happens with climate policy in the 2030s or 2040s. More policies will have to be enacted by the politicians of those decades.
But that doesn't change how important it is to keep the 2020s as close to on-track as we can. And even given that uncertainty the most pessimistic Biden scenario doesn't overlap with the most optimistic Trump scenario.
You don't think there's a massive and important difference between those two extremely different trajectories?
I think hitting the target is the most important thing as well as politicians keeping their promises.
Have kids to be the gears that grind out a future climate war. Got it.
Nimbus O'Connor needs to be born to pilot the Starship applying the second global coat of sulfur particles to keep Earth at a balmy +4.1C.
Understandable feeling But it's also important to remember that letting that fear and panic paralyze us is the worst outcome. We should do what we can where we can. Even the plastic straws, which won't reverse the climate change but I don't think that's the point.
I'm confident we will reduce emissions to sustainable levels and will still have planet in a livable state, I'm not worried about that, what I'm actually worried about is what comes after that. Because if we look at how people behave with weight loss, I'm very afraid there is going to be a rebound in emissions just as there is a rebound in weight gain. In generation or two people will have gotten complacent again in regards to climate change and emissions will go up again. And when that rebound happens, the damage from this first increase will still be around causing the 2nd one to be even worse.
It's why I'm a firm believer in that we can't solve climate change with measures that induce a starvation mindset in people. Because that can last only so long before there is a rebound. Luckily renewables will be more efficient energy producers in the long run than fossil fuels, I don't think there will be a rebound there. But in other aspects of sustainability this human incompatibility with starvation mindset is going to be a real problem that will not go away any time soon.
I'm confident we will reduce emissions to sustainable levels and will still have planet in a livable state, I'm not worried about that, what I'm actually worried about is what comes after that. Because if we look at how people behave with weight loss, I'm very afraid there is going to be a rebound in emissions just as there is a rebound in weight gain. In generation or two people will have gotten complacent again in regards to climate change and emissions will go up again. And when that rebound happens, the damage from this first increase will still be around causing the 2nd one to be even worse.
It's why I'm a firm believer in that we can't solve climate change with measures that induce a starvation mindset in people. Because that can last only so long before there is a rebound. Luckily renewables will be more efficient energy producers in the long run than fossil fuels, I don't think there will be a rebound there. But in other aspects of sustainability this human incompatibility with starvation mindset is going to be a real problem that will not go away any time soon.
Last edited:
If hitting the target is "the most important thing" then one would imagine being 4x closer to the target would be a good thing, and that one should want the current policies continued and built upon instead of handwaving their importance. That seems to be the consensus of climate orgs and experts:
You are free to not vote for Biden because of his handling of Gaza. Trying to backreason that by pretending that the emissions trajectories / climate impacts aren't very different is hogwash. There is a huge difference, as demonstrated by the chart you're citing and the climate scientists you referred to.
Did I say it was bad?
I'm not back reasoning it into anything. You seem to think I'm making that argument. I'm not and I haven't said that not hitting the target is why I'm not voting for Biden. I'm simply saying that the target itself is the most important thing to me. You can disagree. Feel free.
You said:
And I'm saying that no, the emissions will not be the same under both, and yes, that is a huge difference. A huge difference, especially given the importance of meeting the target that you cited. Both of those points are confirmed by the graph you posted and the climate scientists you referred to.
Sure but this has nothing to do with back reasoning.
I don't agree it will necessarily make a huge difference.
I'm honestly actually hopeful just seeing how worried kids and teens are about climate issues, once they start hitting Senate and House age I think we might actually see a pretty big upheaval.
You cited the lack of a "huge difference" in emissions trajectories in response to a comment on why you're not voting for Biden.
Then you're disagreeing with the chart you provided and the climate experts you referred to.
āHopeless and brokenā: why the worldās top climate scientists are in despair
Exclusive: Survey of hundreds of experts reveals harrowing picture of future, but they warn climate fight must not be abandonedwww.theguardian.com
Most of the world governments do not care And play lip service. Let's start the convo there. And that shows with how we still try to continuously develop weapons of mass destruction and mfg items with disregard to the pollution it causes.
No. I said I won't and then I said I don't necessarily think that voting for Biden would make a huge difference.
I didn't say why I wasn't voting for Biden. I just said I won't vote Dem.
Or I think that a huge difference would be hitting target vs. not hitting it.
I'm dooming with the climate scientists is all.
Which is disproved by the chart you cited in that same post, and the consensus view of the climate experts you referred to.
Okay, you're free to do that.
Getting 60-80% of the way to an emissions target is a huge difference versus undoing the Biden admin's policies and getting 20-30% of the way there. The effects of emissions are a range, not a binary. If you can't acknowledge okay, you're allowed to feel that way, but then you're disagreeing with the climate experts and data that you previously cited.
You can't disprove what is or isn't a huge difference to me. This is a matter of opinion.
Climate experts and others can decide what is a huge difference to them.
View: https://x.com/planesanity/status/1782206742853525772?s=46&t=Ggu9XwDIEXbnnAwANmPFLg
the difference i made for the whole year by "changing" was wiped out by just 1 one of those trips. but please continue to chastise and guilt the average joe eating a burger with their minimum wage earnings about how it's their fault
Okay, so you are disagreeing with the experts and data you previously referred to. lol. I'll keep in mind that future posts are personal 'climate opinions' that can't be disproven by data or expert analysis. Anything to not be wrong on an internet forum.
Yes. My definition of huge difference is different from their's. There's a lot of opinions here. Including in the OP as the climate scientists think what the temperature increase will be is different. The experts have differing opinions so it's okay for us to have differing opinions.
Who cares about being wrong on a forum? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I accept it.
People pushing Big Oil propaganda is going to guarantee we fail to change the climate. Listen to the scientists and the statistics. If they say we as individuals have little to no effect in being able to change the climate and regulation against corporations and top carbon emitters are where to focus, then that is the path to take.
Edit: removed rant. had to cool off after watching Zionists in Israel dump crates of food off of an aid truck meant for Gaza so I got heated while typing this post.
Edit: removed rant. had to cool off after watching Zionists in Israel dump crates of food off of an aid truck meant for Gaza so I got heated while typing this post.
Last edited:
Gotta add these as well for "AI":
It saves me time
It lets me pretend that I'm an artist
It has reduced overhead at my company
using this logic we shouldn't vote because I'm just one out of hundreds of millions and it doesn't matter, just let me play games on Election Day instead of guilt tripping me.
What about Taylor swift, what about corporations, what about china, whatabout whatabout whatabout doesn't help us.
1 vote from a billionaire does not eliminate 10 peoples votes
but the co2 emissions from 1 flight from a private jet is way more than what 10 regular people can produce for the whole year
what me and my entire bloodline can pollute in our entire existence, zuckerberg and swift do more than that in a week if not a day. but we have the same amount of votes
that's a total nonsensical comparison
You know you can do both right? You can embody your beliefs on a personal level even though the overall impact is minuscule, and also take more potentially significant action, such as voting for a climate aware group/individual, which I'm sure those people would obviously do. If anything most of the more significant actions are the easiest ones, ticking a box in a voting booth or emailing your local politician is a piece of piss.
If anything those miniscule actions would make you more consistent. I don't know how the fuck you could describe those people as fake. Surely people that moan about the state of the climate whilst carrying on like business as usual are the "fakes", if anyone.
Not that this is relevant in the slightest, but billionaires push their thumb on elections orders of magnitude more than just 10 people.
Whataboutism isn't suppose to be a religion that you dedicate your life to and threaten the stability of our society for.
The only thing that matters is what we need to do to prevent our society from being threatened, we can do the blame game and fair/unfair thing later.