this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
433 points (98.2% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5245 readers
233 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Oh I totally agree with you, but
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.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
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.).
The answer varies a lot between countries. In ones where elections determine who holds power, they're a viable path to achieving change.
chile says no, elections serve the powerful.
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.
Realistically, you couple domestic regulation with a carbon tariff, assessing incoming goods a fee based on differential pollution in their country of origin.
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".
Well yeah but...
Even if tomorrow we start really working on getting the CO2 levels down (protip: we won't), humanity will be spending half their world energy budget for the next 50-100 years at least to get CO2 levels back to what they should be (pre industrialized levels). Even if we go for something more semi reasonable, say pre 1980 levels, we'll still be spending half our entire world energy budget on this for like a decade. This ain't an easy problem
No not easy. It's way cheaper to avoid making it worse than it is to try and put things back the way they were.
The next generations after us are facing shit storms. This all boils down to thermodynamics. We took energy at the cost of generating CO2. Taking that CO2 back, aggregating, filtering, converting, storing... Add in losses (be generous and take 50% conversion rates), we will need multiple times all the energy we took over the last two centuries to take all that CO2 out.
When I said decades of spending half our energy budget, I was very VERY generous. Reality is that we might have to be doing that for centuries, maybe.
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...
we need both to cut emissions and to heavily invest into carbon sinks. It's doable. But would require coordinated effort where some of the money spent on mindless consumption and cars will have to go towards climate. And ain't nobody cares enough for that!
I'd gladly vote to send my tax money to infrastructure, Medicare, education, and climate. I don't want to subsidize other shittier states anymore, and I sure as shit don't think the militaries need more money.
The great filter is upon you.
The great filter is ~~upon~~ you.
Whenever I thought about the great filter, I never considered greed, but it makes a lot of sense.
Exactly. Does anyone care? It's more like I'm done caring.
If nobody gives a damn, me doing so will only harm myself.
Might as well enjoy commercial aviation in its prime while it lasts. And when in 10 years we will shut it down cuz the world is falling apart, I'll be happily not traveling anywhere, knowing it's for the common good.
Right on. I hate being cynical and pessimistic but why struggle hard when the majority are either working against a positive goal or don't care at all.
I'm gonna enjoy the little things while I can.
But, if a time ever comes... I personally volunteer for the job of guillotine operator...lol. Although at some point this position might be very competitive.
I'll accept an unpaid internship with a sawzall.
I prefer enjoying rail travel and bicycles. I am not going to participate in this madness, just because the others do.
2100 is conservative. That's our world in 2040 at the latest if we don't change.
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.