423
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 103 points 3 months ago

For better or worse (definitely worse), we're going to stroll right into the horrors that global warming is going to give us. We won't start making necessary changes until it's way way past any tipping points.

The people that care have no power. The people in power are driven by capitalist profit motives.

If you're a sci-fi nerd like me we can hope aliens or a true AGI will take over and save us lol. Short of that I have no confidence, mad max dystopia by 2100 or sooner.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 45 points 3 months ago

It doesn't take aliens or a true AGI; it takes stopping fossil fuel use, ending deforestation, and phasing out a few trace chemicals. Do that, and we end the rising temperatures

Making that happen is a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

[-] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

Oh I totally agree with you, but

a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

This is the problem. To say this wouldn't be easy is a huge, gargantuan understatement.

The power and control is so far reaching and deep into the foundation of our society, I can't help being cynical. By using politics and propaganda techniques huge portions of the population have been convinced that global warming either isn't real, isn't important, or is actually a good thing. And this is only one hurdle to overcome along with many others.

The question is how do we seize power back.

[-] zqwzzle@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[-] nlgranger@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I'm a bit dubious that revolutions can be effective nowadays against a well organised oppressive state with present tools (propaganda, police, surveillance, corruption). All revolutions have failed over the last few decades (Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Tunisia then Arab Spring, etc.).

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago

The answer varies a lot between countries. In ones where elections determine who holds power, they're a viable path to achieving change.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

chile says no, elections serve the powerful.

[-] fishos@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

And the odds of any of that actually happening? How exactly are you going to regulate the growth of industries internationally in a way that doesn't just end up offshoring the pollution to poor countries like it already has been for centuries?

Dudes right, we need a dues ex machina to save us. We won't make meaningful changes until it's profitable to do so. So expect to see a lot of companies transition into cooling and environmental control. Because they won't address the core problem, just sell you bandaids for the symptoms. The next advancement won't be "less emissions", it'll be "this new coolant cools 35% better".

Look at heat pumps. Its literally just an AC unit that can swap the hot and cold side with a valve. It's nothing new. But it's the new "miracle cure" to all your heating and cooling needs. Just run your electricity that most likely comes from a coal power plant and smugly think about how you personally aren't using gas to do it!

We won't fix it ourselves without major intervention.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago

Realistically, you couple domestic regulation with a carbon tariff, assessing incoming goods a fee based on differential pollution in their country of origin.

[-] fishos@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Ok. You did that. China is still selling to other countries and polluting all over the place.

Now what?

Somalia is still burning our recycling. What about that?

For every hole you plug, there are 10 more. But sure, we can call agree on this one thing even though the entire history of humanity has basically been "I disagree, let's fight a war over it".

[-] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Most studies say it's already too late to stop a lot of it. There's tons and tons of studies and models that say if we magically cut off all sources of climate forcing we'd still see an increase from the damage already done for centuries. We can obviously make things a LOT better for ourselves by stopping or limiting ourselves right now but a lot of damage is already done. Plus any significant changes will most likely take a decade plus to really get momentum and actually take place anyway.

That's why now you're starting to see a lot more research into mitigation rather than prevention cause we're starting to move into the "well how are we going to fix this" phase rather than the "we need to stop this from happening phase"

The biggest indicators are the oceans. Just take a gander at oceanic temperatures over the last like 25 years. since they absorb something like 95% of our thermal extremes we're seeing some bonkers changes out there...

[-] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago

by capitalist profit motives.

I wouldn't say it is about profits anymore, I think it's more about their own security. Looks like we're in the start of WWIII, so cutting down carbon dioxide sources by the US/EU would mean that China/Russia will have great advantage because they won't cut their sources and because people in the US/EU will not be happy with that decision en masse.

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

2100 is conservative. That's our world in 2040 at the latest if we don't change.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago

Nah, more oil drilling, more trucks and SUVs.

[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

They're just so big and safe!*

*not for the other drivers, or the pedestrians who get nailed by a rolling wall of a frontend.

[-] laverabe@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

or in the case of parents buying SUVs to make their own children safe, children are 8 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV versus a passenger car. (ie: in their own driveway) And that's not even factoring the added risk of blindspots for children too small to be seen from the driver seat!

children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to those struck by a passenger car

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

They also have significantly higher rollover risk which is why the best deaths per million kilometer stats belong to big sedans and wagon not SUVs.

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

"I like driving in a higher position, it makes me feel safer"

[-] Eeyore_Syndrome@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 months ago

Stupid rolling stone.

It's SO FAR. Fixed

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 months ago

As in "We haven't cut emissions to zero yet." We can, and will. It's a question of whether we do it quickly enough to preserve a civilization-supporting climate.

[-] original_reader@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

Likely not. The next years will be hell. Then, after 10 years or so - maybe sooner -, 2024 will be remembered as one of the more pleasant years with still bearable temperatures and comparably few catastrophes. We even still had affordable coffee and olive oil.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

We should probably start with reducing the rate of increase first. Then talk about reducing emissions per year. As for zero emissions, I fail to see how we have a civilization of any sort without some emissions. Maybe that's the point. Was "Net Zero" a hidden word for collapse all along?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Emissions have been falling in the US and EU since ~2005 or so, and look to be about to start falling in China, which means that they'll be falling worldwide after this year.

But...they'll likely be falling slowly, rather than rapidly, which is a problem.

[-] hobovision@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

That's a really hopeful reading of that chart. What I see in that chart is that even a year or two of falling emissions could quickly be wiped away. Just look at 2022.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

It's a bit more than that; there are policies in place which make Chinese emissions likely to slowly drop from here on out

[-] rickdg@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Did you just homer simpsoned a headline? 😅

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago

Yes. But it makes the second sentence make more sense.

And for the answer, the Jurassic Park "see, nobody cares" meme would fit in well.

[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Like I understand what they are trying to say, but yeah really ticks me off when people say "ever" when they mean "yet"

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago

Well, technically we'll reduce out emissions. Just, it'll likely be after a mass extinction event.

[-] ColonelThirtyTwo@pawb.social 20 points 3 months ago

"The planet is fine. The people are fucked."

[-] vxx@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Will the rotting corpses cause a spike in carbon emissions or would it immediately drop?

[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Rotting corpses can't order scop from Temu that ships on old bunker fuel ships, oddly in private jets that account for hundreds of cars worth of emissions per flight.

[-] Contravariant@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I think humans are mostly carbon-neutral, but decomposition might release gasses that are worse than just CO2. Burning them directly would probably be better.

[-] Junkhead@slrpnk.net 9 points 3 months ago

we truly fucked ourselves huh

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 months ago

We're at the point where we've stepped into a minefield, where each step forward risks losing major ecosystems. We need to take immediate steps to stop walking further into it.

[-] JPSound@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Jokes on you tho. I've been desperately sick and stuck inside with air conditioning and cats🫅 battling that deadly virus that shut the world down a few years ago which scientists expect may happen more and more often bc climate change (pfff... whatever nerds). It was nice and cool in here, so I don't know what the crying is all about. Just burry your head as deep as possible and the most dense and tightly packed sand you can get ahold of and, voilá, problem solved once and for all!

[-] OpenStars@discuss.online 5 points 3 months ago
[-] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Nope. I live in Canada and I like heat.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Hope you like wide spread crop failure, rising food prices and climate migrates.

[-] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago

You like forest fires? You monster.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"Only you can prevent wildfires"...by consuming less...and boycotting polluters.

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
423 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers
505 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS