- cross-posted to:
- collapse@lemm.ee
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- collapse@lemm.ee
- climate@slrpnk.net
Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.
Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.
You must log in or register to comment.
My favorite part was when corporations lied their asses off to the entire world for over 50 years while simultaneously telling is this is all our fault but if we recycled and didn’t use too much water, gas, or electricity we could undo the harm that we were personally responsible for.
I’m rather fond of the part where they admitted to those lies, and the US didn’t force them to pay restitutions equal to the cost of mitigating the damage they’ve caused.
The US instead decided to let them keep doing whatever they wanted.
But we fined them $10,000 and wagged our fingers at them, surely they won’t do it again!
In 2068, I’m sure some entrepreneurial politician will run on the “Prosecute the oil companies!” platform, long after a bunch of them have gone bankrupt and all the damage has long since been irreparably done.
Until then, we just need to keep looking for the Least Bad politician (the guy who has one hand out to fossil fuel and another to privatized wind/solar) rather than the guy who insists wind farms spread COVID with 5g, and hope we don’t live long enough to reap the whirlwind.
Removed by mod
The veneer of democracy will be around for a long, long time.
would they even be able to?
Not in a lump sum. If it were just, big oil would be turning over all profits to mitigate climate change in perpetuity.
You sound dangerously Communist.
It’s not communism if they’re paying damages in a settlement. It’s justice.
Me too, thanks. I love a good gaslighting
They are telling provocative things on purpose. It is needed to create the fake debate that traps the public between two falsehood.
The heated tones and the strong arguments are meant to enrage people, drag them into the battle and push them to take one side and accept the arguments of that side without a proper deep thinking.
What a unique take. Thanks for contributing
Alright time for corporations to take responsibility and shut down all of their emissions. No more new cars, or gasoline for existing cars, or oil, or meat, a lot of the electrical grid is coming down, construction is halted, no more deliveries or shipping.
Why not try to do better even if it’s not perfect? Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
What do you wanna aim for, half? Cut all these things in half, prices skyrocket and only rich folks can afford. A quarter? There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.
There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.
This is true in the world we live in now. The powers that be like the way things are, They are mostly very old and very rich, they don’t give a fuck. This makes it easy for massive corporations that have created this mess to manipulate those in power so they don’t have to do anything to be apart of fixing the problems
But there is a world where we could put younger, more concerned people into power that could start to make some changes to how the world works. This won’t fix the problem, we are too far along for that, but it would at least (hopefully) not make this planet completely uninhabitable to every form of life.
It’s not like a greedy old fucks are going to just step down. For that dream to happen if would have to be by force.
Good ideas all around. Thanks for suggesting them. Shut it all down before we all burn to death or drown.
I’m curious what your point is. I am not trying to be rude, just not sure what you’re getting at. Do you think there’s no solution so we just ride the whole mess out?
as you can see in the comment I was replying to, discussions of emissions always get derailed by putting responsibility on corporations when faced with the prospect of changing their own lifestyle to lower emissions. But the emissions people want corporations to take responsibility for are the same emissions coming out of their own tailpipes, and I dont mean that figuratively. An oil corporation isnt just pumping emissions into the air at the drill site, or the pipeline, or the corporate office. When researchers are talking about carbon footprint of oil companies, they’re literally talking about the co2 emitted from the process which is at the end point, your vehicle.
There is no world where responsibility is taken for emissions that doesnt cut off access to these high emissions products and services to people, either by corporations no longer providing it, or people no longer buying it, it doesnt matter which side you blame, you dont get to keep driving a gas vehicle, eat red meat, or use non-renewable electricity.
I kinda get where you’re coming from. I believe in personal responsibility and try to limit my own impact (no car, vegan) and just in my own life it’s frustrating talking to people who turn around and say ‘but corporations’.
But I still think holding them accountable would be helpful, it might force people to finally address these issues, money could go toward pedestrian infrastructure and subsidies for vegan businesses and foods. In a lot of cases it’s not as simple as people choosing, corporations have helped create a world where, for a lot of people, there is no choice.
the point people are generally making when they complain about corporations comprising the majority of the emissions is that they have the majority of the actual control in the situation, there’s not really a real alternative that exists to a lot of these other options that’s viable for people to actually partake in, short of moving out into the countryside and deciding to start homesteading, which also takes a lot of resources to start up. And then also that, because the corporations have a lot of the control, and the consumers can’t realistically do jack shit, it makes more sense to put the focus on them and regulate what they do.
lots of people can’t live without a car right now because they don’t have access to public transit. lots of the food supply that exists right now is energy inefficient because it’s profitable for the corporations to rely on publicly subsidized highway infrastructure and underpaid non-union trucking and guarantee consistent delivery times compared to huge idiot precision scheduled rail operations. some people can’t switch over to a non-coal power plant without cutting out basically all electrical use from their life (not sustainable) or ponying up for solar panels on their roof (can’t be done everywhere, potentially makes the grid less stable, expensive even with tax credits, can’t do it if you’re renting).
none of that is shit that they’re really given any say on outside of occasional city council meetings which realistically affect very little about their local community, and like an election every couple years. I don’t think there’s an equal share of responsibility there, and I don’t think the people even really have the ability to take responsibility for it. even just looking at it pragmatically, even if they had the ability to do so, they probably won’t. it makes more sense to attack the head of the pyramid there, to attack the concentration of power.
That’s not such a bad thing either.
Renewable energy should be subsidized for any home owner/apartment building/business which has somewhere to put solar panels or wind turbines to augment the grid locally. Budget for battery backups and you have a solution for the majority of use cases. Next, why not make EVs an even better proposition than they currently are? Increase the number of level DCFC stations, put level 2 charging everywhere it’s feasible, including restaurants, the library, all public buildings, grocery stores. Battery size can be reduced if you can charge literally everywhere you go. Your third point with beef. Well, doctors have been saying for decades not to eat so much red meat. Now there’s a climate excuse for being able to replace all those burger chains with something healthier.
But even if the pollution is all yours, the corporations do share responsibility.
The entire point of capitalism is to decide in your best financial interest, but your cheapest option is the most polluting and the corps biggest profit is what they can mass produce the most of. The whole system is resistant to change unless government looks out for the interests of its constituents and shapes the market for the constituents best interest.
I recently had reason to buy a car. I chose an EV for my investment into one little corner of our future, but it was not the best choice financially. I’m a bad capitalist. Government incentives did help a lot though. I know transitioning to EVs is important, but $11k incentives made it affordable. It’s not looking for a handout, it’s government looking out for our future by helping the transition along.
But there also needs to be EVs to buy and chargers to charge at. All of which are an up front investment that is good in the long term but poor financial decision in the short term. Yes the corps need to be pushed. They been pushed for years, over a decade and just keep resisting change. Given all the backpedaling this past year, legacy car manufacturers need to be pushed harder, maybe to the point where their existence is threatened if they still don’t do the right thing. But it’s not just pushing, incentives are important to growing the market and creating a profit incentive
I’ll go vegetarian and ride my bike, fuck it.
That said, these motherfuckers need to fix what they fucked up, not just stop making it worse.
I dont understand, everyone bought bigger SUV’s and it didnt help
Unironically, that’s partly due to our emissions coding system. According to the system, a light truck with more seats gets more emissions allowance, incentivizing auto makers to lean into the larger class. That’s why there are so many extended cab pickups, yet so few two-seaters with an eight foot bed. We all know that six-seater Ram MegaCab or the Escalade that seats eight is often only driving one selfish person to work.
Its entirely due to people buying larger SUV’s.
Right, and the reason auto manufacturers are creating so many is because we incentivize emissions reduction by class, and light trucks allow for more emissions.
Its because people are buying more larger SUV’s. Cars are still cheaper than SUV’s but consumers are choosing to buy bigger.
I don’t think you’re listening. Small vehicles are not sold in America anymore. When was the last time you saw a new two door car? Americans are buying larger vehicles because that’s the only option. That’s the only option because the fuel economy rules in this country are broken.
Ah no, see i specified SUVs. By a large margin most new vehicles sold are large SUVs https://www.motortrend.com/news/best-selling-cars-trucks-suvs-in-america-2023/
I know about the emissions standards exception for trucks and SUVs, its shitty. But there are still new cars being sold, cars that dont qualify for the more relaxed emissions standard, cars with a much higher mpg as a result, that cost less than the larger SUVs they are buying instead. Mitsubishi mirage or nissan versa are 2 that pop up. If consumers wanted smaller cars, that’s what we would have.
Keep in mind that the limited variety of smaller vehicles sold is an issue.
For example, I drive a Prius. I decided I’d like to upgrade to a nicer PHEV car, so I looked at Lexus’s offerings. It’s almost all SUVs, with the only PHEV being an SUV. The luxury equivalent to the Prius exists, it just isn’t sold in the United States due to low demand for smaller vehicles.
We’re not ready to jump to an electric vehicle yet, so I continue to drive my Prius and will drive it into the ground, despite it being pretty loud on the freeway.
Having driven a Nissan Versa, they aren’t fun on the freeway, country roads or anywhere you’d be around anything the size of a standard SUV or current truck.
You can’t even get a small car if you wanted one :( Even mini coopers are just coopers now
Well, also, increased trans-oceanic shipping (lots of old ships still use bunker fuel, some of the nastiest fossil fuel on the market) and increased air travel and also plus too a bunch of wars keep happening.
I should note that we do have a solution to the first problem. But it’s predicated on the rapid deployment of a very modern kind of nuclear engine.
And that means replacing tens of thousands of old ICE engines. Which means spending money. Which private industry hates.
So don’t hold your breath waiting for any of this shit to change. But do hold you breath around bunker fuel, because jesus fucking christ that shit is gross.
by “it” I was talking about the trend of larger SUV’s
but on that topic, check out the breakdown of emissions by type of transportation https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58861#_idTextAnchor054
We need to throw away all the old SUVs and buy new SUVs powered by AI and financed with crypto.
They need to mine bitcoin while idling on our driveway.
Hmm I think we need even bigger trucks and also more religion and less gay people. That’ll fix it.
This is what big business want. Did you have a look at what the media think about electric cars? They always show either Tesla or big electric SUV and they tell you that they are green. Big business want to sell big cars even if they require a lot more energy and materials to be manufactured, even if they consume a lot more energy when they are on the road, even if they take a lot more space on the road and in the parking lots.
We are so fucked unless we force “all” the big corporations to pay for the pollution they caused while making trillions in profit over the decades they polluted and hid the scientific knowledge showing climate change. And even then,if we stop polluting right now, we still might not Make it as a civilisation.
China is the world’s biggest polluter in absolute terms
All includes China I’d think
They would never accept those terms
Listen I’m not huge fan of China but credit where credit is due, they are kicking ass at transitioning to renewables, subway and highspeed rail and EVs.
That’s great, I’m here in Beijing and the air quality is terrible. They are burning so much coal for electricity
I’m here in Alberta, Canada and we are also using enormous amounts of coal and natural gas for electricity despite having almost perfect conditions for solar and wind generation. Funny that.
Even if China literally just never produced another gram of CO2 ever, we’d have the same problem slightly later. We really do all need to take part, especially those of us in countries that produce more carbon per person. China produces about as much per person as Europe does, but that’s still way too much
Not really, because we’d transition to EVs and solar quickly enough that we wouldn’t increase the global temperature
Would we, though? Have you met us?
Yes, the Western countries have been reducing their emissions. Have you actually checked?
Even if we stopped everything today, the temperatures would continue to rise for years.
It’s easy to point the finger at China when so many products the western world consumes is manufactured there.
To be fair, China actually does emit about as much per capita as Europe when measuring by consumption nowadays. Unfortunately that just means both are way too high, and several other major economies are even worse
Thanks for clarifying. Totally agree.
Why do you think that is? Over 50,000 US companies manufacture in China. Paying them to do our dirty industrial work, shipping the wares halfway around the world, and then pointing your finger as if they’re the problem is absurd.
It’s also the leader in building up renewables instead while everyone else sits lazily on their ass crying “why should we do anything when China exists?”
How about we do better than China first and then cry about them, instead of using them as an excuse to fail even harder than them?
You’re right. They are.
They’re also the largest producer of clean renewable energy and … well everything else. They’re simply the largest on pretty much everything in absolute terms - good or bad. That’s no excuse and they need to do better in regards of pollution, but the thing is, they are also already trying.
Them doing bad in absolute terms is no excuse for any other countries with higher pollution pr.capita not to start doing better too.
This should not be a competition of how much a country can pretend to allow itself to pollute in absolute terms in comparison to others. It should be a competition of polluting as little as possible.
Somebody better tell the climate that, because so far it hasn’t been respecting national borders, kinda unfair tbh. I mean, as long as we’re not the literal worst by one or two statistics, we shouldn’t bear any of the consequences of our actions, right? Until we can teach physics about global politics and bullshitting with statistics, though, maybe we should all focus on doing whatever we can to reduce the effects of climate change.
yeah and for sure that pollution china is making is all for domestic uses so its all on them /s
Absolutely not. If we look back since the Industrial Revolution the US are, closely followed by Europe and then China.
We can’t change the industrial revolution emissions
Clearly, but the burden doesn’t lie on China alone. They became the factory of the world because we needed cheap shit for everyone.
What’s your point?
Just because someone else is being bad doesn’t obligate us to do nothing about our own contribution to the problem.
.
Pull your weight and set a good example for others.
Actually it’s not an argument about obligation, but rather about cause and effect. If oneself isn’t the biggest polluter, then one’s own adherence to principles won’t have the effect of reversing climate change. It’s a matter of the effects caused by one’s choices, and when someone else is the biggest polluter it removes the opportunity to do anything about it, resulting in reduced value.
That obligation you speak of exists in a context of cause and effect, and those are the things being reasoned about here.
So… Getting better while China doesn’t creates the effect of reducing emmissions by… let’s say 40%.
The effect of crying about China as an excuse to not do anything yourself however is 0!
Which on will you chose?
Yeah just throw money at the carbon dioxide to make it go away
You say this sarcastically like it’s not really an option
Where can i buy a carbon dioxide remover
A) at any tree nursery
B) these machines actually exist, and throwing money at them would no doubt expedite the process of making them a viable solution
Havent tree charities been planting billions or something? Is co2 reducing yet?
Get me a link to buy one of these machines
You’re a bad and boring troll
“these machines actually exist”
“show me”
“wow what a troll”
It’s not trolling it’s arguing. Big difference. The word “troll” is not a get-out-of-debate-free card.
There you go. You got cash, they build the plant for you.
Exactly. Methane too. There are countless engineering projects with potential for mitigation. VCs aren’t exactly lining up to “do good for the planet” without returns. Money caused the problem, just like money could address it.
Theres no such thing as clean fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide is intrinsic to combustion energy.
What does that have to do with removal of CO2 and methane? There are plenty of solar, wind, wave, and salt powered removal solutions, as well as chemical.
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/exploratory-topics/direct-ocean-capture
Edit: Additional information on carbon conversion processes from further down in this thread
https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use
https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
Sorry, you said methane and i assumed you were talking about carbon capture from fossile fuel plants.
None of those are current solutions, step 1 is they release the co2 from the ocean. There is no step 2.
That’s simply not true. There are many models that convert it to bicarbonate or ethanol, building materials, bioplastics, or bind the carbon in solid form to be safely released back into the environment. The problem is they’re all expensive.
Oh, those werent in the link you provided, or in what i found looking at current carbon capture technology.
Correct. There are however a lot of solutions that a) don’t produce co2 and b) are more efficient and cheaper already, very much more so once they are properly scaled up.
So you could in fact throw money at the problem… And even those who refuse to follow the change will simply go bunkrupt over it because fossil fuels aren’t even economically viable in comparison.
We have already gone past that for the last couple of years. It seems like 6% of respondents are very naïve.
Anyone who hasn’t had their head up their ass has been aware of this. Life will be extremely shitty by the mid century. If you haven’t made the horrible choice to reproduce, be sure that you don’t. There will be no future worth living for those born today.
not sure about no future but certainly a shitier one all around. but yeah I don’t know how anyone is not aware that 1.5 is a long past pipe dream at this point.
Gonna be much quicker than 25yrs.
But for a brief period of history we made a few people even more disgustingly rich than ever, so it’s totally worth the climate catastrophe and of course economic ruin to come in the next few decades.
What exactly do you predict in terms of lifestyle changes by mid century?
It isn’t my personal predictions. It is the predictions made by climate scientists and even the military industrial complex (based on climate models). We’ve already begun to see the effects and they will get worse. Extreme weather events, massive migration, famine, drought, and war. This is what the future holds, even if developed countries can dampen the impacts for a time, they won’t be immune. It isn’t great.
Based on the scientific sources you’re referring to, are there any specific predictions in terms of certain numbers by certain dates?
Like are we talking 50% loss of farmland? Are we talking 50% increase in farmland? Are we talking by 2030, by 2050, by 2070, what?
I don’t have specifics memorized, of course. If you’d like specifics; the EU, NOAA, UN, USDOD, EPA, NASA, etc, have all released predictions along with sources you can dive into. It has been getting worse over the last 15 years, as far as predictions.
You have the Great Depression and 2008 financial crisis. That’s going to be the permanent state after 2050. Few jobs, high prices, that kind of misery.
Any quantifiable predictions? Words like “few” and “high” don’t really lead to falsifiable claims.
Of course not. You’re never sure if another war starts or when another COVID happens. Nobody can make quantifiable predictions. Those that do are trying to sell you something.
Are you joking? Quantifiable predictions are the basis of science. It’s called hypothesis. It’s why we use statistics: setting numerical thresholds for significance allows us to look at ambiguous data and draw conclusions we know are free from our own perceptual biases.
Who on earth told you that quantifiable predictions are for people trying to sell you something?
Economists. It’s about jobs and prices after all. It’s even debated if economics is a science.
The only chance we have that I see is the rapid development of fusion into a proper, usable power source, the supplantation of effectively all carbon emitting power plants with non-emitting plants (fusion or otherwise), the effectively complete electrification of the global commercial transport system, and a massive scaling of production direct carbon capture, leveraging the various aforementioned non-carbon emitting electricity sources to make it happen.
Yep.
Our experts estimate that the various societies on Earth have a 96% chance of solving the Great Filter using humanity’s great superpower of technological innovation, but paradoxically only a 3 to 7.5% chance of successfully implementing the necessary societal and political changes before complete extinction.
Removed by mod
I’m getting a bit more optimistic when I read about companies like Terraform Industries and Prometheus Fuels. If they really can make efuels cheaper than fossil fuels, things can change really fast for the better.
To be fair there are more options. Like reduce over consumption, restore forested lands, voting the right people in the office. Prosecute abusers, big companies/ personalities who contribute to this issue.
The only chance we have that I see is the rapid development of fusion into a proper, usable power source,
Fusion is a marketing story to distract the attention. It is so difficult to realize a practical commercial fusion technology that it will not be available this century for sure.
In any case as I explained in the other comment the root cause is overpopulation. Solving the energy problems might mitigate for a while the situation, but it will not solve the situation. Famines, conflicts and mass migration will happen anyway.
Removed by mod
Or, alternatively, having enough energy for everyone would mean no more population problem. Many thousands of people smarter than you and I believe that fusion power is feasible, and in our lifetime, and have dedicated their entire professional lives to that goal.
It’s an insult to them to have wave it away like this.
Fusion is nuclear and nuclear is considered double plus ungood.
might as well ban microwaves for emitting ‘radiation’.
The all natural crowd isn’t aware of that yet
Guess who is trying to deep-six EVs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
Something of a laundry list. But the short answer is the US Auto Battery Consortium (USABC).
famines, conflicts and mass migration
This will happen for sure and the cause is not just climate change. The cause is overpopulation and exhaustion of the Earth resources.
which is why we’re just gonna retreat into pockets of radicalism where we all kill each other. max profit til then.
Overpopulation is a myth
overpopulation is not measured by how many people you can pack into a telephone booth. Overpopulation in measured by how many people the Earth resources can support.
We began to consume more resources than what the Earth can provide decades ago, when the population was less than six billion people. Not just fossil fuels, we are consuming fresh water, arable land and forests in a non sustainable manner. The wild fish population in the sea reached an all time low and we are still overfishing. Fish farming accounts just for a small fraction of our consumption.
The alarms by the World watch and other institutes began in the '70s. Nonetheless the world population kept increasing and it is still increasing.
-
77% of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5C above pre-industrial levels, a devastating degree of heating;
-
almost half – 42% – think it will be more than 3C;
-
only 6% think the 1.5C limit will be achieved.
This is not how science works.
an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Nobody claiming this is science.
-
This is no longer a sigpost on the way to oblivion, but a giant neon billboard in our living room. violent explosion shit! The billboard exploded and set our house on fire… Better blame some Arsonists
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F)
I’m not saying that everyone bothers in comments, but I’d have thought that as a major news publication, The Guardian would bother to use the degree symbol:
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5°C (4.5°F)
°•°
What’s the purpose of using any particular symbol and, in this context, does the addition of the degree symbol achieve that purpose?
Sweet! If this is at all obvious to anyone paying attention and I’ve been saying I expect it to happen for years, I’m putting “One of the worlds top scientists” on my resume.
I’m getting big “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” vibes here
when this century? soon or in ~70 years?
It’s starting now.
Yup. By defintion any process that ends in the future is starting now. I think the question isn’t “are we on the curve now?” but rather “When are we expected to see this 3C stuff?”
1.5°C before 2030
2.0°C before 2050
3.0°C before 2100
That’s what I get if I skim a few articles. Dates are without mitigation.
So basically we only get to check one of those predictions within the next ten years.
The 2100 date for 3C is going to take 75 years to test.
When scientists predicted mass starvation in 2000 it was only 25 years out, but by the time that prediction turned out false everyone had basically forgotten the predictions. And that’s just a 25 year gap.
What I’m saying is that there’s zero skin in the game, reputation-wise, for someone making climate predictions 75 years out.
That reasoning, if not the exact words about scientists being wrong, was also used by critics to say climate warning plateaued and no action at all should be taken. Turned out the critics were wrong.
I’ve seen a lot of the classics being brought up: There is no warming, warming is good, it’s not human made, it’s too late anyway, it’s just the weather, there are no ill effects, … So I’ll follow the scientists, they got a lot more right than the critics.
By defintion any process that ends in the future is starting now.
How so? I will start baking bread on friday and it will be finished saturday. Hasn’t started yet tho.
Unless you consider thinking about it to be part of the process. Or the movement of the universe toward such an event. Such boundaries between cause and effect are arbitrary and exist in the mind, not in reality.
It has already started.
