https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03849-y
Polar ice, coral reefs and other Earth systems could cross irrevocable thresholds soon, but urgent action could stave off the worst effects.
At least I’ll finally get to win the argument with my dad about if climate change is real or not.
If he is in 2023 still arguing it, then he is type of guy that It will take only two days of snow until he calls you to ask where „your global warming is now“.
Things are changing. It just takes time. We're pretty much at peak carbon by all indications.
Nice attempt at distracting from the issue - the tail effects from the GHGs already emitted is enough to change life as we know it.
CO2 is also not the end-all-be-all of climate change - we have huge methane emissions coming from melting permafrost, oceans, and icebergs that are 80-87x as damaging (ton-for-ton) than CO2.
I don't even know why they bother publishing the same fucking articles every week. At this point people are numb to the information.
Sure there's a solid chunk of the population who doesn't give a shit and doesn't believe there's a problem to begin with.
But a lot of people do give a shit but are realistically powerless to effect change. Turning all your lights off and walking to work isn't going to change shit. It's big business that is mainly at fault here. They've just spent years brainwashing everyone to think that if we don't leave the water running while brushing our teeth it's magically gonna solve all our problems.
So what are people who can't make an actual dent in the problem to do with a weekly "ANOTHER TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED" sort of article? It's basically noise now.
But a lot of people do give a shit but are realistically powerless to effect change.
They could've started by voting for parties and candidates that want to actually do something. But the matter of the fact is that all climate actions cost money and will affect us, and that's not what voters want. And yes, swapping your car for alternatives and eating less or no meat & diary products is actually having a big impact. Same with where and what you buy as those large companies that everyone cries about are in the end still producing their shit for you and me.
The vast majority of people don't understand any of the words you just wrote, and they especially don't understand how it relates to voting.
What do you mean? I literally use the simplest form of English possible, as I'm not a native speaker myself.
what are people who can't make an actual dent in the problem to do with a weekly "ANOTHER TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED" sort of article?
What do people do with other sorts of articles? Read it and earn advertising revenue for the publishers.
While that is true, people are easily fooled. And in some countries, you don't really have much choice.
Of course! I always vote for parties that have radical ideas for climate. Last summer we had a huge climate protest I was a part of.
I also drive an electric car, use solar panels, eat meat once a week and have an energy neutral home.
It's the most I can do while trying to provide for my family. This shit is so depressing.
Driving a car, eating meat and presumably living in a house that increases urban sprawl isn't the flex you think it is.
Right, but aside from everybody deciding to return to monke overnight, this is the most the average singular person can do to fight climate change. The problem is multipronged and societal. Westerners eat way too much meat, westerners drive way too many high emission vehicles, westerners buy too much shitty plastic crap, westerners leave every light in the house on while they have 3 screens open scrolling/gaming/background noise.
We know... but can anyone really do anything? We reguraly get scientific breakthroughs that may help, but are too new to meet the scale required. We regurally hear PSA like "Recycling helps" or "Only you can prevent forest fires" but once again, the scale of the issue is far larger than paper straws or other feel good wishcycling programs. We reguraly see that the ~100 companies directly responsible for the problems not suffering any concequences, investigations into wrong doings are met with armies of lawyers, lobbyists (see bribery), and limp-wristed regulations with fines that are considered "the cost of doing business" instead of a penalty to be avoided.
For me, the fear and panic of impending climate collapse has given way to apathy and resignation. We know its a problem, its just that the scale requires real global action, its a global prisoner's dilemma, and im not confident people will get it right.
Change is happening. We're reaching peak carbon this year or the next 2 years. China is widely forecast to emit less Carbon next year than this year.
We just need to keep chipping away. This problem was created over 100+ years and it takes time to turn the ship.
Unfortunately, even if we stopped using all petroleum products right this second, there's still that nasty 50 year lag between emissions and atmospheric outcome. We'll be seeing the Earth get hotter and hotter for many years to come before it changes, and by that time, the cascading system failures of Earth's biomes may be well past the point of no return.
there’s still that nasty 50 year lag between emissions and atmospheric outcome
Are you sure about that?
Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/
it takes time to turn the ship
The time it would take to turn the ship is waaaay more time than it'll take to travel the very short distance to the rocks the ship is heading towards. That ship gon' crash.
We don't have 100 years to get on the right track. Soon, a global heating feedback loop will become prominent enough that it will make "the right track" an ineffective solution.
Eh, we will try to geo engineer our way out when it becomes apparent (everyone agrees even those batshit insane gopers) that we are well and truly fucked.
Personally I'm of the opinion that tipping points should not be a focus. I think people have reached a level of fear saturation, and no more fear can influence the system, it just precipitates right back out. While you can replace one fear with another, this can be inoculated against with faith, which is fairly accessible and common.
I think we need to actually take a page from Biden here, and stop pumping fear and consequences, and start pumping hope. Our stick is so waved the thing is fraying, but our carrots are underutilized.
Guys like Elon Musk, of all fucking people, are beating us in the hope dept. How the fuck did that happen?
Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.
I agree with your point that the messaging isn't working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.
Agreed. But I think we need to focus our attention away from actual solutions to major problems, and onto minor solutions to minor problems, that will give us a footing for actually being able to take steps forward again.
We need to fight the battle right in front of our faces, instead of focusing on our more standard long-term views. Otherwise we're going to be strategically and tactically outmaneuvered by people that follow fewer rules than we do.
It's a feasibility and priorities consideration.
The problem with that being that the "minor solutions" aren't really solving the problem. We've been doing "minor solutions" for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.
We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn't possible, our other option is to just fail and die.
In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
The problem is there may not be survival for all of us at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that's the one we've been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Otherwise you're asking for authority, and putting all your trust in it. That has like, a 5% of working or something, and a 95% of the authority being co-opted by fascists in the near future. It's a rock and a hard place. Catch 22. We've been maneuvered into this situation, very cleverly. By fucking McConnell, mainly, but whatever. That idiot has to live with his party now.
edit for wording
In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.
We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.
Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the "right choice uwu".
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.
So I'm not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.
I'm hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.
The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.
I suppose it depends on what you consider "okayish". You sound to me like a utopian, which I admire, but cannot personally accept.
At any rate, if you look out at our world and see only disaster, that's a function of your news feed, not reality. It's just not that black and white.
I don't only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.
Agreed. Everyone that cares already knows. Those that don't care aren't listening.
It's time to write about workable solutions for those who care. What we can do to prepare, what we can do to mitigate, and what we can do to survive in this new world coming our way.
We need organization and action of the masses commensurate with the danger. That would give me some hope for once.
You should check out the history of apocalypse forecasting. It's almost as amusing as the long history of "kids these days" complaints.
Both are bullshit, however. People just like whining and fantasizing about things they don't like being punished.
In some cases, though the standards of "scientific evidence" were much, much lower back in the day. The scientific method, is afterall, an approach by which we try to refine our stuff over time.
But the key here is apocalypse. Nothing lasts forever, no kingdom or country will, including ours. But people will remain. Societies will remain. The biosphere isn't going anywhere, unless you're thinking in religious terms.
It's not an end of us all, though it will create massive upheaval if we don't start on mitigation soon.
I'm hoping that humanity is eradicated, for the good of the planet, and any other planet they might dream to spread to.
If you want to pump out hope, then get the politicians and voters to actually do something. And by something I mean actual proper actions and not just some band aid solutions that barely get us below 3 degrees. So far I see absolutely fucking nothing.
Oh, it's too late to stop it. What, you gonna propose we invade India and halt their emissions? Or ask Modi to be a nice guy?
It's time for prevention of worsening+mitigation.
Why look towards developing countries?
Are you proposing that they shouldn't reach the same living standards as us? Or should we lower our living standards to match theirs?
I'm proposing we do not attempt to control their destinies. That means we cannot control their carbon. This in turn means that whether severe climate change happens or not is out of the power of the west to control. It is Modi's decision to make. We can only observe, mostly helplessly.
So, we need to focus on things we can help with.
Unless you know of something we can do to influence overseas carbon that I don't. An embargo perhaps? Blockade maybe?
Yeah, no, sorry. Come back when our glorious West is actually climate neutral before pointing fingers towards countries that are still developing. This is ridiculously stupid.
One does not have to be without fault, to see and criticize it in others. Otherwise it becomes too easy to just repeats the same mistakes. This is actually wisdom, not stupidity, where we try to learn from history. Even other people's history.
No. It's stupid to expect countries to halt their development while we sit on our comfortable asses. Especially since it is our living standards that brought us into this mess.
My realizations over the years:
Even if we make our cars less carbon-polluting by 25%, if we end up driving more, we could still end up polluting more.
Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.
Global warming effects are scary, but what's worse is global cooling and Ice Age. Once the ocean's balance is messed up by diluted salinity due to melted ice caps, who knows where this can go.
Developing nations need electricity and primary energy growth. They need it to pull people out of poverty, and guarantee basic human needs like food, water, shelter as well as basic human desires like education, employment, and transportation. Western countries should be using their immense economic power to make renewable sources of energy the more cost-effective solution. They're not.
China is on track to hit peak oil (this year) and peak coal (next year). This is due to their EV adoption rate (~40% and growing fast) and their solar panel installation rate (this year, more than the entire sum of all US solar panels). China dominates the supply chain: they make up more than half of all battery exports and more than 80% of all solar panels exports worldwide. In less than a decade, China has drove down the cost of EVs to parity with ICE vehicles ($10000/car) and drove down the cost of solar to be less than that of traditional fossil fuels.
The West could have done the same. Instead, we kept jacking off our O&G producers and giving them billions of dollars in subsidies while solidifying the advantage of established car and solar companies rather than driving innovation from competition.
It's not even a morality problem, it's a question of growing your economy by developing emerging industries
It's not that simple to electrify with renewable. We'd need to mine wayyyy more copper for wiring. We'd need to produce wayyy more rubber for insulated coatings of all those wires. We'd need wayyy more transformers. And if every garage in America has a car charging in it, then we'll need wayyy more batteries and We'd have a lot more load on our electric infrastructure. In the end, we'd still need fossil fuel infrastructure to account for when the sun's not shining and wind isn't blowing.
And yet, China this year deployed more solar panels than the US in it's entire history.
That's great for them, I hope it was worth it in the end. And that would work great in a desert and southern California, but it won't work to well in most of the USA due to weather.
Solar panels are so obscenely cheap that their profitability curve works in a ton of weather conditions you wouldn't expect.
The fact that it's so expensive in the US is entirely decoupled from their manufacturing cost.
Then why is it over $35k to get them installed on a house's roof? And still I'd need to be plugged into the grid.
The costs in the US are completely fucked. Partially because of tariffs on imports, partially because of bullshit regulations that protect the large existing players, and partially because American workers are just, frankly, less efficient.
Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.
Ehh, it's worth noting that developing nations tend to pollute a lot less per capita. And as they develop they can transition to cleaner forms of energy, as they gain the economic ability to do so.
Pointing at developing nations is a convenient excuse for developed nations to avoid taking the actions we need to take.
We should be subsidizing renewables in developing countries so that they never have a reason to use fossil fuels in the first place.
…but where will BP or Shell make their billions then?
Also: things like blue ammonia and blue hydrogen are far more polluting than oil even diesel fuel, yet those ghouls managed to greenwash it into appearing better.
My thing is what we are seeing with coal. This should be a no brainer but its use is still increasing!!!
Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more
But that's still less bad than if the western nations don't pollute less.
Plus the more advanced nations can develop the technologies and techniques that all countries can implement for the benefit of all of us.
If there is the political will.
.
Giving up isn't the answer, no matter how overwhelming the problem looks. Because the alternative is a very unpleasant march towards extinction.
March towards extinction
You're being overdramatic, there won't be total extinction... just the vast majority of the world population living in misery and slowly dying.
Just go with it and die from it when the time comes. The way money decides for us how this will go, there's no stopping it. Fuck it. It ain't important if earth lives on anyway
Should've woken up earlier. Then it could've been the 4th shitty thing you'd heard today and it would've stung less.
If I'd have woken up earlier I wouldn't need to go to bed. At least that's how it felt.
Don't worry, soon you'll fell numb hearing informations like this, like some of us already do.
It used to affect me deeply too, until I realised people truly don't care, especially the wealthy ones that have the means to do something about it.
I'm still doing my part trying to follow the principles I believe in, but if you asked me if I'm going to be shouting from the top of my lungs to warn people that we really are getting to the tipping point, I wouldn't.
The tipping point (for me) was already crossed 15 years ago, and if the masses still don't get it, then they'll never get it.
Enjoy life for what it is, following your principles and being true to yourself, but don't let it bring you down, unless you want to turn into a grouchy old lady, or a man, yelling at clouds.
I already am pretty numb to it. I do my best to help lighten the burden on the planet but I do expect it to get worse before it gets better, sadly.
And yet I get asked by people why I have anxiety and stress when reports like this come out.
I heard stopping eating meat can help climate issues but I don't think we have to stop eating meat we just need to start eating the rich. The other other white meat.
What now?
War, famine, death, breakdown of society, collapse of civilisation, rise of warlords, etc.
Probably nothing. But I still expect the first climate terrorists to pop up within this decade already.
The only answer to this is violence because the rich don't give a fuck. They broke the social contract, so it's time we enforce what happens to rule breakers.
You can try anything you like. Alas, none of it is going to change the course we're on. The time to have acted was about 60 years ago.
Nah that doesn't feel right. There still is room for change. It's too late to avoid all, but not too late to avoid any bad stuff
Nah that doesn't feel right.
Good luck with that feeling. If you figure out how to eat it, please let me know.
There still is room for change.
Sremoved** You keep telling yourself that.
