Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late

anamika · Mar 21, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
Yup - like climate change is going to be terrible for a lot of people, and that's going to possibly lead to some very scary politics in reaction.

But, if you currently live in a major Western nation, you're probably going to be fine and there's no reason not to have children or any other extreme reaction. That's not to say we shouldn't have wide-scale investments in renewables, heavy regulation, carbon taxes, etc., but we don't need to ban plane travel or vacations.

Yeah people in third world countries are going to suffer but no worries we in the west can continue to live happy lives, have children and go on vacation? Like I get what you are trying to say here but it's in such bad taste considering how devastating climate change has already been in countries like Pakistan suffering from heatwaves, glacier melts and floods, when as a country they contribute to less than 1% of greenhouse gases. It's like bragging about how the Western world can continue on as usual while the Global south suffers - mainly due to the capitalistic lifestyle of the West. It's the poor people living on a dollar a day who have lost homes and family because of climate change in Pakistan.

Climate change is already here. It's already devastating vast tracts of land and destroying lives. That's the point of this report and the dire warning from the scientists. That there needs to be an urgency in governments ALL over the world globally, to address this. That this needs to be the priority. And many poor countries don't have the money to implement green policies so how does the world address that etc. There's just so much that needs to be done but global governments seem to be more interested at pointing fingers at each other - to win elections and for domestic reasons and geopolitics - while as always the poor continue to suffer.

Macam · Mar 22, 2023

Clydefrog said:
This graph as provided in the OP is just depressing AF. Our currently implemented policies are NOWHERE NEAR the limit to keep warming at 2 degrees C. 2 degrees warming is a catastrophic scenario for the planet. The way we're going, we're looking at beyond catastrophe.

Our only hope is to engineer some miraculous things/ideas to bring us back down to some kind of livable future. Because it's clear governments and corporations are not interested in changing policies to get us within even a 2 degree level. Jesus...

Yup. We're heading to a 3-4 degree C scenario, and generally the outcomes have been worse than the actual predictions, so who knows what that will entail. It's not as if the outcomes are linearly worse either; a 3C change could be exponentially worse than a 2C change.

Also, I don't think people in the West will continue to live happy lives (continental Europe is in for a rough, rough ride, as are significant parts of the US).

Milky Way · Mar 22, 2023

lol yeah don't worry, the west will be fine. As if we're not having insane weather right now and lake mead is going to be a dead pool soon. Totally fine guys. We'll get to keep our standard of living while those in the global south die!! Just lol

JesseEwiak · Mar 22, 2023

anamika said:
Yeah people in third world countries are going to suffer but no worries we in the west can continue to live happy lives, have children and go on vacation? Like I get what you are trying to say here but it's in such bad taste considering how devastating climate change has already been in countries like Pakistan suffering from heatwaves, glacier melts and floods, when as a country they contribute to less than 1% of greenhouse gases. It's like bragging about how the Western world can continue on as usual while the Global south suffers - mainly due to the capitalistic lifestyle of the West. It's the poor people living on a dollar a day who have lost homes and family because of climate change in Pakistan.

I mean, yes. I'm not saying it's good, but it's better to be truthful, than to spin up stories about how we're all doomed, then turn around and in 2050, life for the vast majority of American's hasn't changed that much at least in the ways many activists are currently claiming, and opponents can easily say, "the alarmists have been saying you were all supposed to be starving, doomed, and in a broken country for close to fifty years" or whatever. Of course, opponents will always hyperbolize, but it's better not to have done things people can just play the video on, then point to the world and say, 'nope, didn't happen.'

I'm not bragging, I'm simply stating facts, in response to people claiming they're not going to have kids because of climate change. In the First World, sorry, that's a silly argument.

Also, though, to be 100% fair, and I'm not blaming them for this at all, for we've seen that hundreds of millions of Indian's, Chinese, and other people in developing countries happily embrace livelihoods where they're emitting more carbon , because it turns out, not only dirty Western capitalists like cars, nice things, and bigger homes. The problem isn't Western capitalism. The problem is humanity at-large. The actions of past non-capitalist countries show the idea that if the right ideology in charge, we wouldn't have this issue, is kind of a hope at best.

Unless you honestly think the United States of Socialist America would've just kept the oil and coal in the ground.

Milky Way said:
lol yeah don't worry, the west will be fine. As if we're not having insane weather right now and lake mead is going to be a dead pool soon. Totally fine guys. We'll get to keep our standard of living while those in the global south die!! Just lol

I'm not claiming it's going to be perfect, but it's going to be far better than the more apocalyptic scenarios people are talking about. I'll put it this way - life in the US in 2050 will be such, that a majority of people still wouldn't agree to the changes that many environmental activists want, like limiting plane flights, taxing meat, et al. Yeah, there may be some positive regulation and new taxation, but the majorirty of change will be because solar/wind/etc. is abundant and cheap, as opposed to forcing people to use it, raising their energy costs.

DongBeetle · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
I mean, yes. I'm not saying it's good, but it's better to be truthful, than to spin up stories about how we're all doomed, then turn around and in 2050, life for the vast majority of American's hasn't changed that much at least in the ways many activists are currently claiming, and opponents can easily say, "the alarmists have been saying you were all supposed to be starving, doomed, and in a broken country for close to fifty years" or whatever. Of course, opponents will always hyperbolize, but it's better not to have done things people can just play the video on, then point to the world and say, 'nope, didn't happen.'

I'm not bragging, I'm simply stating facts, in response to people claiming they're not going to have kids because of climate change. In the First World, sorry, that's a silly argument.

Also, though, to be 100% fair, and I'm not blaming them for this at all, for we've seen that hundreds of millions of Indian's, Chinese, and other people in developing countries happily embrace livelihoods where they're emitting more carbon , because it turns out, not only dirty Western capitalists like cars, nice things, and bigger homes. The problem isn't Western capitalism. The problem is humanity at-large. The actions of past non-capitalist countries show the idea that if the right ideology in charge, we wouldn't have this issue, is kind of a hope at best.

Unless you honestly think the United States of Socialist America would've just kept the oil and coal in the ground.

I'm not claiming it's going to be perfect, but it's going to be far better than the more apocalyptic scenarios people are talking about. I'll put it this way - life in the US in 2050 will be such, that a majority of people still wouldn't agree to the changes that many environmental activists want, like limiting plane flights, taxing meat, et al. Yeah, there may be some positive regulation and new taxation, but the majorirty of change will be because solar/wind/etc. is abundant and cheap, as opposed to forcing people to use it, raising their energy costs.

What makes you think that billions around the world becoming displaced due to climate change won't affect or make life harder for those living in first world countries? People in the continental US have already felt weather extremes and whatnot, some have gone without power due to it. Wealth will only insulate us so much but eventually we too will feel the squeeze. What basis or background do you have to dismiss the current wealth of knowledge concerning this? No shit sherlock people won't like what's necessary to get back on track, but it's important

Milky Way · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
I mean, yes. I'm not saying it's good, but it's better to be truthful, than to spin up stories about how we're all doomed, then turn around and in 2050, life for the vast majority of American's hasn't changed that much at least in the ways many activists are currently claiming, and opponents can easily say, "the alarmists have been saying you were all supposed to be starving, doomed, and in a broken country for close to fifty years" or whatever. Of course, opponents will always hyperbolize, but it's better not to have done things people can just play the video on, then point to the world and say, 'nope, didn't happen.'

I'm not bragging, I'm simply stating facts, in response to people claiming they're not going to have kids because of climate change. In the First World, sorry, that's a silly argument.

Also, though, to be 100% fair, and I'm not blaming them for this at all, for we've seen that hundreds of millions of Indian's, Chinese, and other people in developing countries happily embrace livelihoods where they're emitting more carbon , because it turns out, not only dirty Western capitalists like cars, nice things, and bigger homes. The problem isn't Western capitalism. The problem is humanity at-large. The actions of past non-capitalist countries show the idea that if the right ideology in charge, we wouldn't have this issue, is kind of a hope at best.

Unless you honestly think the United States of Socialist America would've just kept the oil and coal in the ground.

I'm not claiming it's going to be perfect, but it's going to be far better than the more apocalyptic scenarios people are talking about. I'll put it this way - life in the US in 2050 will be such, that a majority of people still wouldn't agree to the changes that many environmental activists want, like limiting plane flights, taxing meat, et al. Yeah, there may be some positive regulation and new taxation, but the majorirty of change will be because solar/wind/etc. is abundant and cheap, as opposed to forcing people to use it, raising their energy costs.

I love how confident you are that in 2050 life won't be much different in the US. That is an absolutely wild statement to make. That is around 2 degrees of Celsius. We are having much worse repercussions than anticipated at 1.1 degrees. But 2050 it won't be that bad? Ok. We have a major major water problem domestically, to begin with, with 0 signs of it getting better. We also have an El Niño coming next year that could have us temporarily hit 1.5. Also you can miss me with this bullshit human nature vs capitalism nonsense. Btw who should I listen to, climate scientists screaming at the top for their lungs that we need to be in emergency mode, or you? Cause it won't be that bad. Hmmmmm

RM8 · Mar 22, 2023

I don't mean to say there's no value in what scientists say, but clearly mega corporations and billionares know better.

We're so screwed :(

Macam · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
I'm not bragging, I'm simply stating facts, in response to people claiming they're not going to have kids because of climate change. In the First World, sorry, that's a silly argument.

Not going to expend a lot of text on this, other than to say *this* is the silly argument. Also, people still use terms like "First World"? Yikes.

JesseEwiak · Mar 22, 2023

DongBeetle said:
People in the continental US have already felt weather extremes and whatnot, some have gone without power due to it. Wealth will only insulate us so much but eventually we too will feel the squeeze.

Feeling a squeeze is different than apocalypse. Also, a dirty little secret is for a signifigant part of the country, climate change is in some ways, good for them. Obviously, not worth tthe environmental damage, but Detroit and Cleveland real estate will look good in a few decades if those on the more dooming side are right.

What basis or background do you have to dismiss the current wealth of knowledge concerning this?

Because if you look at the 'current wealth and knowledge', including as people in this thread have pointed out, what reports like this have guessed before, you'd see things that are trurly worrying, but not 'don't have kids while living in the US' worrying.

No shit sherlock people won't like what's necessary to get back on track, but it's important

Then you guys better figure out a better argument to a couple in Wisconsin than, "oh sorry, got to greatly increase the cost of fuel for your truck, and oh, you want to visit your family in Bolivia? Sorry, the price of that is now 10x for the good of the planet an oh, you want to still cook meat - sorry, that also is 5x more expensive, but we have some nice lab made meat for you. Oh, and we're also making basically everything in your life more expensive, but hey, we'll have a job you don't want if we regulate yours out of existence, and some free healthcare you won't believe is as good as what you currently have, so you'll totally vote for us, right? Right?"

Macam said:
Not going to expend a lot of text on this, other than to say *this* is the silly argument. Also, people still use terms like "First World"? Yikes.

I mean, if you truly believe a nurse and a construction worker in suburban San Antoinio shouldn't have children, because that kid's life will be that terrrible, OK. But good luck with the fatalism.

But also, sorry, First World/OECD/very rich countries. Whatever is the preferred nomeclatue for very rich countries.

DongBeetle · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
Feeling a squeeze is different than apocalypse. Also, a dirty little secret is for a signifigant part of the country, climate change is in some ways, good for them. Obviously, not worth tthe environmental damage, but Detroit and Cleveland real estate will look good in a few decades if those on the more dooming side are right.

Because if you look at the 'current wealth and knowledge', including as people in this thread have pointed out, what reports like this have guessed before, you'd see things that are trurly worrying, but not 'don't have kids while living in the US' worrying.

Then you guys better figure out a better argument to a couple in Wisconsin than, "oh sorry, got to greatly increase the cost of fuel for your truck, and oh, you want to visit your family in Bolivia? Sorry, the price of that is now 10x for the good of the planet an oh, you want to still cook meat - sorry, that also is 5x more expensive, but we have some nice lab made meat for you. Oh, and we're also making basically everything in your life more expensive, but hey, we'll have a job you don't want if we regulate yours out of existence, and some free healthcare you won't believe is as good as what you currently have, so you'll totally vote for us, right? Right?"

I mean, if you truly believe a nurse and a construction worker in suburban San Antoinio shouldn't have children, because that kid's life will be that terrrible, OK. But good luck with the fatalism.

But also, sorry, First World/OECD/very rich countries. Whatever is the preferred nomeclatue for very rich countries.

At that point it's just semantics then. Millions in the US are living in areas which are poised to run out of water very soon. Millions are in areas which are going to experience disastrous weather extremes more and more frequently. Millions will go hungry as scarcity will cause prices to rise anyways even without legislation lol. Yes I agree with your point that most people will not accept the necessary sacrifices. Personally I think this situation is hopeless. Which is why I"m not having kids lol

Macam · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
I mean, if you truly believe a nurse and a construction worker in suburban San Antoinio shouldn't have children, because that kid's life will be that terrrible, OK. But good luck with the fatalism.

This is now a different argument than the one I quoted. I have zero idea why the occupation now matters or why it's now shifted to other people making a decision.

Someone choosing to not have a child because they looked at the scientific literature on what the future may look like and opted not to, isn't that different than, say, choosing not to buy a home in a high fire or flood prone area.

But anyway, it's a dumb argument and deviates from the very real issue of the report which remains terrifying.

anamika · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
Also, though, to be 100% fair, and I'm not blaming them for this at all, for we've seen that hundreds of millions of Indian's, Chinese, and other people in developing countries happily embrace livelihoods where they're emitting more carbon , because it turns out, not only dirty Western capitalists like cars, nice things, and bigger homes. The problem isn't Western capitalism. The problem is humanity at-large. The actions of past non-capitalist countries show the idea that if the right ideology in charge, we wouldn't have this issue, is kind of a hope at best.

India and China have a population around 1.4 billion each. Half the Indian population is below the poverty line. which means living on a dollar a day.

This is per capita emissions.

But yeah, it must be all those Indian and Chinese people having the lifestyles of the rich and famous that's responsible for all this.

BakedTanooki · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
I mean, yes. I'm not saying it's good, but it's better to be truthful, than to spin up stories about how we're all doomed, then turn around and in 2050, life for the vast majority of American's hasn't changed that much at least in the ways many activists are currently claiming, and opponents can easily say, "the alarmists have been saying you were all supposed to be starving, doomed, and in a broken country for close to fifty years" or whatever. Of course, opponents will always hyperbolize, but it's better not to have done things people can just play the video on, then point to the world and say, 'nope, didn't happen.'

I'm not bragging, I'm simply stating facts, in response to people claiming they're not going to have kids because of climate change. In the First World, sorry, that's a silly argument.

Also, though, to be 100% fair, and I'm not blaming them for this at all, for we've seen that hundreds of millions of Indian's, Chinese, and other people in developing countries happily embrace livelihoods where they're emitting more carbon , because it turns out, not only dirty Western capitalists like cars, nice things, and bigger homes. The problem isn't Western capitalism. The problem is humanity at-large. The actions of past non-capitalist countries show the idea that if the right ideology in charge, we wouldn't have this issue, is kind of a hope at best.

Unless you honestly think the United States of Socialist America would've just kept the oil and coal in the ground.

I'm not claiming it's going to be perfect, but it's going to be far better than the more apocalyptic scenarios people are talking about. I'll put it this way - life in the US in 2050 will be such, that a majority of people still wouldn't agree to the changes that many environmental activists want, like limiting plane flights, taxing meat, et al. Yeah, there may be some positive regulation and new taxation, but the majorirty of change will be because solar/wind/etc. is abundant and cheap, as opposed to forcing people to use it, raising their energy costs.

You can't be serious.
Very naive, especially in the face of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence and the 3+ billion people who are already heavily affected.
And your claim about humanity itself being the problem and not the system(s) is also wrong and scientifically debunked.

JesseEwiak · Mar 22, 2023

anamika said:
But yeah, it must be all those Indian and Chinese people having the lifestyles of the rich and famous that's responsible for all this.

You totally missed my point. My point isn't that Indian, Chinese, and other developing countries are responsible. My point was that people in those countries like individual cars, fast fashion, cheap plastic stuff, and everything else as much as people in the US & Europe do the moment they have access too, which shouldn't be surprising at all, if you look at how successful members of those nationalities act just like normal American's or Europeans in consumption.

But I know, if not for capitalism, everybody in Beijing would still be happily driving bicycles.

Thorrgal · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
But the majorirty of change will be because solar/wind/etc. is abundant and cheap, as opposed to forcing people to use it, raising their energy costs.

This is not true and it shows a total misunderstanding of the issues at hand.

Milky Way · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
Feeling a squeeze is different than apocalypse. Also, a dirty little secret is for a signifigant part of the country, climate change is in some ways, good for them. Obviously, not worth tthe environmental damage, but Detroit and Cleveland real estate will look good in a few decades if those on the more dooming side are right.

Because if you look at the 'current wealth and knowledge', including as people in this thread have pointed out, what reports like this have guessed before, you'd see things that are trurly worrying, but not 'don't have kids while living in the US' worrying.

Then you guys better figure out a better argument to a couple in Wisconsin than, "oh sorry, got to greatly increase the cost of fuel for your truck, and oh, you want to visit your family in Bolivia? Sorry, the price of that is now 10x for the good of the planet an oh, you want to still cook meat - sorry, that also is 5x more expensive, but we have some nice lab made meat for you. Oh, and we're also making basically everything in your life more expensive, but hey, we'll have a job you don't want if we regulate yours out of existence, and some free healthcare you won't believe is as good as what you currently have, so you'll totally vote for us, right? Right?"

I mean, if you truly believe a nurse and a construction worker in suburban San Antoinio shouldn't have children, because that kid's life will be that terrrible, OK. But good luck with the fatalism.

But also, sorry, First World/OECD/very rich countries. Whatever is the preferred nomeclatue for very rich countries.

Your problem is you're such a politics Andy you're treating this like politics and worrying about votes and elections and fucking real estate rather than the humanitarian crisis this is. Nurse and construction worker? You sound like you're on the campaign trail. I can't lmao

David Incorporated Esq. · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
You totally missed my point. My point isn't that Indian, Chinese, and other developing countries are responsible. My point was that people in those countries like individual cars, fast fashion, cheap plastic stuff, and everything else as much as people in the US & Europe do the moment they have access too, which shouldn't be surprising at all, if you look at how successful members of those nationalities act just like normal American's or Europeans in consumption.

But I know, if not for capitalism, everybody in Beijing would still be happily driving bicycles.

And as the middle and upper classes grow in these nations the increase in emissions is going to be incredible.

David Incorporated Esq. · Mar 22, 2023

Milky Way said:
Your problem is you're such a politics Andy you're treating this like politics and worrying about votes and elections and fucking real estate rather than the humanitarian crisis this is. Nurse and construction worker? You sound like you're on the campaign trail. I can't lmao

This is all about enacting policy for change, and one can only do that if they have votes. Barring eco-fascist dictators, of course, like a cruel, tyrannical but effective Captain Planet.

Milky Way · Mar 22, 2023

David Incorporated Esq. said:
This is all about enacting policy for change, and one can only do that if they have votes. Barring eco-fascist dictators, of course, like a cruel, tyrannical but effective Captain Planet.

Obviously. Im just saying we're talking about a crisis killing millions of people, especially in the global south, and how we as a whole society, not just the US, need to work together because of the very serious danger we all face, and he's just talking about it like it's another election season. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, idk

Era of not Yakuza · Mar 22, 2023

MathChief said:
Agree. Currently, humans are literally the cancer of the earth.

It's more like capitalism is the cause
There are a lot of societies who live in harmony with nature

Shin Kojima · Mar 22, 2023

This seems like a great time to not have kids.

bremon · Mar 22, 2023

Hard not to be cynical when all you can do on a personal level is small stuff, and the reward for that is "everyone is still fucked, but I can be proud it's more because of others than myself".

SunBroDave said:
Meanwhile conservatives and capitalists fight over who will be king of the ashes

"My nerd brother was telling me about this race of elves in this game called Warhammer that is ruled by someone with the title 'Phoenix King'"
"Damn. That sounds awesome. I want that title."

JesseEwiak said:
Feeling a squeeze is different than apocalypse. Also, a dirty little secret is for a signifigant part of the country, climate change is in some ways, good for them. Obviously, not worth tthe environmental damage, but Detroit and Cleveland real estate will look good in a few decades if those on the more dooming side are right.

I laughed out loud at this. Capitalism gonna capitalism, even in its death throes.

Fallout-NL · Mar 22, 2023

LegendofJoe said:
This is the argument Xi Jinping has made to leaders in Europe and the US. That democracy cannot survive the 21st century because ordinary people aren't capable of making good decisions in a world changing too rapidly for them to keep up. In other words be careful what you ask for, eco-fascism is going to be very popular in all likelihood.

I have serious issues with the term eco-fascism. It sounds a lot like something a fucking oil think tank came up with to discourage people from pushing for more regulations, which is what I'm asking for - I obviously don't want a CCP style dictatorship. Though let's be fucking real for a minute here, if the choice is between a dictatorship that at the very least results in drastically cut emissions or the effective collapse of what we view as modern civilisation, I would rather put up with the former.

However, there's a fairly large gap between full on fucking fascism and simple regulations, tax incentives and the vastly more effective (as opposed to the gradual change some of you people still naively believe in) curbing of emissions through government policy.

In short, the eco fascism thing really grinds my goddamn gears. Like what the fuck.

nolongerexists · Mar 22, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
Then you guys better figure out a better argument to a couple in Wisconsin than, "oh sorry, got to greatly increase the cost of fuel for your truck, and oh, you want to visit your family in Bolivia? Sorry, the price of that is now 10x for the good of the planet an oh, you want to still cook meat - sorry, that also is 5x more expensive, but we have some nice lab made meat for you. Oh, and we're also making basically everything in your life more expensive, but hey, we'll have a job you don't want if we regulate yours out of existence, and some free healthcare you won't believe is as good as what you currently have, so you'll totally vote for us, right? Right?"

Why should society cater to people who are so selfish, shortsighted, and inflexible that they are seemingly incapable of properly differentiating between wants and needs? You keep posting as if you're being the sensible voice of reason when what you really seem to be advocating for is letting the inmates run the asylum.

People being unwilling to give up small luxuries for the greater good is part of the problem. Catering to those people doesn't change the math, it simply kicks the can down the road. That's more or less what we've been doing for years now and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

Elandyll · Mar 22, 2023

Fallout-NL said:
I have serious issues with the term eco-fascism. It sounds a lot like something a fucking oil think tank came up with to discourage people from pushing for more regulations, which is what I'm asking for - I obviously don't want a CCP style dictatorship. Though let's be fucking real for a minute here, if the choice is between a dictatorship that at the very least results in drastically cut emissions or the effective collapse of what we view as modern civilisation, I would rather put up with the former.

However, there's a fairly large gap between full on fucking fascism and simple regulations, tax incentives and the vastly more effective (as opposed to the gradual change some of you people still naively believe in) curbing of emissions through government policy.

In short, the eco fascism thing really grinds my goddamn gears. Like what the fuck.

Well, if we look at things from a macro level, it's either going to be "eco fascism", slow self correction via exploding birth rate decline in post industrial economies (which is actually a good and logical thing) or fast self correction via massive environmental collapse.

Because let's be honest, your average person is just not willing to be inconvenienced beyond a token level, until we're going to be way past the "it was too late 10 years ago" stage.

Baji Boxer · Mar 22, 2023

Fallout-NL said:
I have serious issues with the term eco-fascism. It sounds a lot like something a fucking oil think tank came up with to discourage people from pushing for more regulations, which is what I'm asking for - I obviously don't want a CCP style dictatorship. Though let's be fucking real for a minute here, if the choice is between a dictatorship that at the very least results in drastically cut emissions or the effective collapse of what we view as modern civilisation, I would rather put up with the former.

However, there's a fairly large gap between full on fucking fascism and simple regulations, tax incentives and the vastly more effective (as opposed to the gradual change some of you people still naively believe in) curbing of emissions through government policy.

In short, the eco fascism thing really grinds my goddamn gears. Like what the fuck.

Eco-Fascism is a real thing, though it did start off as an academic hypothetical form of government followed by a slur used against environmentalists.

OmegaProtocol · Mar 22, 2023

When are we scheduled to hit 1.5C?

Milky Way · Mar 22, 2023

GTGear said:
When are we scheduled to hit 1.5C?

Around 2030-2040. We also are likely to temporarily hit 1.5 next year when El Niño returns.

Dandy · Mar 22, 2023

When half the population thinks the existence of snow disproves climate change... it's already too late.

TyrantII · Mar 22, 2023

The mass migrations and wars it causes are gonna be real fun for the next generation.

I've pretty much decided to not bring children into this world because of this, and it's looking more and more like it's going to happen.

Dice · Mar 22, 2023

Dandy said:
When half the population thinks the existence of snow disproves climate change... it's already too late.

The thread about looking good on tinder dates is doing better than this thread lol 😅👍

Our priorities have always been so fucked.

ArkhamFantasy · Mar 22, 2023

Dandy said:
When half the population thinks the existence of snow disproves climate change... it's already too late.

The issue isn't convincing people climate change is real, the issue is getting them to do whatever they're able to help mitigate.

FliX · Mar 22, 2023

ArkhamFantasy said:
The issue isn't convincing people climate change is real, the issue is getting them to do whatever they're able to help mitigate.

Well you have to do one before you can have any hope of doing the other....

Captain Smoker · Mar 22, 2023

David Incorporated Esq. said:
And as the middle and upper classes grow in these nations the increase in emissions is going to be incredible.

These nations are also going to use renewables at an increasing pace. The electric grid in Vietnam had 0% renewables in 2015 and is up to 11% renewables in 2021. Granted, they are also the poster child in that region in this regard.

Fast growing regions like ASEAN make up 6% of global emissions at the moment, a third of this being Indonesia.

By the time they reach an economic size that would make an impact, we've probably already reached the point where global emissions are shrinking on a yearly basis due to the decreases in the US, EU and China being the wildcard, but their renewable output seems to outpace expectations, so there's that.

Milky Way · Mar 22, 2023

ArkhamFantasy said:
The issue isn't convincing people climate change is real, the issue is getting them to do whatever they're able to help mitigate.

Actually there's a shit ton of people who don't believe climate change is real, and therefore you will never get them onboard to do anything to help.

MrKlaw · Mar 22, 2023

anamika said:
There's research and a paper published on how much damage rich people are doing.

The paper:

Millionaire spending incompatible with 1.5 °C ambitions

View: https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1637819614942969857?cxt=HHwWgoC-reSQ2rotAAAA

We have to eat the rich - raw?

Pomerlaw · Mar 22, 2023

Laephis said:
That's all any of us can do. And the more people who take these steps means the more companies have to change to match the changing market. And the more our governments will listen.

It's exhausting to read all the comments drenched in apathy and cynicism. We all make choices every day and those choices can either move us collectively in a better direction or not. Personally, I want to be able to tell my family that I challenged myself to change even when it wasn't convenient and did everything I could.

Doomists rejoice on ERA. Even they like to be proven right.

Macam said:
Yup. We're heading to a 3-4 degree C scenario,

No, depends on many factors and other policies incoming

MrKlaw · Mar 22, 2023

It frustrates me that developed economies can't see the potential for driving growth through climate change science. Investment in renewables, refreshing the vehicle fleet, making industry like concrete, steel, fertiliser carbon neutral

There is money to be made which also incidentally helps the planet

Pomerlaw · Mar 22, 2023

MrKlaw said:
It frustrates me that developed economies can't see the potential for driving growth through climate change science. Investment in renewables, refreshing the vehicle fleet, making industry like concrete, steel, fertiliser carbon neutral

There is money to be made which also incidentally helps the planet

Old guard is rich and strong and needs to move out

Booshka · Mar 22, 2023

Fallout-NL said:
I have serious issues with the term eco-fascism. It sounds a lot like something a fucking oil think tank came up with to discourage people from pushing for more regulations, which is what I'm asking for - I obviously don't want a CCP style dictatorship. Though let's be fucking real for a minute here, if the choice is between a dictatorship that at the very least results in drastically cut emissions or the effective collapse of what we view as modern civilisation, I would rather put up with the former.

However, there's a fairly large gap between full on fucking fascism and simple regulations, tax incentives and the vastly more effective (as opposed to the gradual change some of you people still naively believe in) curbing of emissions through government policy.

In short, the eco fascism thing really grinds my goddamn gears. Like what the fuck.

Ya I prefer to reserve that term to people that write manifestos before mass shootings targeting minorities they consider to be the problem, acting like their horrific shooting spree is an environmental benefit. (Christchurch, El Paso, Buffalo, etc.)

Enacting policies that curb the imperial mode of living to help reduce emissions and be more socially just is not eco fascism. But when you are so comfortable with your way of life and feel entitled to it, then having to make sacrifices so the global south has access to even a subsistence lifestyle is gonna agitate the usual reactionaries.

And then as was mentioned, those climate activists who are protesting and agitating will be considered environmental terrorists and eco fascists to muddy up the issues. See Cop City Protestors or Dakota Pipeline, or the Navy pollution in Hawaii, etc.

Turnscr3w · Mar 22, 2023

What the hell am I even reading.
Yes, ecofascism is a real thing and a very bad thing. Yes, it has a lot supporters from the far right and a lot of far right orgs proudly take the label.
I have no idea how politically illiterate do you have to be to think otherwise.

FuzzyWuzzy · Mar 22, 2023

how the fuck did we get to people thinking ecofascism isn't real?

Captain Smoker · Mar 24, 2023

Because this just came out, another example of how fast things are moving:

"The NEW said that new PV installations China deployed 20.37 GW in the first two months of this year, up 88% increase year on year."

China installed 20.37 GW of PV in January-February period

China reached a cumulative installed PV capacity of 314 GW by the end of February, according to new figures from the National Energy Administration (NEA).

www.pv-magazine.com

Remember that 2022 already was an absolute record year.

Tremorah · Mar 24, 2023

GTGear said:
When are we scheduled to hit 1.5C?

At this rate 2030

Tsuyu · Apr 4, 2023

JesseEwiak said:
You totally missed my point. My point isn't that Indian, Chinese, and other developing countries are responsible. My point was that people in those countries like individual cars, fast fashion, cheap plastic stuff, and everything else as much as people in the US & Europe do the moment they have access too, which shouldn't be surprising at all, if you look at how successful members of those nationalities act just like normal American's or Europeans in consumption.

But I know, if not for capitalism, everybody in Beijing would still be happily driving bicycles.

David Incorporated Esq. said:
And as the middle and upper classes grow in these nations the increase in emissions is going to be incredible.

Sorry, no matter how y'all slice it, we are currently in the mess due to past cumulative heavy emitters from the developed world that is maybe 1/4 of all 180+ countries of the world.

The idea that the developing world would behave exactly like the developed world is really just a fallacy. It's not proven. Not to mentioned that much of the developed world feasts on the corpse on developing world to get to where they are, the mindsets between these 2 can be very different when it comes to existential crisis.

Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late

Chicken Chaser

Master of the Reality Stone

Erarboreal

Erarboreal

Prophet of Truth