Soaring temperatures. Unusually hot oceans. Record high levels of carbon pollution in the atmosphere and record low Antarctic ice. We’re only halfway through 2023 and so many climate records are being broken.
Seems like the humans are in a bit of a pickle.
On one hand they can keep using fossil fuels, and that will allow some humans to live more comfortably while they pump so much planet warming gasses into the climate system that it guarantees the future sterilization of the planet.
On the other hand, they could mandate a planet-wide ban on fossil fuels, which would be problematic because their food system is entirely reliant on fossil fuels, without which they could only feed about one billion humans.
Or maybe they will choose to gamble, and attempt to exert their control of the climate system through stratospheric injection of sulphate aerosols. It will be neat to see what possible unanticipated consequences this leads to!
Well whatever the humans choose, just know that we’re all rooting for you! 🍿🎉
Unless big corporations do something about it, we are doomed, individual efforts are going to do no shit We have hit 45C and its not even peak summer
It is not how capitalism works. At first individuals should start prefer local production and production of more green companies. And only after that corporations change their politics. For example, there is a yearly rating of green electronics (how much green electricity company uses, how clean production is, etc.) but customers do not care. And if customers do not care, why corporations should care?
I think expecting each person to trace the incredibly complex chains of businesses and processes that result in every product they buy is unrealistic. Sure, some stuff is obvious, but plenty is not.
It reminds of of an episode of the Good Place where an angel buys a tomato at the supermarket and inadvertently commits like 14 sins due to the deep chains of unethical practices that brought the tomatoes to the store - which of course no one could possibly know when they picked it up.
IMO corporations aren’t going to self-regulate and consumers arent going to do 2 hours of research on everything the buy - it’s supposed to be the governments job to spend the time identifying pollution sources and regulating them away - but with regulatory capture and corruption that doesn’t usually happen either.
How are large corporations going to reduce meat consumption? Or reduce the number of international flights people take for vacation? How will they make entirely unsustainable industries like fast food, fast fashion, and cruise lines go out of business? To say nothing about the rampant inhumane working conditions and cruelty in those industries.
Certainly a lot of the issues are dependent upon the world’s industrial infrastructure and that is not something that we necessarily have a handle on. But all the people building the new sustainable infrastructure are just regular people and individuals who decided to do something.
The concerning part is always “it’s happening faster than they predicted!” I’m not sure what contributes to the models being so far off.
They aren’t really far off it’s just that the models don’t show every feature of the climate because they are models, not reality. But regarding the broad strokes the models are accurate and relevant.
Also CNN peddles fear and useless information. They thrive on sensationalism, not by informing people.They aren’t getting worse than the worse case predictions. Most of the middle-of-the-road predictions came from models assuming we would have stabilised emissions by now.
Back in 2019 I was having a campfire in my backyard with some friends including a retired couple in their late 60’s. He had just retired from IBM. We got on the subject of climate change and how terrible it will be for future generations.
“I mean, not like it’s going to affect us” he said as they both chuckled uttering that classic line (my wife nor I could believe they said it out loud).
Fast forward a year. He caught Covid from one of their out of state friends who stayed with them for a weekend. And guess who caught covid. He died December 30th 2020 from a disease he very much could have prevented. The irony was undeniable, as he succumbed to Covid-19, a cruel twist of fate potentially amplified by the very climate change he dismissed
I wish that for even every 10 alarmist articles about climate change published there was one about the various steps and programs being worked on to address it.
But no. Just more selling of fear and sensationalism.There is very little information regarding that in mainstream news and it is a serious disservice. People need to understand these issues if we are going to contribute to them or vote for them intelligently.
China for example is doing a huge amount to decrease their impact, but you won’t hear about anything positive in China since they must be portrayed as the enemy. That aside, the only way out of even worse global warming and the only way we can mitigate it is to move on from capitalism, and that’s a non starter in the western mainstream.
Mainstream news is meant to run interference for billionaires (who of course benefit by destroying the survivability of the planet). Why would it present these issues in a clear, accurate, and understandable way?
There are lots of good programmes, of course. But the fact is that global emissions continue to rise year on year. We haven’t even managed to stabilise emissions yet, let alone cut.
It’s a very lucrative industry now. People are making fortunes and careers on climate change. You can’t expect honesty or clear information on the back of that. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
My take is that a) man-made climate change is happening, and b) it’s not nearly as bad as alarmists claim. [The global average temperature is projected to increase by 2-4C over the next 80 years. I’m sorry, but that’s just not an “emergency.” You know what is an emergency? The 4.6 We should, immediately, work to make energy cheaper and more abundant for more people, even if it increases our carbon output. Saving lives today is obviously much more important than potentially saving lives 100 years from now.
I respectfully disagree.
At our current trajectory there will be mass death and significant swathes of the planet will simply be uninhabitable.
The view that we should release more carbon than we already are doing now is, in my opinion, reckless and selfish.
I’ll have to find the source later, but I read somewhere that each 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature reduces overall crop yields by 10%. Also, tropical forests that rely on high humidity environments will start drying up causing drastic ecological and an increase in fires. Yes, the fear mongering sells news, but that doesn’t mean you can write off climate change as a big deal.
each 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature reduces overall crop yields by 10%.
That sounds on the high side, so I’d want to read a source before I accept it. Let’s say it’s true for a moment, and crop yields decline by 20-40% over the next 80 years. Take a look at global wheat yields over time. The use of technology to improve yields has resulted in explosive growth to output. Our continued improvements for the next 80 years will more than make up for even a 40% reduction.
I must be clear: I am well aware that there will be consequences to a 2-4C increase in temperature. I’m claiming that those consequences are not as bad as the millions of people dying each year at present because they lack access to cheap energy.
Its cycles, and it depends when you start the measurements from. If you start measuring 38 years ago, then there is no change in temperature. If you start in 1850 then were warmer by 0.7C. From middle ages, were colder by 4C. From the times of the Vikings we have warming, and from times of Jesus we have cooling down. Cycles. Money also has cycles. In the past (i know of examples in the 70s) money was made on the fear of The New Ice Age, and today its the fear of Global Warming.
In the 1970s, there were a few interesting articles published on the possibility of cooling, but they were fairly quickly dismissed . And that was it. I very much doubt there was any serious betting on it, because at that time climate change wasn’t a matter of politicised debate. Perhaps a few climate scientists bet each other £10.
We’ve known what trajectory we’ve been on since t he 80s with increasing certainty each year. In 1988 Margaret Thatcher dedicated her entire address to the UN General Assembly on the science, the threat and how coordinated international action would be needed https://youtu.be/VnAzoDtwCBg
Yes, they’re are climate cycles. This is being driven my human activities
Those numbers are waaaaay off, and even if you are slightly correct with there being cycles, the speed of which the climate is changing right now is completely bonkers. I’d also like to know who makes money out of this “fearmongering”? And why would that be more reasonable to believe than oil/gas companies doing the opposite? Would it be easier to convince the whole world that we need to quit/change parts of our comfortable lives in order to save the future, than to convince us to keep living like we always have?
I guess the solar and wind companies must be bathing in money for them to be able to bribe 99% of all scientists into risking their careers by producing fake reports?
Cant write much atm, so let me just address the “who makes the money” for the time being. Co2 credits are traded on stock exchanges, london has imposed a daily tax on older cars(affecting poorer citizens), developing countries are being hindered as clean energy is not yet an affordable alternative and by this western countries which already went through that process(and it was ok when the west was doing it) effectively destroying existing and potential competition. Its basically making the game unwinnable for them by changing the rules all the time.
Just few quick examples that come to mind how it is lucrative, not to mention the psychologicall effects that fearmongering has on the younger generations living in a state of impending doom all the time.
Sorry, but pretty much every scientific study disagrees with your view.
No need to be sorry, here you go an article from a reputable source citing a study from european researchers - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8555871/Mediterranean-Sea-3-6-F-hotter-Roman-Empire-study-claims.html
A literal tabloid can’t be called a “reputable source” with a straight face. If they link to a study, you should have just pasted the link to the study. Don’t give tabloids your eyes.
Edit: seems they link to this: Persistent warm Mediterranean surface waters during the Roman period.
