We just hit 1.5 C above per-industrial levels for the first time.
(www.abc.net.au)
from ruford1976@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 11 Sep 2023 15:51
https://lemmy.world/post/4867140
from ruford1976@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 11 Sep 2023 15:51
https://lemmy.world/post/4867140
#world
threaded - newest
Is there anything i could/can do to make a difference?
Vote!
This, it’s the only thing that really counts, we all need to pull together, the only way to do that, is to vote in politicians that actually give a shit.
Do any really, though?
Yes, some that really give a shit might not be a part of a major party in whatever country you live in, but even among established parties there are people who are more inclined to do something about the climate catastrophe than others.
Oh boy not the false equivalence again. If you don’t give a shit yourself then don’t vote.
It makes a difference who gets the power, and your main influence is your power to vote.
I always do vote for the party with most proactive views on climate change.
I just feel really jaded that they are going to make much of a difference, short term capitalistic gains seem more important to all
Edit - I’m also beginning to feel that voting isn’t my most powerful move. Disruptive protests are looking better and better.
Voting is the absolute smallest political action anyone could ever take. Protest always has been and always will be more effective at moving the needle. Above all else these ghouls want to preserve capitalism. If it looks like the only way they preserve capitalism in the near term is capitulating to the demands of environmentalists then that is what will happen. Of course in the long term capitalists will attempt to erode these gains just like they have done with social safety nets in various countries for largely the same reasons (increased rate of profit).
It may not be the most powerful for all, but for most it is.
Just don’t go along with something like Just Stop Oil, that’s not constructive or helpful in any way, and it’s off-putting for the vast majority tiring people of the issue, rather than waking their interest.
You’re right, voting isn’t the most powerful thing you can do.
It’s getting involved in politics altogether, getting more people to vote.
And not “We got the president and maybe a senator” vote. The crowd that’s fighting climate change every step of the way has infested all the way down to the local levels making it harder to vote on the national platforms. I’d say this is a US thing, but if there’s voting, they seem to be infesting all of it.
Apart from the voting which is above all else, if you REALLY want to do something on an individual basis, you should reduce your meat or become a vegetarian. It seems that’s what experts claim has the biggest impact. Apart from that, don’t have children, or 2 at most.
Please don't have children. Think about the life you're condemning them to.
this is sadly where my head is at.
Yup, my wife and I both want kids.
We’re now pretty set on adoption.
Adoption is great!
this message brought to you by eugenicists against english literacy. english literacy: if it didn’t make you sterile, it should have.
There are other things you can do individually as well, like try using the car and AC less, and generally live more frugally.
But remember that 100 companies make up 71% of all human made carbon emissions. It’s good to act locally, but we need global action to stop these companies and their supporters, that means voting for competent government.
The bulk of those companies are in the energy business and they respond to consumer demand. Chevron isn’t out there drilling, extracting, refining, and burning oil for no reason.
they DICTATE consumer options.
They will respond faster to heavy regulations/taxation, national policy shifts towards renewable energies, fossil fuel bans and nationalisation/forced liquidation.
No individual is their primary customer, and doesn’t have the negotiating power to affect them, they are effectively Mega corps, and immune even to certain national laws.
Vote for a government that will affect them, the other meaningful option (for individuals) is sabotage/Eco-terrorism, which isn’t really a long-term solution.
When the parties on offer are various flavours of neoliberalism, as in most capitalist countries these days, it doesn’t give you any options that will make a difference quick enough. They simply can’t do what needs to be done within that economic framework.
That said, vote for the least worst one. But the most significant things have to be done outside of that electoral framework, because it can’t resist the demands of short-term profit.
If we don’t have children because we care for our planet, we leave the world to those who don’t care at all. Not sure if this is the right decision.
Same with atheism, religious people have more children, so the religious population is increasing, despite people deconverting.
Honestly, I haven’t thought of it like that. I guess that’s a decent point. But having more than 2 children, and you are part of the problem.
My family had one kid. So we went from I believe seven grandparents and great aunts and uncles down to one child just within two generations!
At this rate my family could depopulate the whole planet in no time.
Also a friend of mine just told me that he met a lady who had 22 siblings so…
adoption
sounds like you’re advocating for BOTH eugenics AND brainwashing. please reconsider.
Yes, adoption is literally eugenics AND brainwashing, you are very smart.
who are you saying shouldn’t have children? whose children are you proposing to teach to care for the planet?
I never said anyone shouldn’t have children.
children up for adoption
so you’ll adopt them and brainwash them into an ideology. it just doesn’t have a good ring.
“brainwash them into an ideology” excellent leap my dude
if you’re not in favor of that, then i say “good”. you’ll forgive me for reading the room to say something else though.
you’re right, but the conversation was definitely about eugenics propaganda. if you’re not saying “don’t have children” then i really apologize, but the tone of the conversation seemed to be “don’t have kids. you can adopt instead!”
Why vegetarian, not vegan? Cows are a major contributor to the emissions, and people tend to increase their dairy consumption when going vegetarian.
One step at a time.
i’m dubious about this. don’t get me wrong: i try to make sure at least half my calories come from soylent. i’m saying i have looked at the methodology, and it doesn’t seem sound. HAVING READ THE RELEVANT STUDIES it’s not clear to me that the researchers are even drawing correct conclusions.
here’s an example that i think can be extrapolated across many data points: cotton seed. first, cotton is grown for textiles. like, exclusively. like, the only reason to grow cotton is for textiles. BUT you can increase the profits from your cotton harvest if you sell the seed to cattle operations. so cattle are fed cottonseed. then the water and land-use costs of cotton get rolled into the costs of raising cattle. but that’s nonsensical. cottonseed is purely waste product, and giving it to cattle CONSERVES resources.
soybeans are another thing altogether, and the complexity of the whole agricultural system implies, to me at least, that maybe it’s not so simple as “reduce your meat intake”.
I must admit it’'s not super intuitive to me either, but it seems the consensus is pretty strong among experts, and I haven’t taken the time to really delve in deep on the issue.
But apparently a significant part of the problem is that cows make a lot of methane, that is a very bad greenhouse gas, and when it breaks down it’s to CO2 which is still a greenhouse gas. So kind of a bad double dip as I understand it.
Going vegetarian doesn’t seem to be the most impactful when you look at the numbers, as per this video. Vegan diets still have the lowest GHG footprint and GWP of all diets.
That being said, I went vegetarian first before going vegan. So your point is entirely valid.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
piped.video/y9R6yJj5RO0?si=-bqRIP1zQKv0m5lG
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Honestly I wasn’t aware the difference is that big. I thought cows were bad mostly for the meat, but apparently milk is at least as bad. 🤥
That sucks. ☹️
If you want to see what the heck veganism is about compared to vegetarianism, check this resource out.
But yeah! Leather is also bad for the same reason, contributing to the same industry. There are alternatives out there so don’t feel bad!
One step at a time, like you’ve mentioned in your other comments.
If we all stop breathing at the same time…
Honestly, I'm pretty sure the deficit we could create on an individual basis will just be used by companies instead, so I'm just gonna agree with the others on voting being the most effective method of making a difference.
As others have said, voting is important. But also I'd guess that direct action will play a large role in the next few decades.
An optimist, I see!
We are a hardy bunch. But things are going to get very ugly.
There are no peaceful ways to make a difference. Change my mind.
Shall i give fatwa for Green Jihad?
You seem like more of a mauve hajji, if I’m being honest. You’re definitely a fall.
See if that rpg comes in teal and ooh girl
chefs kiss
Depends on your definition of peaceful. Industrial sabotage that specifically targets unmanned equipment would still be peaceful by my definition, for example.
Google the weather underground
Don’t procreate. Or if you do just yeet the baby into a furnace to skip a few steps, same outcome really.
Some changes people (in the US or elsewhere) might want to check into:
This is the best summary I could come up with:
This year is now almost certain to become Earth’s warmest on record after a hot July and August saw global temperatures reach the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the first time.
Data released last week from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.
This upward swing should ensure 2023 becomes the new warmest year on record, an assessment shared by the Bureau of Meteorology’s Senior Climatologist Blair Trewin.
“If current 2023 temperature anomalies are maintained, or increase, over the last four months of the year that would be sufficient for an annual record to be set,” he said.
Major global climatological records have fallen at a rapid rate across the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere, including:
“A large part of it is the removal of the cooling influence of La Niña which has been suppressing global temperatures over the last two to three years,” Mr Trewin said.
The original article contains 531 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
We had a good run. Good luck to the next species to dominate the earth. May you avoid religious dogma, find an economic system that respects your natural environment, and a political system that respects the right to live a clean and healthy world.
Mosquitos are like “that species was delicious. I wonder what the next one will taste like”
we probably taste like shit.. they sit around the campfire and remember the good old days of fresh, free range Dino blood as far as the proboscis could poke.. not this Walmart meat they get now..
I dunno, they seem fucking determined to get as much of my blood as possible, little fuckers.
Are you a free range dinosaur perhaps?
Did we, though?
Depends on how you quantify it. We sure did make a lot of money, or at least the winners did.
We created a lot of value for the shareholders.
@Gsicht @Sterile_Technique And “pragmatic” solutions to the climate crisis. Oh wait …!
Compost the rich?
I call dibs on driving the thresher!
ref. economicsociology.org/…/yes-the-planet-got-destro…
Cool thing about Lemmy - you can past images directly from your clipboard!
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a3cd938f-5b98-4ba0-b8a0-d726fbcefa8a.jpeg">
i know, but i kind of thought that the linked references below the image were interesting too
I mean, we left the planet. We created art. We did some good, and life will diversify again after we’re gone.
Did you do any of these things yourself?
Maybe he’s a master in ASCII art, what do you know
Is there any reason you would think me not producing art means that humans haven’t?
Here’s hoping; but that’s far from a safe assumption. The kicker about the changes we’re making to this planet is that a lot of them are positive feedback loops, so even if 100% of humans just got thanos-snapped out of existence RIGHT NOW, meaning a complete stop on fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, etc; the damage we’ve already caused will continue to get worse on its own with no further input from us.
So how far can those feedback loops go until they’re broken naturally? They might stabilize; they might just carry on until this planet is molten.
There will for sure be life after the last human dies, but given a few thousand more years, even the most resilient of critters could still be fucked because of us.
The odds of true runaway warming are very low, the planet has both been much hotter and had much higher CO2 levels in the past. The Holocene is actually a cool period, geologically.
We’re just going to make it too hot to grow enough crops to feed the world.
The lake Toba Eruption caused a 4°C drop in global temperatures, covered asia in inches to feet of ash, and may have taken the climate 1000s of years to recover.
Even more extreme, the lava floods that created the Siberian Traps 250 million years ago raised ocean temps to 40°C, killed off 90% of all life, and might have taken millions of years to recover.
We are tiny. The climate and the Earth are formidable. Sure, we might have the capacity to destroy all multicellular life on earth, but she’s recovered from even worse.
We shouldn’t ever give up, but I think the earth is capable of handling even our worst fuck-ups.
it seems pretty likely that microprocessors will survive us, and give a BIG jump start to any species that follows. literacy seems to be a longer shot, but still a possible stepping stone for some other organism to take over our work. my money is on fungi to figure out microprocessors. if not them, then plants, especially “weeds”. finally, ocean mammals might be able to work some of the junk we’ve made and cargo-cult themselves into the information age.
i really am hopeful for life on earth to survive the death of Sol.
we did just waste a good few million years of evolution though (let’s say 65 million accounting for the rise of mammals). earth isn’t going to be habitable forever, from memory there’s less than a billion years left before the temp would increase with the expanding sun enough to make liquid water impossible. feels like we kind of shot earth in the foot a bit here
65 million years isn’t that bad on a geologic scale
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8c8f56e4-33e2-479b-aea5-54fc4d2482d8.png">
As long as there isn’t a runaway greenhouse effect that turns Earth to Venus, life would almost certainly continue, with or without us.
There were a couple of hundred thousand years of humans managing not to fuck up the entire planet, before the two centuries of doing so for the sake of money.
There were periods in which we were nicer to the planet, but we’ve always been pretty horrible to each other. Even at the stage of civilization we’re at now - with all the advancements and comforts etc - we’re still going to war with each other just for the hell of it; murdering each other over shit like skin color or what we find sexually attractive; not only profiteering off the suffering of others, but actively manufacturing suffering to profiteer off.
We really are horrible.
We also managed to kill off almost all the large animals thousands of years ago, come to think of it.
Realistically, extinction would be sweet relief compared to what is actually in store for humans with climate change. More likely that we hang around in smaller communities and death / suffering is even more widespread.
I mean realistically it’s all going to hell sooner or later. You’ll start with millions of climate refugees, closed borders, violence. Then climate wars (a wall with machine guns isn’t going to stop people who have no other way to survive). And if a country with nukes (like India) finds itself uninhabitable then things are really going south. Next up you have a possible nuclear war and the end of humanity as we know it.
Sure, a small amount of humans might survive, but civilization will go down in chaos. Even areas that are inhabitable and have plenty of water will break down, because the local infrastructure can’t support hundreds of thousands of refugees forcing their way in.
Millions? If only.
I've seen estimates which say at least a billion by 2050:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/climate-refugees-the-world-s-forgotten-victims/)
Oh, I was more thinking per area. Not all refugees will go to the same place.
It will start with millions and that might already be enough to cause collapse. When it’s over a billion it’s already over.
The whole Syria thing already caused us lots of issues in Europe. Arguably the civil war was caused in part by climate change exacerbating a drought. The surge in refugees helped the far right and populists across Europe and was a factor in brexit.
I can only imagine what'll happen if it gets worse. Children of Men is likely to be eerily prophetic.
I’ve seen estimates that say a billion dead by 2100 is the most optimistic possible outcome. Even the notoriously cautious IPCC is making the most unimaginably dire predictions:
Food and water wars.
I wonder if primates are incapable of building a global economic system that doesn’t end in disaster
Their current attempt says no.
A decade ago, It was predicted that we would hit 1.5°C between 2050-2060, and even as recently as 2 years ago the prediction had moved forward to between 2030-2040.
The next decade or two are going to be very… interesting
what’s worse is that it’s actually 1.6 C
it says in the article here
Yes but only for a couple of months, averaged over the whole year it’s significantly lower than that. Probably still on track to hit the annual average of 1.5 sometime in the next 10-20 years. Still definitely a dire situation but not entirely out of left field based on the recent estimates.
i had my doubts. i was questioning the lack of coverage of this news.
regardless there is still good reason to be concerned.
Soooo 3 degrees bij 2050? We are so fucked.
Yeah, it’s honestly horrifying to see the lack of reaction around the world. If you live anywhere near the coast, you better get the fuck out or tell your kids to.
I’m already telling people to get out of Florida*. I expect multiple Katrina-level events over the next 15 years. “Florida refugees” is going to become a common phrase.
Orlando might be more likely to survive than Miami or Tampa, but do you really want to be in the city surrounded by devastation?
We, as humans, seem to have lost the ability to plan more than 20 years into the future. Florida is still building in areas that are going to be crushed, and the only reaction is from insurance companies.
We’re not trying to prevent it. We’re not building any kind of defenses or contingency plans. We’re not encouraging people to move out. We’re not preventing people from moving in. In fact, we’re building new and encouraging people to move IN to Florida. It’s full on head in sand.
look at their leadership. look at their voters. look at the short-term profit potential.
Look at the percentage of these purchases that are foreign investors making cash offers and I think u start to see why the insurance companies leaving isn’t having the effect it should.
Man I have like 5 family members and friends just move to Florida. They were tired of the high taxes and politics of California. At least they won’t burn in a wildfire though!
I wonder if FL is attracting a certain type of moths to a flame… recently had a neighbor move to clearwater
If that massive icesheet in Antarctica gives way, Florida will be under water.
At the rate we’re going, I think it will take a cataclysm of that level before people will realize how important this thing is.
It’s nice by the coast though, I’d just put aquatic pilings under my house and have a ruggedised shelter built into it. Even if I live to a hundred and fifty with all the ice melted my land will still be under less water than the intercoastal platforms we’ve been routinely building since world war one.
I’m literally living 6 meters below sea level. Please send help!
Still tracking for 8.5C by 2100!
We will need to drop some ice cubes in the ocean around that time.
Thus solving the problem once and for all! Once. And. For. All.
The IPCC calculations were always criticized for being overly optimistic. Anyone following this debate knew that we would hit 1.5 C sooner rather than later.
We are definitely going to hit 3 degrees in our lifetime, once the melting tundras release their methane store.
Melting tundra releases methane, accelerating the increase in temperature. Rising temperature reduces polar ice, making oceans absorb more heat, accelerating heating. Climate pattern changes cause more frequent and larger wildfires, accelerating heating.
There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases that I’m not aware of, but there are a lot of positive feedback processes which is concerning.
I believe the IPCC 1.5C was criticized because it included effects of a carbon sequestering process that hasn’t been invented yet. That’s pretty optimistic.
Nuclear war, for one. In a more naturalistic vein, asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruptions. People worried about climate change just refuse to look on the bright side.
Still better than patroling the Mojave.
Which is why I support the idea of setting up bases on the Moon and/or Mars.
Everything is accelerating, and nobody gives a fuck to do anything before it’s too late. I hate the argument that NASA doesn’t push its budget to prevent CC or even Space X. Because stopping CC is a global effort on a colossal scale. It’s not going to work until it’s too late. Might as well get off this rock.
Edit: Very fucking optimistic of you all
If we can’t make Earth livable we certainly can’t make the Moon or Mars livable. At best it will be a handful of people living miserably for a short time. “Get off this rock” just isn’t a realistic option, and we don’t have the time to make it so.
The Earth would be more habitable than the Moon and Mars even in worse than worse case scenario climate change conditions. The atmosphere will still protect us from cosmic radiation, and we won’t need pressurized suits and habitats. A lot of people will suffer and die, but humanity will not go extinct because of climate change, our society will though.
If you think leaving earth is going to solve our problems then I have a huge fucking bridge to sell you.
Pretty sure Musk already sold it to him. It leads to Mars and is made of rainbows.
Ignore them. They’re so hopelessly black-pilled, they’re not likely to support any significant course of action.
We’re gonna have to kickstart human expansion into space to not only save ourselves from climate collapse but also what’s left of the biosphere. You’re not wrong at all.
If anyone is curious about what 3C looks like, here’s a solid video on how a 3C world would look.
youtu.be/uynhvHZUOOo?si=yk8rvR1Bg3t4aKGe
It’s 16 minutes so as a TL;DW: Not “extinction event” but extremely bad. Areas of the globe will simply become unlivable - and these areas tend to be highly populated. The resulting mass migrations and shortages of water/food will lead to conflict, often between nuclear powers. End result: humanity will keep on living, but it will be a significantly more deadly environment and a significantly more conflict-prone political environment. Economic collapse will hit major metropolitan centers.
If watching the video bums you out try to focus on the absolutely bonkers cool sideburns the climate scientist has. Cheered me up a little. Like a handsome person telling you that you have a bad disease.
Anyway, vote for climate-positive outcomes wherever possible and consider joining a climate lobbyist group. I’m a member of this one but I’m sure there are others.
citizensclimatelobby.org
As if all that is not depressing on its own, there just a little less than half of the world that believe it’s a hoax. While they’re being cooked alive. And continue to vote for politicians that perpetuate the idea it’s a hoax.
At least we now get some attention by constantly overhitting the predictions.
They’ve been saying that literally since the 60’s?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand they’re still wrong.
Found the GQP chud.
Homer, everywhere’s gonna be a hellhole if you only focus on the pimps and the chuds.
Supposedly the new stringent heavy shipping emissions controls are having an impact on the greenhouse effect. Reduction of sulfur dioxide which had a reverse greenhouse effect is warming the oceans up more.
carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping….
So this may be our first example of the threats of NOT enacting terraforming for climate change will have.
It proves that creating cloud cover will impact ocean temperature. There are methods of doing this without creating acid rain. Just spray ocean water as a fine mist into the air and you should get some nice fluffy clouds. We have the capability to cover entire oceans in cloud cover to mitigate global warming.
Obviously this would have some unpredictable impacts on weather patterns, but we’re already dealing with that no matter what we do. We’re at a point where we’re desperate enough to try some crazy schemes like this.
Ah so we’re entering the scorched sky time line of the apocalypse.
After September 11th and the COVID lockdowns, scientists noted an increase in global surface temperature due to the absence of contrails. So yes, this is actually something we are already doing!
Sulfur dioxide however is an even more effective reflector of sunlight compared to water vapor. And don’t forget, water vapor is itself a very greenhouse agent that contributes toward planetary heating.
Hank Green had a pretty decent video in this.
youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL
We can do the same thing without the horrible pollution that ships produced.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
piped.video/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I believe by “interesting,” you mean “moist.” At least, for everyone above/below ±35° latitude.
Also, I hope you enjoyed photosynthesis while it lasted because once the permafrosts at ±60° latitude thaw, we’re in for a tough time.
Hate to break it to you, but everyone in the world is either above or below ±35° latitude.
Yup. Good luck out there.
There’s probably a guy standing with his feet on the North Carolina and Georgia border, he’s above and below the 35th parallel but he’s not either above or below it…
I can’t quite figure out if it’s supposed to mean everyone within 35° of the equator latitude, or everyone outside it.
I believe they meant above 35°N / below 35°S, so the latter.
Hope everyone enjoyed the coldest summer of the rest of their lives.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I have kids. I am fucking livid that the assholes who pretend climate change isn’t happening have decided to sacrifice their kids and mine on the altar of making a quick buck.
You can’t eat money, assholes. And you can’t bring it with you when you die. If the future is nothing but more and more severe weather to the point that civilization collapses under the strain, then I hope you live long enough to see it and are unable to hide from reality anymore.
They have the money and/or ignorance to continue hiding from reality
They think they do. No amount of money will protect a person from the collapse of a civilization. Never has, never will. Their plans are very much predicated on the assumption that markets will somehow magically continue to function after the general populace has lost all faith in them
What about the ultra rich that have built bunkers and have their security outfitted with locking, exploding collars to keep them in line?
I forget who, but some consultant said that they did a talk with a small group of the ultra wealthy that are doing this.
Edit: This is what I was referring to theguardian.com/…/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apoc…
I think the reference to collars was more a hypothetical in the article as the author was challenging the bunker dudes how would they ensure the people keeping them safe remained loyal, and that none of them considered anything like “treat them like people before the cataclism”, it didn’t even occur to them at all, instead they proposed a bunch of more controlling measures, which included “disciplinary collars”
They can buy themselves a few years at best without a functioning supply chain. We all depend on society, no matter how much they like to deny it
The ultra-rich will still be dependent on their retinues of loyal followers, whose loyalties will of course be tested by the collapse of civilization. Unless their retinues are robots, of course.
That’s it! We take all the rich and politicians and stick 'em in “FSD” enabled teslas for a while. The problem will solve itself.
These billionaires imagine they’re rich because they’re brilliant, not because they’re the biggest assholes and lucky (and born rich). They overestimate their independence from all the people and other creatures that actually make the planet and human society work. Once they get to their bunkers or their Mars outpost, perhaps reality will gradually get through to them. They can’t escape this using bunkers, rockets and weapons.
They have the money to potentially avoid repercussions long enough. This is especially true when collapse is relatively gradual
Why did you choose to have kids knowing what kind of future they would have? This is the reason I didn’t, and also to reduce my footprint in the world. I mean even 20 years ago, it was obvious nothing was going to change. So I don’t know why somebody would willingly have children these days.
Sometimes, in an intimate relationship, babies.
Every time, choice.
I don’t really like this narrative where we make people feel bad about having a kid. People are allowed to have kids.
and other people are allowed to react to it
The holier-than-thou attitude on Lemmy is arguably worse than reddit
someone disagreeing with you is not holier-than-thou
“We need to take drastic action to avoid causing our own extinction via climate change and leave a habitable world for future generations!”
People have kids so there will be a future generation
😠
Well the guy acts surprised, like nobody has seen this coming for 50+ years and especially the last 20 years. Put some thought into having children before you do. If more people did, we wouldn’t be as deep in the shit as we are today. And people are allowed to criticise other poeple for having kids when they shouldn’t.
Hey, this is a fair sentiment. I took your tone initially as a judgmental one, but after rereading, I think I assumed too much. Thanks for the reply
Cum in her mouth or ass or tits. Get a vasectomy.
Yeah right, like I’d give away my cum.
Conserve your vital essences
No kids = no future
But, bringing kids into this mess is practically immoral.
The world has always been a mess. What’s your solution, wait until the world has solved every problem before anyone has kids? Humans would never have even evolved if that’s the plan.
Even nature is fucked.
I don’t have a solution. You don’t either. And those that can do anything about this shit, won’t, because it’d cost them some of their precious precious money hoard.
Climate change is basically teetering at the feedback loop point, if it’s not already there. Inflation is out of control. Corporate profits across the board are at an alltime high. Shit’s only going to keep getting worse from here.
This is why we have 2A in the US. Maybe we should start thinking about using it.
No, it’s not. It also solves nothing.
You sound unhinged.
Yeah man, that Thomas Jefferson guy was a real unhinged fuckwad.
uhh, yeah? he fucked people he didn’t consider human, he’s at least unhinged as a dogfucker
Every 2a person I’ve ever met who talks this way wants to shoot the wrong people.
It’s almost like maybe we shouldn’t rely on the lowest common denominator to resolve complex nuanced issues, huh?
You’ve never talked to a single socialist, anarchist, leftist, etc. about civilian firearm ownership before? It’s very commonly thought of as a necessary evil to prevent systemic oppression. Maybe don’t spend so much of your time talking to trumpers and neoconservatives?
To wit: there is no “right people” to want to shoot, and anyone who thinks there is probably has their own tribalism issue to work out. Community defense specifically does not have a target right up until the point someone else is an aggressor, and ends when violence is no longer needed. This is why you never saw “antifa burns down trump supporter’s house” or whatever in the news.
Oh yeah sorry I forgot to mention I’m in an area where redneck right wing stupidity abounds.
Yea fortunately im not a redneck. I totally understand how that line if thinking can make people uneasy. I think 2A is more useful in an “arm the workers” type of way
Yeah, violence is the answer… 🤡
Don’t worry about climate change, the US is hell bent on starting global thermonuclear war very soon. We can go fast and crispy instead of slowly choking.
Just curious… I’ll bite… War with who?
Uh huh.
Been hearing this since Bush got elected.
It’s just announced plans to get rid of Mutually Assured Destruction and install nukes in Finland. Then they said they don’t care if their latest weapon ATACMS is used to attack civilians in Russia. This has been a red line for a long time, they just pushed it.
We’re closer to nuclear armoggedon now than ever in your lifetime before.
Psycho.
Fix my stupid rent problem that’s for sure. Of course it will never happen because I would benefit from it slightly.
Fully agree, Putin is a psycho
Uh huh.
The problem is you having kids…
No… its simply not. Maybe Jimmy John and Mary sue having a dozen offspring in missouri are a slight part of the problem but your average person have one or two is not the problem.
As with everything in this world: Its the corporations. They are the problem. No amount of reuse, reduction, or recycling by any individual would even register on the graph of emissions/carbon footprint when compared to even a tiny company
I do agree that its irresponsible to subject yet another human being to the future we are careening towards
I mean, I get what you are saying, but if for a few generations only every 10th family would have only 1 child, GHG emissions would fall drastically. Having a kid basically more than doubles ‘your’ own carbon footprint.
Is this the only, the necessary, or the preferred way? Ofc not. Is it the biggest impact I can personally have on global warming? It is (voting, protesting, buying local & sustainable helps, but whatever you are doing the kids are doing it too).
It’s sad bcs there are so many ways we could solve this (at least achieve carbon neutrality, tho we need more than that now), but short-term profits of the current elite would suffer a little tiny bit so we can’t do it.
But additionally now we do need to prep to mitigate consequences and damage control (on top of green/ESG investments) … I wonder if all those profits will be used to finance this …
117.7 tonnes of Co2e per kid per parent per year in the USA (58.6 tonnes average when including all the poorer countries).Wynes et al. 2017
A conservative estimate is that we need to emit less than 2.1 tonnes in total per person per year to try to prevent catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change. Girod et al. 2013 (life expectancy/2050).
117.7 > 2.1
We need a fertility rate of about 0.01 for several decades.
Human overpopulation is not only the biggest contributor to push us into a climate-change tipping-points cascade, it’s also the root cause of almost all its other causes. It’s also the root cause of unsustainable habitat loss and pollution. It’s also the root cause of factory farming and industrial fishing, which causes more pain and suffering every year than all other atrocities ever committed combined.
As for corporations, they’re not burning the planet for shits and giggles - they’re psychopaths doing it because billions of people are choosing to buy their goods and services, which they want but don’t actually need.
I’m sure it will all work out.
(later)
💀
We’re fucked aren’t we?
As long as nothing change, yes
Even if we made massive changes today we would still have immense suffering.
We are fucked, the only thing we can change now is how severely we are fucked.
Pre
Climate change is having a tremendous effect.
By Jove it’s simply splendid!
Tremendous, very smart people are saying it’s the biggest change we’ve ever seen. Nobody has ever seen the numbers this high before. The best people are saying we have the highest numbers. Isn’t that something?
I hope the corporation’s and governments are ok poor loves.
The environment is ok and all, but we need to think about the economy.
Climate change must be stopped by any means necessary. Start doing what must be done. You know what that means.
Recycle harder?
Consume local!
Bring back ice from Mars
I HAVE ALL THE PAPER STAWS* IM DOING MY BEST!!! *now with more cancer microplastics!
I think he means vote or die.
Or eat the rich
That would not fight climate change at all.
Says the rich.
Killing rich people doesn’t stop people from driving cars or eating livestock or flying on airplanes or trading on sea lanes or requiring heat for their homes/water/etc or needing electricity
That’s a meme my dude, literally from the first album I ever bought from Aerosmith…
piped.video/o-0lAhnoDlU
I mean if we lived in a society where we could tax billionaires out of existence, then we could probably solve climate change with all that tax revenue.
Maybe in a different playthrough, kid.
It would significantly lower emissions given that the rich produce a hell of a lot more emissions than the average person.
They objectively do not because no percent of people are rich.
Om nom nom
Way ahead of ya burp
Eat the rich.
It’s not enough. We (rich and not so rich) must either consume less, or be less people.
The first route involves changing technologies AND habits. And I’m not talking about recyclable bags or save water at home.
You change habits by making it more expensive to do unsustainable shit. Very few states here in the US are willing to properly tax carbon emissions. Very few Americans are willing to remove the subsidies that the beef industry enjoys which would see steak at $35/lb.
Just saying “consume less” does very little. People respond to incentives. Peoples’ wallets are big incentives.
On the other hand, this problem is global. We all need to work together in order to succeed. That’s the hardest part.
What does that mean? I’m a little slow over here, but happy to help.
Economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare if necessary
Even if we did everything right it’s too late. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can though.
Such a counterproductive useless attitude. Not trying to be mean, but rhetoric like this is what spurs inaction.
Maybe in idiots like yourself who can’t read. Reread that second sentence child.
Careful, gonna cut yourself on all that edge dickhead.
Big words, why don’t you go ahead and show us how it’s done then? Or are you just going to chest pound from behind your monitor?
Hello fbi
Yay! I welcome our fiery lava hot summers tbat will eventually boil us alive! Whoohoo! Lets go big oil! Lets go water pollution! Lets go deforestation! Whoooofuckinhooooo!!
I remember a time when Captain Planet villains seemed ridiculous.
If they gave them real life motives, that would radicalize a whole generation lol
eventually? wired.com/…/india-deadly-combination-heat-humidit…
eventually? don’t trip in the street nbcnews.com/…/heat-wave-second-third-degree-burns…
sorry, eventually was like 2005. we’ve entered the lethal zone and it’s only going to get worse.
Im still alive! Whoohoo! Not yet boiled alive!
The humid areas will suffer and become uninhabitable first. As the wet bulb temps get higher than normal body temperature, and make it impossible for the natural human evaporative cooling system to work. - basically sweat won’t be enough to keep cool anymore. And youll essentially have to walk around in a bubble with a dehumidifier to survive.
I live in one of the blue spots. It’s not that I don’t believe this, but we have been cooler than average.
Which is exactly what you’d expect given what the blue represents? Does that mean you ignore the rest of the planet? Do you understand that we’re talking about the temperature of the entire earth, right?
Since I read that this isn’t an existential threat I’m feeling much more at ease, much less open to catastrophic outcomes and the narrative that we should throw our hands in the air and give up.
well it is, for most of us, if we dont figure out a way to stop it
Haven’t they heard of the american method? Don’t they know the cure for X is more X?
We just need to add some more global warming and that will solve global warming!
Or is that just applicable to guns and debt?
You joke, but I’ve seen those kinds of arguments, especially online.
Some time back, someone argued that global warming was a self-solving problem because the oceans reflect light and heat energy back out into space, so as the earth warms and the oceans rise, the ability to reflect that heat will increase and we could even go back into an ice age because of it.
That is, of course, not really how it’s going to go. Massive ecological collapse and possible human extinction would occur due to the initial warming, first off, even before you get to the arguments about… Everything else at the crux of that.
For a long time, one of the talking points of climate change denial wasn’t that it wasn’t happening but that it was normal for us to go through heating and cooling cycles, so just deal with it and wait it out, we survived the last ice age so we can survive this heat wave, right? But again, that’s mostly bullshit.
I think snow and ice would be better at reflecting but we seem to get rid of those ice caps… But when the ice melts, it cools down the ocean so of course, problem solved!
There is indeed an upper limit for global warming, because hot bodies lose more energy by radiating heat than colder ones. I think the equilibrium of energy gained by the sun and lost by heat radiation from the earth is at something like +5K in average global temperature. I doubt humanity would survive this though, civilization definitely won’t.
Well, the global warming is a self-solving problem. The nature will just make itself uninhabitable for humans.
Congratulations to the small, niche organisms, waiting to fill the gap left by the mammals!
Bad news to a lot of those organisms though, the Extinction Level Event doesn’t stop at humans. I’m not sure what’s resilient enough to survive. Cockroaches maybe? Rats?
You ain’t going to do a thing against bacteria. You could scour the entire surface and they’ll just be like ‘Welp, time to hang out underground for a couple of thousand years’
Nah - it’ll just pivot to “Well it’s too late now - no reason to hold back”.
I genuinely wonder why eco-terrorism isn’t already a meaningful “problem” - I don’t mean “some protestors blocked a road for a couple of hours or flinged some paint and soup around” - I mean “You’re working to kill all known life in the universe, and we’re doing whatever it takes to stop you.”
Oh, i am pretty sure we will see something like this soon…
There’s no one funding it. If some of the billionaires can direct their money to make renewables adopted in the mainstream we can be in a much better place now. But, you know to have that amount of money the switch that also governs your care for the environment gets switched off too.
Explosives and rifles aren’t expensive. There’s a reason the best funded military in the world consistently gets slowed up by insurgents.
While big funding would certainly help, this is more an issue of motivation (which expensive media campaigns would certainly help).
I’m not advocating for any of this, but as long as innocents weren’t caught up in it, I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over it either.
The problem is far worse than what any single billionaire can fix. Billions of dollars are being poured into renewable energy infrastructure. It’s just that while this is happening, we’re also emitting the same amount of CO2 as always. The only long-term resolution of this is de-growth.
The homeopathic approach to climate change. Great.
Hm? The homeopathic approach to climate change would be to dissolve a tree in 100,000m³ of alcohol, pour that into the ocean and wait for results.
Homeopathic processes aim at curing by introducing a very low concentration of the disease, so effectively curing x by adding x. I think your example would make sense if it was oil or CO2 instead of a tree.
Burning a tree also sets free a lot of CO2. :) Heating with wood is not sustainable at all, unlike some lobbyist made us beliveve.
But yeah, oil would have been the more obvious example.
I am so glad that garbage uses homeopathic rather than holistic these days. You want a doctor that takes a holistic approach, they’re looking at your whole body not just their specialty. Homeopathic =/= holistic.
From the looks of things on the internet, they still have many more stuff they are debating. Climate change might not be at the top of their list.
Yeah, it should at least be reported in Fahrenheit. Then you can say 98.6°F is normal human temperature whereas 2.7° higher, 101.3, is an unpleasant fever. Then imagine if that fever never goes away. At 5.4° higher (the 3°C we will almost certainly hit), your brain boils.
Yeah but the earth is huge and my brain is small so we are fine /s
The problem with Fahrenheit is that literally nobody outside the US knows what it means lol
Is it a problem? I guess for those that can’t do math. I take it that’s a huge problem outside of the US? Sucks to suck
It’s Americans you mainly need to market to.
Extinction event goes vroom
Only 7 years early. Yay.
*7 years earlier than the recently revised predictions YAY.
Side note, If you squint your eyes that picture kinda looks like a pizza.
And if you close your eyes and imagine, EVERYTHING looks like a pizza!
The fuck kind of pizza are you eating?
Probably some moldy pizza
Blue cheese maybe?
I thought those were blueberries😭
Almost Pizza! youtube.com/watch?v=KLHRjaUBb3o
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
piped.video/watch?v=KLHRjaUBb3o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
We did it boys, cold is no more
We won the cold war
We came, we cold, we conquer
What’s per industrial playa pimp
I recently saw an article about the clouds on Uranus that seem to be missing. Scientists attribute it to the solar cycle.
Meanwhile here on earth, nearly 19 AU closer to the sun, it’s all our fault.
<img alt="" src="https://lazysoci.al/pictrs/image/86b36f9b-8359-4558-bc2b-ff2df0cf7681.png">
Ha I’ve never seen the full comic before - only the first 2 panels. And I even own a “this is fine” plushie that I bought from the artist’s Kickstarter some years back
Writing is firmly on the wall, gang. All I see is patch notes for the wars for arable land meta.
Money loves predictible crises
Apocalypse, here we come!
Seems bad
Again, I’m not going to read that. It will just make me sad and angry a d nothing will change.
Politicians don’t give a shit, even of they’d understand what is going on, they’re mostly too dumb…
Things are going to get a LOT worse and nobody seems to understand that there is no quick fix here. “Yeah but CO2 scrubbers can…” no they cannot. Building those generates tonnes of CO2, then run ing them effectively generates CO2 as well. Think about it. Even if you put them on a solar grid (which too will initially cost CO2, not hugely important but just to keep in mind), the electricity that that grid generates to pull 100 tonnes of CO2 out of the air will NOT be available to other systems which will generate 150 tonnes of CO2 for their electricity.
Untill ALL electricity is solar, wind or nuclear, it literally is just throwing away energy. It’s actually more efficient to just connect those solar cells for your CO2 scrubbers to the electrical grid. You won’t pull 100 out, but now at least somewhere else won’t put in 150 into the system.
And even if they work. Do you have any idea how much CO2 we currently generate, and worse, how much we have generated that is in the atmosphere that we need to pull out for things to get better?
The current state of CO2 scrubbers is close to carrying water out of the ocean with buckets.
You wanna pull the extra CO2 out of the air? We’ve been adding extra on an industrial scale for near 2 centuries. RHAT amount of CO2 is what we need to pull out to get back to what it should be.
You always have losses with conversions, but taking that the earth has beeb pulling more CO2 you can more or less say that getting all the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere will take at least the same amount of energy that we’ve been generating with burning fossil fuels for the past 2 centuries. Think about it, were talking spending energy to pull air through a system, spending energy to filter the CO2, spending energy to store it, spending the same amount of energy we got from bur ing fuels to split the c from the O2 (same process in reverse), then spend energy to process and store all that carbon. Mayke Plastics out of it, maybe? Storing co2 is a problem as the amounts are astronomical. Where do youbstire cubic kilometers of CO2 , every year? If it escapes your back to square one.
Yes, that is a shit load of energy that we can’t produce all at once. For the next decades we’ll have to dedicate 25-50% of our energy output to cleanit the atmosphere, there is no way around that, there are no free lunches here.
Electrical cars are NOT the solution. For a small part, maybe, but mostly not. Electrical cars require roughly the same amiunt of energy as a gas car, that still needs to be generated. We need to use less energy. Wasting tonnes on energy on transporting 2 tonnes just to move a 70kgs person for a few kms is just insane. Use bikes. Walk. Use public transportation.
You wanna solve the climate change crisis?
1a) in parallel, start redesigning all our cities to become walkable. This doesn’t mean the conspiracy bullshit that American criminally lying politicians are saying, this means that stored and stuff we want is close by. Cities will be primarily for people, not cars. You can walk to stores because they’re close by. You can use bicycles to go everywhere we want. Public transportation can take care of the rest and with that we can get rid of 90+% of cars. Not because it’s forbidden, hit because we’ll designed cities don’t NEED cars.
There are loads of things that can’t go electrical, like airplanes. Reminds me: BUILD TRAINS. FFS America get your shit together and start building good railroads. Then you can get rid of half your airplane flights. Most flights are short enough that a high speed train is faster than flying anyway. The longer flights s yous still need cannot go electrical. You’ll need to build and run scrubbers spending the same amount of energy as those airplanes (and other systems that can’t go electrical) just to make sure their CO2 doesn’t add to the problem.
increase our energy capacity by a factor of two. We need to generate twice the amount of energy (all green) so that 50% can go to scrubbing our atmosphere for the next, say, century.
think about how to store all the captured CO2 or convert it to plastics or something.(double the energy required)
get ready to pay 2-3 times more for our energy. We’ve been the party generation who have enjoyed cheap energy from burning crap. The next 3-4 generations at least will be paying the bill, that is if they get to live to do so.
THIS IS I
Everything you said tracks except 5. Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, and that’s with the subsidies for fossil fuels.
From a purely economic perspective fossil fuels don’t make sense anymore, they’re being kept around because fossil fuel companies are using immense amounts of money to fight against renewables.
People seem to forget renewable energy is essentially free. Sure there’s maintenance and upfront cost but that’s true for all energy generation. Fossil fuels simply can’t compete and it’s only going to get worse as we get better at collecting renewable energy.
No.
We’re going to be paying 2-3 times more because we need to create enormous amounts of extra energy to clean the atmosphere.
That, and renewable energy isn’t free either. Solar panels require regular replacement as they (still) degrade quite a bit (too much) over time. If I’m not mistaken, they still require replacement every 10 or so years.
Windmills require regular maintenance. The power grid requires maintenance.
Wind and solar requires enormous batteries that degree and require regukar replacements.
Renewables are only so so renewable, don’t expect to pay anything less for the same amount of energy. Then now we will have to generate these enormous amounts of extra energy to take the CO2 out, who is going to pay for that? We all are.
So yeah, do expect to pay 2-3 times more for energy when this all starts, ideally tomorrow but likely 20 years from now as we’re still not done partying.
I already mentioned maintenance.
You people act like coal plants don’t have teams of maintenance engineers onsite 24/7.
I’m not acting like anything. I am fully aware of the requirements of fossil fuels. I’m mentioning all the requirements for “renewables” because there people typically act as if there are zero costs (and pollution and maintenance) related with it.
I’m not pro fossil fuels, not at all. Don’t get me wrong. I’m simply saying that were Ina SERIOUSLY fucked situation that simply won’t be solved within our generation, if ever at all. We’re at a cliff and a small group just keeps partying while shuffling closer and the rest of the world gleefully shuffles right after them. A few renewables are not going to fix this
Price doesn’t matter if it’s cloudy like most winters with barely any sun and the wind is not blowing. Solar also won’t work at night and energy storage is crap, batteries are very much not renewable. Of course there is reversible hydro plants but these can’t be used everywhere and are a disaster for local ecosystems.
Everyone is acting like renewables will fix everything… They won’t. The only thing that can replace fossil fuels right now is nuclear, which is also not renewable, but at least we have plenty of fuel for it.
if we were to replace current fossil plants with nuclear, the fuel runs out in 70-100. years and will get much more expensive. Think about paying ten times your electricity bill in 20 years.
It is possible to run a 100% renewable grid, using technology like hydrogen or other chemical storage system.
Solar wont have the output in winter. Nuclear plants will have to shut down in summer, because the water supply will get unstable. France nuclear heavy energy production could collapse within the next two decades if the current trend of lower river water continues. And there is no reason to believe otherwise.
But the biggest issue is that the grid is thought the wrong way around. Currently the supply is adjusted to the demand. But for many applications the demand can be adjusted to the supply. On the household level that means your fridge and washing machine to run, when there is a lot of energy available. On the industrial level that means to automate productions and adjust their intensity to available energy.
Not all nuclear plants are the same. Some can use nuclear waste as fuel. Others are small and modular which allows them be turned on and off as needed and also be deployed easier and cheaper. We need solutions sooner, rather than later. Nuclear tech is here now, storage for renewables still needs more time to refine and streamline.
nuclear plants take decades to project and build. And the modular and reusing waste plants are still in the concept stage
Modular reactors have been equiped to submarines for decades, they passed the concept stage long ago.
There are many kinds of nuclear reactors, but not much was invested into them to bring the cost down.
I am not saying that nuclear is perfect. Unless we figure out fusion it won’t be a long term solution. It’s just what we need right now to get rid of fossil fuels while we figure out the large scale renewable grids with good storage tech.
Hydrogen is a good option, if only EV manufacturers focused more on that… Charging the EV would be a matter of minutes not hours and there wouldn’t be issues with colder climates like the current batteries have.
If nuclear is so easy now, why is nobody doing it?
Thermal hydro has pretty much solved the storage problem and solar works fine during the winter.
There are many solutions to storage, not many being used. If someone is talking about storage, in 90% of cases they mean batteries and until that changes the problem isn’t solved.
As for solar during winter, it might work, barely, but at much lower output just because you have a lot less sunlight during a day. So you have to cover 16-17 hours of no light with just 7-8 hours of sun. This varies wildly depending on location of course.
They need to disclose their high tech stuff so we can finally replace petrol/diesel/kerosene and start saving the planet. I wish i could do more.
there is no hightech stuff. The idea that some miracolous savior technology will come around is peddled to prevent the transformation away from fossil fuels and our current economy of working too much to consume too much and stay in the hamster-wheel.
We already have the technologies and the sooner we scale them up the better. But we also need social and economic reforms, where we stop measureing society in terms of GDP and stop providing the means for uber rich individuals to get even more rich. We cannot afford the billionaires any longer and that is why they fight so much to ruin mankind as a whole, instead of providing a good lufe to everybody.
What ever happen to the big ole hole in the ozone back in the 80s and 90s??..
We still have to put on plenty of sunscreen in Australia because of it (if you believe Australia exists, of course!).
They’re separate problems, linked mostly in terms of humans being a cause of both. With CFCs/HCFCs now phased out, the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself and should be back to pre-1980 levels in the next 30-40 years or so. This will be good for helping to prevent skin cancer, and it will marginally affect the climate (e.g. lower ozone is associated with lower humidity), but it’s not going to do much to mitigate global warming.
We did it! 🎉🎊
Just goes to show what we can accomplish when, as a species, we put our minds to a goal.
2.5c here we come!