On Friday, the globe hit 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees) above pre-industrial levels for the first time in recorded history
The dismaying reality is that it is driven by the wealthy. I got rid of my car, I shop local, and everything in the home is low emissions. No reduction in my personal life can ever offset the way they live.
Driven by the wealthy and enabled by the stupid.
If this topic ceased to be a partisan issue, we might actually see real change and limits enforced.
A world where pollution producers would need to price cleanup and management into their production (which would in turn incentivize cleaner alternatives).
Where corporations might be held liable for damages from their climate or eco negligence.
But as long as this remains an issue that the masses are going to be divided over, the world is going to burn as stupid people insist 3rd degree burns on asphalt is just part of the circle of life.
But I drive my car less, that should do it! /s
This is the reason we’re should focus out efforts to make a ruckus and force decision makers to enforce carbon neutrality BY NEXT YEAR instead of by next century. Of course that won’t happen but that would be the reasonable way.
A general strike? Say the word
God, I wish.
Removed by mod
I mean people set fires and bombs in pursuit of the right to vote and we could argue that climate change is far more existential.
Don’t kill the wealthy. Redistribute their wealth and make them part of the working class.
It’s a fate worse than death in their eyes.
The Reign of Terror was a bad thing, actually.
You overestimate the usefulness of political violence in domestic matters
Unfortunately, they’d probably call in the military in the case of a general strike. At least try to assassinate the leadership.
Guillotines might result in less and more well directed bloodshed. Though, I don’t disagree entirely. That kind of violence, any kind of mass violence, ends up at least somewhat with spillover and misdirection.Hard to say.
We are all tired and angry, and it would seem violence could provide an amount of catharsis and finality. Yet I think the situation is too dynamic to be sure of a positive outcome. Peaceful but firm methods should be tried first, at least.
Will just result in new draconian laws being drafted and enacted. Watch how fast people lose the right to peaceful assembly if it actually affected the ruling class.
I think some rights you either have, fight for, or you just default to being a slave
Fuck humans, let em all die, the rest of the species on earth will be thrilled.
Most species on earth will be dead in any situation that wipes out humanity.
Hopefully another super predator doesn’t evolve and create its own extinction event 😵
The first super predator to wipe out life on earth also did it through climate change, which I find kind of poetic.
Don’t worry it will happen. It won’t be long
Not even if 99% of us would (or even could, for that matter)
It’s not driven by the wealthy, because there are far fewer wealthy people than everyone else.
Individual shopping habits are a band-aid until we can fully replace how some of those habits work.
Carbon taxes would be infinitely preferable to voluntary changes, but we can’t pass carbon taxes because people will go absolutely insane if asked to pay the true cost of their goods.
The richest 1% produces more emissions than the poorest 66%
Worldwide, yes. That generally includes your average Americans, who are in the richest 1% globally.
The largest climate contributors are the billions of “average” people worldwide though, and it isn’t close.
The average american is a millionair?
1.1% of the world’s adult population are millionaires. This adds up to about 56 million people. Collectively, this group has about $191.6 trillion and controls about 46% of the world’s wealth.
1.1% of the world’s adult population are millionaires. This adds up to about 56 million people
I had a decimal point wrong on the Top 10% which does indeed make me look silly.
Regardless, this holds true:
The largest climate contributors are the billions of “average” people worldwide though, and it isn’t close.
The idea that owning stock makes you a polluter is beyond stupid, and that entire article you’re initially referencing is dumb as fuck.
People are arguing with you because they don’t want to take responsibility for themselves or pay the true cost of their consumption. As long as they see someone worse, they don’t have to do anything. The top 1% make 16% of the emissions, sure. But the top 10% are responsible for 52%. That’s 34% belonging to the 1.1-10% . Much of that is due to transportation (in dumb Suv and trucks), inefficient home heating, aviation, and dirty power generation.
We simply don’t solve this problem by focusing on the top1% alone . Which, like you said, is why carbon taxes should be effective. Especially how Canada did it, with the tax being redistributed to the bottom 90% or so. Unfortunately, bringing in an effective system of carbon taxation just gets you voted out for a science denier.
I swear, if I was the fossil fuel industry this exact kind of class anxiety is what I would exploit to stop progress. Get people paying attention to Taylor Swifts jet so they’ll refuse the systematic changes needed avoid this actual crisis.
I mean, over the years I’ve heavily reduced my meat intake, am super conscientious about transportation (haven’t flown in a decade, keep my revs low when I drive, and try to get all my errands done in efficient ways as to minimize gas usage), turn off lights, ration my hot water usage, don’t eat out at wasteful restaurants, buy “ugly” produce from the grocery store, promote renewable energy solutions whenever possible, compost, recycle, and create extremely little garbage. Yet, at my work, several of our AC generators that we use to power the facility use more oil in one day than my car does in its entire lifetime. Several handfuls of billionaires and their families emit the same amount of carbon as the poorest 66% of humanity. Seems to me, if we want to solve climate change, we have to get rid of the biggest polluters first, then transition to clean energy.
And the biggest polluters are corporations/industry, and the rich.
no one wanted to be held accountable for the triage so we let everyone bleed out, safe in the knowledge there was nothing we could have done.
Wealthy nations are making progress, but too little and they’re starting from a bad place.
Poor nations are busily repeating the industrialization process that made the wealthy nations wealthy. Anyone want to tell them they don’t have the right to do so?
I wonder if the window of opportunity on geoengineering is also closing. Because this emissions reduction thing isn’t going anywhere.
“But there are risks with geoengineering! We don’t know what might happen!” So: let’s get testing and find out, the way we do with everything else. Doing nothing on this spells certain doom. I’ll take an unknown quantity over certain doom.
No duh, because not a single country has made any real attempt to lower their citizens’ emissions.
It will take sacrifice from all of us to stop warming.
Forget 1.5°C, honestly, forget 2°C as well, keeping it under 3°C is likely the best that we can hope for right now. You’re needing to throw out our gas-based car infrastructure, reduce our reliance on jets as much as possible, lower not just meat consumption but also almonds/alfalfa/etc., and that is just to get started.
Really, I don’t see the average voter letting that happen. What’s going to happen is eventually, sometime 30-40 years from now, a heat wave is gonna thrash the Middle East, consistent 130°F days for a solid month, 100,000 people dead, and the very next year planes will be in the air, making clouds to block the sun.
We are not ready to give up the things that the developed world will have to give up to truly back away from this coming apocalypse.
The majority of emissions come from just a handful of large companies, even if every individual cut their carbon footprint to zero those companies would still continue to kill the planet. It’s also easier to change the behaviour of some companies than every person on the planet.
Then we’ll go too far and freeze the planet as foretold by the wise minds of Hollywood.
So clearly we need a different solution than cutting back on emissions.
I’d argue we might have to start human expansion into space to have any real positive impact. A solar shade, for example, could block out enough sunlight to artificially prevent warming and stabilize the climate while we construct or seek out alternative energy resources.
Planes are kinda necessary now and less of a convenience. I moved to Miami from NJ (where the rest of my family lives) and just came home today for Thanksgiving. Driving would have taken around 3 days/about 23 hours of total driving and cost a few hundred bucks in gas and maintenance costs. I flew home in under 3 hours and it cost me about $100.
My buddy in NJ married a British woman, so for her, if planes didn’t exist her only option would be to take a boat home which easily takes a week or two, instead it takes her about 7 hours.
The other option is to not expect to see people who live a plane flight away every year.
So you’re supposed to lessen your relationships just because you moved away?
We live in an age where you can literally talk face to face with virtually anyone, nearly anywhere in the world on a tiny rectangle in your pocket. Yes, we can all afford to travel a little less over long distances.
Not everyone has a smartphone or webcam, you, right? My father is 73 and has neither, he doesn’t like to videochat because he feels it impersonal. My mom has a smartphone but doesn’t video chat with anyone. So I’m just supposed to not see my parents for a year or more because they don’t want to video chat?
Removed by mod
What you consider “normal” isn’t exactly normal. This isn’t the 1800s.
Umm you know that trains take energy to run right? The energy doesn’t come out of thin air. Most trains either run off diesel fuel which is dirty as hell or they run off electric and that energy is usually from burning fossil fuels.
So your suggestion is “don’t use this one method of transportation that burns fossil fuels, use this other method of transportation that takes longer and still burns fossil fuels!”
Really great argument you have there! 🤦♂️
Removed by mod
Planes are ubiquitous to the global north. They’re not an American thing.
Or just… live closer together. You don’t see Europeans fly from Germany to the other side just for a few family days
So people aren’t supposed to move anywhere in your opinion, and if you do,just forget about seeing them for years. The US is a hell of a lot bigger than any European country.
Not that far and still expect to see family for every freaking occasion. I meant through Europe, if I’m Dutch and my family is in Spain, I’m not going for Christmas or whatever. Maybe once in a few years, or stay for a vacation not just a few days. That’s idiotic.
Yes, wanting to see your family is idiotic 🙄
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
My parents are getting older and I want to see them as much as I can while still living where I want to. IMO its ridiculous to be like “live in a place you don’t like because you want to see your family often or live where you want to and rarely see your family.” There is a middle ground. Yo may be cool with seeing your family once a year, I’m not.
Trains!
But telling people to lower their emissions because the world is on fucking fire, is eugenics! /s
I wonder if I’ll be alive for the moment everyone goes from “This is bullshit and I’m going to ignore it” to “Oh no who could have seen this coming?”
Some people will never admit anything is happening. They’ll just blame everything on something else.
We are already seeing the effects of climate change. If they were going to admit it, they would have done so already.
There are constant cycles of ‘fuck around’ and ‘find out’ that are naturally occurring, pay too close attention and you’ll see more than you want to. Like 5g conspiracies were always fucking dumb, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t hear almost nothing serious about them after someone decided to try and bomb a city block over it.
The fact is that this was a conscious choice, even recently. The switch to natural gas that everyone is touting is one that is designed to cause higher short-term emissions.
Methane is really bad over a 20-year time frame and only really lets natural gas equal coal over a 100-year period (assuming typical fugitive emissions rates). The transition from coal to natural gas is accelerating the rate at which we boil ourselves alive.
Methane is burned at the point of use and produces carbon dioxide. Ideally there is no methane released in to the environment.
Methane leaks
Something like 3-10% of all methane production leaks. Methane is about 80x worse than CO2 over a 20-year period.
Oh it does for sure. At least in Canada there are government regulations requiring inspections by 3rd parties to check for leaks with some sort of thermal camera. I’m not familiar with the technology to check for leaks but I’ve had to fix the leaks before and it’s taken seriously and well documented.
This will disproportionately effect the poor and developing countries, so the thinking of elites and super rich is that there’s still plenty of time to rectify the situation.
Rectify it? No, they know they’ll be gone before their life is disrupted so much that money can’t fix it.
That time is now before they get worse killler robots than they do.
Yes but they’re paying for an already protected forest to be protected, so it balances out right?
Fortunately the EU is making that kinda advertisement illegal
Eh, humanity had a good run I guess
deleted by creator
didn’t we pass the point of no return like 10 years ago
🎵*it’sthe end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine!*🎵
You mean pledging to eventually tackle the problem 20-30 years down the road and doing nothing about it in the meantime hasn’t solved the problem?! I’m shocked! 🤯
Every time I hear “carbon neutral by 2050” I’m always thinking yeah like it’ll fucking matter at that point, Honda (or whomever).
I’ve been day saying this for the past two years now, humanity is fucked, and soon.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a direct result from the energy we took from burning fossil fuels. To get all that CO2 out were going to have to wait Millenia for earth to do it (that is, if it still can) or spend that same amount of energy to get the CO2 out.
To put that into something understandable: we’re going to have to spend ALL the energy we produced over the last two centuries on too of the energy we need for ourselves to be able to get CO2 back to preindustrial levels. Basically, for the next two to four centuries were going to have to spend at least 50% of our world energy budget to scrubbing CO2 and NONE of that energy is allowed to generate CO2. Actually, NOTHING from humanity can generate CO2 to reach that. If we continue spewing CO2 then you can double that number.
To put that into perspective, adding all required work and infrastructure, energy -all energy- will become 3-4 times as expensive for the next few centuries
People will not understand the issue and will not want to pay more, rich people will not want to foot the bill even though they could, so we won’t do anything and things will get worse and worse until we all die.
One possible alternative might be spraying sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, that might buy us a few valuable years while we fix shit but what will happen is that we’ll just spray the crap out of it and call that a solution while we continue to spray CO2 into the atmosphere like there literally is no tomorrow for humanity
We’re fucked
Always the possibility we eat the rich but I’m not hopeful
deleted by creator
