Good question, but we are rearming and integrating our militaries so that the far right who will take power in the chaos can massacre random demographies with relative ease. At least we won't die of hunger.
I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that we will go shoot each other before the hunger deaths set in. As in, we won't last long enough to die of hunger.
I'm only horrified for all the non-human life we're continuing to decimate on the way out.
Humans don't even seem to tolerate one another as we recklessly decimate this world with technologies we're just smart enough to develop and then immediately use with the same consideration for consequences as a monkey being handed a loaded shutgun, supposedly in humanity's name.
You want us to survive so we can keep a perpetual underclass subsisting in misery? So we can point fingers and call this group and that nation and this gender and that race the problem over and over and over? We are the problem, sorry. Long term, our self-destruction will be a W for the Earth. It will take millions of years, but our mother will eventually clean up our mess we left behind, and continue on like we never existed.
And from my perspective and decades of observation, that is for the best, including for our "everything will be great, once those humans I don't like are shown their place" in perpetuity species.
I have a postmortem science degree, but hobby in studying paleontology/pre-history. It took a rise of only 10°C and excess pollution to wipe out over 83% of all life on the planet between the Permian and Triassic eras. Entire chains of life just wiped out. Carbon dating, sediment layer study, fossil records, they all show how screwed me are if we keep this up. The earth will survive, it always does, but it took 30 million years before life recovered.
Humans need to learn from the past, see the consequences of what most would think is a small change, but the ones in power don't seem to give a shit.
The majority of people on both sides of the spectrum don't give a shit. People need to stop acting like this is just politicians, or CEOs, when it is the vast majority of the voters & potential voters. You'd see a lot more votes towards green parties & candidates if it were different. But the truth is, most people don't want to lose their comfortable lifestyle. Real climate action would affect us all, in our lives, in the prices we have to pay for products, in the products available to us, how we move around, etc etc.
But the truth is, most people don’t want to lose their comfortable lifestyle.
The real truth is, the notion that a lower-carbon lifestyle is somehow inferior to our current car-dependent bullshit is 100000% fallacious bullshit brainwashed into us by the automobile industry. Walkability is just better in every way (environmentally, economically, sociologically) and people whose lifestyle doesn't depend on cars are, statistically, happier and healthier than people who do.
Now try to explain that people have to give up their job that's in the neighboring city, or having to get up 1-2 hours earlier due to bad train or bus connections, or that they now cannot get groceries anymore because they live in suburbia and have to drive an hour out to some massive parking lot desert to shop in their IKEA sized grocery halls.
And that's just relating to the personal transport sector.
Why do you persist in assuming that all those shitty circumstances would continue to exist when they are exactly the things I'm saying we should be fixing? The whole idea is to have lots of nearby employers, good train and bus connections, grocery stores within walking distance (and with little to no parking), etc.
The #1 priority for reducing climate change (and fixing almost all our problems, from housing affordability to obesity) is zoning reform.
Because no one is willing to change those things. No politician who would be willing to go this far would be voted in because of the intermediate issues this would cause for people. And doing a super slow transition would be too late at this point, especially since we're way past schedule already in regards to our emission models. It even starts with the simple fact that people are simply not willing to get rid of their cars, even if public transport was good and completely free. So you'd be left with enforcing people not to drive, which is obviously also not going to happen for the same reasons.
The #1 priority for reducing climate change (and fixing almost all our problems, from housing affordability to obesity) is zoning reform.
Only in countries like the US, who have a disproportional large portion of transport emissions. But a lot of our emissions in the West simply come from the production of our goods that we buy and give us our comfy lives.
It even starts with the simple fact that people are simply not willing to get rid of their cars, even if public transport was good and completely free. So you’d be left with enforcing people not to drive, which is obviously also not going to happen for the same reasons.
Induced demand can work in reverse. Stop expanding roads. Redesignate some lanes to public transport only. Why take the car and sit in a queue for 2 hours when a bus can get you to work in 30 minutes without any queues?
That’s a decades long process. We need proper action done within this decade.
We don't know that. If it turns out that the actual ECS value is higher than predicted we're already fucked because whatever faction we might take today should've already been taken decades ago. If a global humanitarian crisis is mere decades away, no changes we'll feasibly make today or in the near future will stave it off.
You’d be surprised how many people would take that over a ride with other people.
An alternative is also that those who can, do their job remotely. Covid proved the feasibility of that. You couldn't pay me enough to start commuting or doing my own grocery runs again. I only go outside for enjoyment and none of it involves vehicles. Unless said vehicle is a bicycle, because my dog really enjoys cycling.
We do, because the opposite effect took that long. It's likely even worse for the reasons mentioned.
we're already fucked because whatever faction we might take today should've already been taken decades ago.
That's true either way with where we're at. That's why we call for drastic actions to be taken, especially since governments can't even agree to implement what's asked for by scientific advisors, who are already very conservative in their predictions in order to not push those politicians too extremely.
If a global humanitarian crisis is mere decades away, no changes we'll feasibly make today or in the near future will stave it off.
That's not correct, because it can always get even worse. The more and sooner we get rid of our emissions, the better are our chances. That's also why, on a fixed time scale, it is important to do the bulk of the work as early as possible, instead of doing it towards the end. The longer those greenhouse gasses are in the air, the more damage it will cause for us in the long run. But right now literally all of our measurements taken are still causing us to shoot far beyond our set targets (which turns out, were already too conservatively set too).
Mortuary science, pathology, autopsies, etc. I was going for a masters in Anatomic Pathology before I became disabled. I just research all things dead. I was always the weird little girl that liked studying mummies and fossils, so it seemed the logical step when I was choosing a career
That's part of the issue, but the even bigger problem is that people fallaciously think they have to give up much to fix it when the reality is a combination of (a) they don't, and (b) the changes that they do have to make actually represent an improvement in lifestyle, not a deprivation.
For example, Americans who've been brainwashed for decades by GM propaganda about the "open road" and car-dependent suburban "American dream" and whatnot have to be dragged kicking and screaming into higher zoning density and walkabilty, but once people have it they realize they're happier, healthier, have more free time, etc.
Well, no. Burning fossil fuels was indeed cheaper than any other energy source, until recently, and for some things still is by far the cheapest. So yeah, we have to sacrifice something today to not cook the Earth. Apparently that's too abstract for us, though, and we will knowingly steer towards a cliff a few decades away.
As an example, in Canada we have a modest carbon tax, and one that comes right back to people as refunds. It's still become a political lightning rod and the entire campaign target of the opposition, who is decisively leading in the polls right now. Another one, gen Z says they care, but it's not grandma buying Shein.
Could you help me understand how we differentiate the latest warming temperatures being related to climate change and not just another period like the one you mentioned?
To be clear, I fully believe that climate change is real, but sometimes when discussing it with people they will be of the camp that things are cyclical and just natural. I want to better arm myself for these arguments.
Mass extinction events have a cause. The Permian/Triassic one I mentioned, is generally agreed to be from unusual movement of earth's crust, creating severe volcanic activity. The eruptions caused CO2 and pollution, meaning greenhouse gasses built up. The heat shifted water currents and the temperatures, mixed with acid rain, decimated life in the oceans.
Humans are basically the volcanoes in modern times. Yes, the earth goes through normal changes, but these temperatures are increasing at a speed that, to my knowledge, has never happened. There is a way of teaching kids about how long the earth's had life, that visualizes it pretty well. If all of earth's history were to fit on your arm, shoulder to fingertips, if you gently scratched your fingernail on something rough, you'd erase all of humankind. We have barely existed on earth, but are throwing it off balance like never before. (With the exception of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, but that's a whole other tangent)
Having taken years of pathology/physiology classes, it really feels like the earth is a body, and it's getting a fever to try and deal with an illness... us.
Lmk if you need any sources. I can't exactly copy my books or the ones from my old college's libraries, but there's plenty of studies/resources out there if you're nerdy enough to dig 😊 (fossil pun)!
Mass extinction events have a cause. The Permian/Triassic one I mentioned, is generally agreed to be from unusual movement of earth’s crust, creating severe volcanic activity.
I think you'd get your point across even better with less understatement.
We have barely existed on earth, but are throwing it off balance like never before. (With the exception of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, but that’s a whole other tangent)
I think we may very well be on par with the meteor, TBH. Especially in the worst-case emission scenario.
(Speaking of the K-Pg meteor, another large igneous province, similar to but smaller than the one at the P-T boundary, was basically the "exit wound" of that meteor impact. It could very well be that the P-T extinction was caused the same way, but all evidence of the crator would have been obliterated by subduction over the past 250 MY because the antipode of Siberia back then would've been somewhere in the middle of the Panthalassic Ocean. Edit: I take that back; turns out there is some evidence for it that managed to survive, so that's neat.)
Thank you for adding more information. I love reading more about this stuff. It would make sense if a meteor was related to the P-T volcanic activity. It would easily have enough force to mess with the crust of the earth.
I have a fun snarky way to handle “cyclical” people. If they say it’s cyclical I’ll say “so there will be dinosaurs.” And if they ask what I mean, I say “it’s a cycle, so there will be dinosaurs again.” If they say no, I ask if the continents will come together again. It’s an argument towards absurdity to point out that the world is always changing, as is the climate, so there is not a “cycle.”
we need some people, either hacking or inside job, setting the temperature in all conference rooms used by any politicians worldwide 2.5 degrees C higher than normal.
The shitty thing is they'd start wearing lighter clothes, and use it as a campaign point that it's not that bad, actually. Power appears to be a hell of a drug.
It's all just scare tactics, they'll say.
Also, that feeling of power.
Ah, the entire collection of S. Harris' Global Warming cartoons, though lumped together with other environmental topics, is worth linking.
People will be fleeing famine, uninhabitable areas, rising sea levels and wars. The areas that can support life will grow smaller, more valuable and crowded.
Will we be assholes if when this happens we be like. WE FUCKING TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN, but y’all more concerned with arguing over pronouns and protests (I support both).
I get your frustration. I feel it myself. Still, I fear, calling people assholes won't be helpful and prevent folks from admitting they did wrong. At the same time, it can always get worse (hotter) and I think it would be best to win as many people over as possible, to do the right thing.
hear hear! please stop fighting over the petty things and get to work on the things that matter. electing a president that will fight climate change is far more important than what happens in the middle east.
What worries me is that combined with anti immigrants sentiment. I fear beaches of dead as people are prevented from fleeing. I read a SciFi with that and it chilled me as I can see it happening.
My argument would be that individual actions are useless or even harmful. Collective, smart action is required. This problem is bigger than any one of us but not bigger than every one of us.
The main problem is that even if I myself literally stopped existing right now thus reducing any and all pollution I generate, that would still not change the fact that the largest pollutants are big mega corporations and one single person really has no noticeable effect.
While I don't think this is in any way undeserved, I wonder if awarding the Peabody posthumously to the over 100 journalists killed in Gaza would have sent a better message. As the article said, the Pulitzers gave them a special citation.
Global warming is funny in that there is a threshold at which runaway reaction evaporates all water on the planet and changes it into inhabitable wasteland akin to other sad space rocks.
I don’t know what are the chances for that but I feel if it is anything above 0.1% then it is too fukin big of a chance.
I don’t want to risk that the scientists completely missed the mark in some computer simulation or missed some vital, crucial info and this is the actual scenario, those things are awfully hard to model and predict. Maybe the rate of change is so meaningful that it kicks in some bad stuff that would not happen if the rate of change was hundred thousands years. Who knows at this point. Climatologists are fumbling around in confusion
That won't happen, CO2 and warming has been much, MUCH higher than it is now or probably will ever be.
What will happen is that loads of animals will die because they won't be able to adapt quick enough. Thought that we had many extinctions now? Try a hundred times more.
What will happen is mass crop failures due to extreme weather, and water shortages. Humans being the assholes that the are will not focus on an actual solution, they'll just start wars over the scarce resources to make it even worse.
Humanity actually might go extinct if we let it ge tbad enough.
There are still many people out there claiming it's all fake. Can we please just make them extinct?
It begins with wiping out the brainwashed. Theoretically, this should allow democracy to correct the problems, but i suspect the owners will just stop pretending they operate within the bounds of democracy at that point and go all out authoritarian to prevent themselves from being dethroned. Then we wipe them out.
0.1% chance would be huge. That kind of probability is an unacceptable risk even just for a personal injury, let alone the destruction of all life on earth.
It’s not that outlandish as one would instinctively think considering we have no idea why warming accelerated so much in the last years. It’s a good reason to act, among many others. However before that would happen obviously humanity would be long gone anyway.
Also from interesting bits as of now theoretically our GHG ppm is the same as when there was no ice on Greenland and sea level 10 m higher. It seems we are now merely waiting for the delayed reaction because even if we would stop all emissions we would also have to remove the GHGs to avoid it.
Another interesting thing is that scientists are intentionally underplaying some things to not appear ‚alarmist’ because it was figured out that this would have opposite and unhelpful effect to climate action. Except for James Hansen.
In any case it’s useful to know what is the absolute worst scenario and what huge GHG numbers do to the planet(s).
The good news is that almost all lines of evidence lead us to believe that is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger full a runaway greenhouse by addition of non-condensible greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, our understanding of the dynamics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer and cloud physics of hot and steamy atmospheres is weak. We cannot therefore completely rule out the possibility that human actions might cause a transition, if not to full runaway, then at least to a much warmer climate state than the present one. High climate sensitivity might provide a warning. If we, or more likely our remote descendants, are threatened with a runaway greenhouse then geoengineering to reflect sunlight might be life's only hope. ...[2 sentences cut to meet arXiv char limit]... The runaway greenhouse also remains relevant in planetary sciences and astrobiology: as extrasolar planets smaller and nearer to their stars are detected, some will be in a runaway greenhouse state.
Goldblatt, Colin; Watson, Andrew J. (8 January 2012). "The Runaway Greenhouse: implications for future climate change, geoengineering and planetary atmospheres". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 370 (1974): 4197–4216
We have a huge geoengineering greenhouse experiment running on earth as we speak with unclear final outcome. But at least the science of climate will become clearer during this experiment that’s for sure.
No, I just realize that corporations and governments are not motivated to do anything. I know that what I'm saying shifts the blame, but realistically it's the only way.
But people are even less motivated and we should take away their plastic bottles and cars with laws. Individuals will always choose whats more comfortable for them, thats why we’re in this shit. Capitalists just profit off of it.
Millions is not billions and all those vegans still work at offices, buy electronic devices, drive cars and pollute in more ways than I can imagine. The problem with climate is that we’ve grown extremely accustomed to the comforts of our extremely unsustainable lives and we’re so far gone into environmental destruction that the steps we would all need to take to stop it are already extreme, and they are only getting extreme…er.
I’m a vegetarian myself, I never ever buy plastic bottles and Im generally conscious about my impact on the environment, but without basically detaching myself from society I can’t even put a dent in the destruction my lifestyle is bringing.
Most people aren’t even vegetarians and still buy plastic bottles, they will never stop until the society tells them to. We need to fundamentally shit (a typo, but I’ll allow it) our civilization to a completely different mode to even stop deepening our graves, but guess what. We can’t even fix the fucking housing market so we’re simply doomed. The corporations will still hoard their pointless profits and we’ll get annual new fucking iphones until the day we won’t even be able to grow our food.
If people don't want to change, how in the world do you think they'll let a [democrat, republican, etc] politician force them to? Do you think cocacola will save us? The answer is not fun.
From recycling ♻️ to plastic straws, the ad campaigns put the onus on individual consumers instead of the industry. Americans overwhelmingly want to do something about climate change. But the propaganda prevents action.
It is their responsibility , though it should be at pain of death (of their profits), to innovate in order to supply what we demand sustainability. The problem is they are not compelled to do so by any mechanism - regulatory, or market driven. And worse than that , the biggest and most culpable perpetrators of these crimes against humanity (and all other living species present and future) have actively campaigned to misinform, divide and conquer, politicize, deflect and distract (including shifting all responsibility to the individual) since they've known for decades that this is coming and when they alone had the means and capital to adapt, innovate, research and develop solutions for the good of all, including themselves if they'd only planned for something other than their own pockets this financial quarter.
While the developed world rests on its laurels having already developed key technologies that insulate from the worst effects of climate change, the Global South is attempting to push through rapid industrialization to achieve the same effects, bringing with it public infrastructure, electricity, robust food supply, reliable transportation, healthcare...
Meanwhile, the developed world looks at the Global South and says "ah, but why aren't you being greener about it? despicable! how dare you raise emissions?" while simultaneously restricting the free trade of essential green economy components like solar panels and batteries. The fact is, we don't actually care about climate change. Our political entities and economies are not structured to reward innovation in that space, so we simply end up pulling teeth to push through minor advances. Germany used to be a world leader in solar panels before it stagnated due to political pressure. The US used to be a world leader in developing nuclear before it stagnated due to political pressure. Japan used to be the world leader in batteries before it stagnated due to, well, Japan.
While the developed world rests on its laurels having already developed key technologies that insulate from the worst effects of climate change
But this isn't true. Can we fight temperature changes? Sure, we have air conditioning and heaters.
There's lots of things we can't isolate ourselves from. Natural disasters, for example. We see forest fires and floods on a yearly basis, and it's getting worse. We'll face droughts, and diminished crop yields. It'll be particularly bad for all the areas near the equator (which are also incredibly populous and export a lot of food), and what will happen then?
Famine yes, probably, but likely also an exodus away from these areas, which I'm sure will go well as countries are known to welcome people seeking a better life with open arms. We'll face humanitarian tragedies. I'd be surprised if there won't be camps, and with that comes disease. Maybe we'll even see another pandemic.
the problem is that we not only doom ourselves with the collapse of civilization but we doom so many innocent creatures who had nothing to do with this. the animals deserve better.
The projections made by the Club of Rome in 1972 in Limits to Growth are still valid. Should we wait until 2040 to see if the computer simulations were true?
What projections are you looking at? It is a few cherry picked ones? Generally the projections going back to the 80s are in line with what's actually happening, if anything they were optimistic.
Even if you don't agree with projection or that we're actually in-line with them, the correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature isn't disputable anymore.
commondreams.org
Oldest