On Friday, the globe hit 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees) above pre-industrial levels for the first time in recorded history

  • QuodamoresDei@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not consumer cars that’s raising the temperature, though. They want to electrify cars for control. The elites are going to use this carbon credit crap to make people submit to their will. More rules for thee but not for me.

  • jray4559@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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).

  • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Being vegan is the most impactful change that individuals can make.

    But we won’t change.

    It is totally hopeless.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What makes you think major nations will forego their cheapest source of energy if other nations are using it?

    • sirdorius@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And the easiest. But even if all animal products were eliminated worldwide tomorrow, it would probably still not be enough for the emissions target. So individual changes do not make a dent in the problem.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Hoping everyone collectively changes their behaviour isn’t a solution unfortunately.

      We have all the tools and technology to make a huge dent in this problem right now if not outright solve it. The most impactful thing you can do is spread awareness and do what you can to make this a voting issue if you live in a democracy. It could even be as simple is making it a non negotiable for how you choose to vote.

      Lack of climate action needs to be a death sentence for the careers of the political class or it will become a death sentence for the the rest of us.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not having children is the most impactful individual change one can make, well over going vegan.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            i suggest we figure out a way to maintain the habitability of the planet without eugenics.

            • dangblingus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right, but from a “carbon footprint” perspective, making new humans is the worst thing a human could do for their footprint. What we need to get away from is the argument that our individual carbon footprints are too high. I mean, they are, but the ruling class is a lot more egregious.

        • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No it is not. Eugenics is an attempt to improve the genetic quality of a human population.

          We are talking about an attempt to stop climate change. We are not trying to “improve” the genetics of human population.

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Eugenics sounds good at first, but human greed and corruption makes it an incredibly dangerous tool that should probably not be in the hands of anyone

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are talking about an attempt to stop climate change

            those are the trappings, but the method is bare eugenics

            • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No it is not. Eugenics is a pseudo-science about improvement of genetics. Period.

              Trying to avoid climate catastrophe is not about improving genetics.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Trying to avoid climate catastrophe is not about improving genetics.

                if the method by which you try to avoid it is eugenicist, then it is.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Eugenics is a pseudo-science about improvement of genetics. Period

                no, it’s not, even the wikipedia article we both love disputes this claim plainly.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            that’s a narrow definition that doesn’t really encompass all the ways in which eugenics has been practiced. frequently, as i have done here, it is used synonymously with genocide. stop practicing genocide.

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Braindead take. We don’t need more children to be born into a world of suffering.

            • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No. Genocide is murdering people. Genocide is violence against people. Forcing people, against their will to stop existing.

              Asking people to reproduce less is asking people (not forcing them) to exercise their own will.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                genocide is also propaganda that encourages one segment of the population to cease reproduction.

      • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Becoming a vegan anti-natalist is the most impact a person can make.

        I am uncertain of the numbers regarding both individually. You might be right.

        Personally, I think both are important.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, no, wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.

          And there’s a whole range between that and being a vegan anti-natalist, and once you get into calculating your impact on others the whole equation changes

          This isn’t a problem that can be solved personally, it doesn’t make sense to look at it like that

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.

            what about destroying fossil fuel extraction or transportation projects?

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well that’s not really personal anymore.

              Like say you blow up an oil rig or tanker… Congrats, you just made huge a carbon footprint.

              Now say oil equipment gains a habit of being sabotaged, consistently. If it’s one person, It’s a problem for law enforcement. If it’s a consistent thing, fossil fuels have just become more expensive to produce statistically

              Or, you know, we could pass a tax or regulate them properly

              Regardless, my point is that climate change is a systematic problem, thinking of it in terms of individual action is already flawed

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being vegan is the most impactful change that individuals can make.

      being vegan has no impact at all.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • Magrath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Methane is burned at the point of use and produces carbon dioxide. Ideally there is no methane released in to the environment.

        • Magrath@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Xeminis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a big fan of China, but that’s just dishonest. Yes, China emits more than twice the co2 US emits. But that means that its per capita emissions are still way below those of the US, even after western countries outsourced a lot of their own pollution to China. Yes, you NEED to talk to China if you’re going to solve it, but pretending that it is more on them than on the west is ridiculous.

      • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Earth doesn’t care. As long as the western countries keep blaming China only and China not even talking about it, as far as I know from the western media I’m exposed to solely, it will simply get rid of us.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think China is producing that’s creating all that pollution? I’ll give you a hint. IT’S EVERYTHING WESTERNERS ARE BUYING.

      • achance4cheese@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s all so complex. They also produce a major chunk of renewable energy tech as I understand. Which I wouldn’t be surprised was made cheaply without longevity in mind. I’d be surprised if some of that tech lasts more than 5 years, especially for what they sold to Europe and the US. And the kicker, they continue to build coal power plants to run their production of western demanded products. The whole current status quo is a giant mess!

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • metaStatic@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • ApeMan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Japanese are pouring radiation into the Pacific Ocean so that’s probably it.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?”

    • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.