'Global Warming's Terrifying New Math'

[Satans Little Helper]

The amount of sceptics will shrink though. At least, I think it will. But regardless, they'll still be very vocal. It only takes a couple of sceptics to make a lot of noise. 

*puts on noise reduction headphones..*

But hey, at least we're going towards a 4,4 degrees hotter if we don't change. I think we're working hard towards a solution for overpopulation. Just shrink the size of humanity by making the planet less inhabitable. The human race will sort itself out.

*and sunglasses*

28 minutes ago, t yst r said:

https://www.livescience.com/ipcc-climate-report-2021.html?utm_source=notification

No doubt the sceptics will scept again and prove their point with gutfeel.

 

[cern]

Time to stop consuming and travel then 

[zkom]

3 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

But hey, at least we're going towards a 4,4 degrees hotter if we don't change. I think we're working hard towards a solution for overpopulation. Just shrink the size of humanity by making the planet less inhabitable. The human race will sort itself out.

 

The problem is that the poorest countries are going to be hit the hardest and that's were the people will start dying. The countries that already have very low carbon foot print per capita. To most effectively reduce the CO2 emissions by population decrease we should start with the countries that have highest carbon footprint per capita. 

For example a person living in US is producing 8 times more carbon than a person living in India and 155 times more than a person living in Ethiopia. (Although a person living in Qatar produces 2.4 times more than a person in US and the rich Arab states in general are pretty much all in the top producers..)

Anyway, the slowing and eventually negative population growth in the west and developed Asian countries is helping a bit in this regard.

[auxien]

a good take on things is realizing how badly we’ve fucked the planet in just ~150 years or so…so maybe we can ‘fix’ (using that word very loosely) things in a hopefully relatively short/similar time span too.

sure not saying we should bank on that, but kinda just hopefully? maybe? if we’re lucky and/or smart? and stop making shit worse like, immediately?

[Amen Lare]

30 minutes ago, t yst r said:

https://www.livescience.com/ipcc-climate-report-2021.html?utm_source=notification

No doubt the sceptics will scept again and prove their point with gutfeel.

There are no proofs in this report (the full 4000 pages one) either. It just goes high confidence this, very likely that.

A global bureaucracy of an organization built specifically for that task. Highly likely the solution would be: you, peasant, sit tight as we say, live in a pod, eat bugs -- and go extinct to save the planet/starving Africa/our expert asses. And if not, what's the sceptics interfere with, precisely? United fooking Nations?

 

[zkom]

1 hour ago, cern said:

Time to stop consuming and travel then 

I know international travel gets a lot of flak about the carbon emissions, which are quite high per flight, but globally the amount of CO2 released from aviation is only about 2.5% from the total and 3.5% of the total effect of climate change. Even stopping international tourism completely wouldn't do shit. It's really the other sources we should be tackling as most urgent. Not saying that flights shouldn't be cut down also (tax on the flight fuel would be a good start) but it's peanuts compared to the other sources.

What I mean we need to start cutting down the CO2 emissions in our daily lives most urgently and not just think that if we stop doing the luxury things like holiday travel we will be ok.

[sheatheman]

*Snickers collapsitarianly*

[ignatius]

one of my nephews calls this kind of story "panic porn" 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58130705

Quote

 

Human activity is changing the climate in unprecedented and sometimes irreversible ways, a major UN scientific report has said.

The landmark study warns of increasingly extreme heatwaves, droughts and flooding, and a key temperature limit being broken in just over a decade.

The report "is a code red for humanity", says the UN chief.

But scientists say a catastrophe can be avoided if the world acts fast.

 

he has high hopes for technology. being a young person i think it's part of his way of not descending into hopelessness. he usually says "Carbon capture, nuclear, geo engineering. We’ll be fine." and then i have to remind him that "we" really means "some people" will be fine and those people are the super rich people and that regardless of what happens a lot of people will suffer... and that those technologies are far away and so far very ineffective in any meaningful way. 

so it goes. 

gonna have 3 days over 100 degrees this week followed by about a week of above 90 days. not totally out of line for august in portland but after all the previous days above 90 and above 100 and that insane week of the heat dome.. we're all well sick of it.

on the plus side.. when the arctic ice melts it'll really open up that part of the world for arctic drilling!

Edited August 9, 2021 by ignatius

[Satans Little Helper]

2 hours ago, zkom said:

The problem is that the poorest countries are going to be hit the hardest and that's were the people will start dying. The countries that already have very low carbon foot print per capita. To most effectively reduce the CO2 emissions by population decrease we should start with the countries that have highest carbon footprint per capita. 

Not necessarily though. I don't think the "the rich have no urgency to change because they don't experience the problems" narrative is still a strong one. (it was perhaps, but things change, imo)

Forest fires in a rich country could be - and are, I would argue - just as devastating and life threatening as in a poor country, as an example. And we've seen plenty of those already. (And seeing - Turkey, Greece..) Or those recent floods in Germany?

Living in a modern western society could give a false sense of safety, I guess. But it doesn't take much for those privileges to be taken away. Nature doesn't give a F#ck. To a certain extent money can temporarily provide some help, but dealing with those massive forest fires or floods...I don't think a rich country can just buy itself out of those. And if it does, it requires a lot of money. And there comes a point where prevention is way cheaper, if you catch my drift.

Or in other words, I expect the dynamics of the political discussion to change. We don't live in a static world. The climate's changing. But the political dimension is also changing. It might not be fast enough, but that doesn't mean it isn't changing.

 

[cern]

"Yet China's overseas ventures include hundreds of electric power plants that burn coal, which is a significant emitter of the carbon scientifically linked to climate change. Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines."

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/71634...=1628522460923

[thefxbip]

In life i think you either learn:

1-By intelligence and wisdom

2-The hard way

In our delusion and arrogance, we broke nature's law thinking we were above it. We're gonna learn the hard way that we're not above the rest of nature.

We are addicted to a techno-utopian, fossil fuel driven, forever expending economic delusion. And we are about to hit the wall full speed. It's gonna be painful. It's gonna be ugly. But like with many addictions, it look like there is no other way we're gonna learn...

Massive amount of suffering coming our way...

Karma is a bitch.

 

 

[usagi]

the new IPCC stuff is concerning, as expected. personally, I'm starting to realise I probably will not be riding the bike I own anymore by the end of this decade, or using any kind of combustion engine vehicle for that matter. Ducati have been disappointingly slow in pivoting to electric, which is a shame given their pedigree in engineering and style. I recently discovered Energica though, another Italian brand that has some great models. currently no Energica dealerships in Australia 

17 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

2 hours ago, zkom said:

The problem is that the poorest countries are going to be hit the hardest and that's were the people will start dying. The countries that already have very low carbon foot print per capita. To most effectively reduce the CO2 emissions by population decrease we should start with the countries that have highest carbon footprint per capita. 

Not necessarily though. I don't think the "the rich have no urgency to change because they don't experience the problems" narrative is still a strong one. (it was perhaps, but things change, imo)

Forest fires in a rich country could be - and are, I would argue - just as devastating and life threatening as in a poor country, as an example. And we've seen plenty of those already. (And seeing - Turkey, Greece..) Or those recent floods in Germany?

Living in a modern western society could give a false sense of safety, I guess. But it doesn't take much for those privileges to be taken away. Nature doesn't give a F#ck. To a certain extent money can temporarily provide some help, but dealing with those massive forest fires or floods...I don't think a rich country can just buy itself out of those. And if it does, it requires a lot of money. And there comes a point where prevention is way cheaper, if you catch my drift.

Or in other words, I expect the dynamics of the political discussion to change. We don't live in a static world. The climate's changing. But the political dimension is also changing. It might not be fast enough, but that doesn't mean it isn't changing.

zkom's right. his point is not about the urgency felt amongst wealthier nations, which varies considerably - Australia is rated dead last in terms of action, for instance, while the EU is far more serious about it as a bloc. rather he's talking about the consequences that will be faced in varying degree by different people. Bangladesh slipping into the sea resulting in a new migrant crisis will not compare to flooding or fires in western countries that have the means to mitigate and mop up, at least to some degree, after individual catastrophic events.

[Amen Warrior]

The world gubbermints have massively dropped the ball.

https://grid.iamkate.com/

Why is the UK's energy mix still averaging 42% fossil fuel? I remember being taught all about this in primary school in the early 90s.

We should've gone majority nuclear yonks ago

[luke viia]

1 hour ago, sheatheman said:

*Snickers collapsitarianly*

privileged af

[cern]

Yeah in Sweden they closed all the nuclear for go 100% green then yet this winter was like "oh shit we are out of energy, we better buy some fossil fuel".

There is always gonna be shit under the carpet. 

[Satans Little Helper]

14 minutes ago, usagi said:

zkom's right. his point is not about the urgency felt amongst wealthier nations, which varies considerably - Australia is rated dead last in terms of action, for instance, while the EU is far more serious about it as a bloc. rather he's talking about the consequences that will be faced in varying degree by different people. Bangladesh slipping into the sea resulting in a new migrant crisis will not compare to flooding or fires in western countries that have the means to mitigate and mop up, at least to some degree, after individual catastrophic events.

Again, I think this is in the process of changing. Because of the reasons mentioned. Consequences will be felt, regardless of wealth. And therefore urgency will change.

[thefxbip]

For all the glory and progress that we may think we achieved in this current civilization we have forgotten this one basic and simple truth: Respect nature, respect all life. Or else you are moving toward your own destruction.

Any civilization, no matter how great it's social, technological, artistic and scientific progress, if it was built upon the neglect of this very basic rule is doomed from the start. It will collapse and self-destruct. It is inevitable. This whole industrial civilization is built upon that. It was built upon rotten root from the start. It will collapse until we remember this very simple rule and truth: we must respect nature and we must respect all life and this must account in our decisions and way of life.

Until we do this, nothing is gonna change.

 

[thefxbip]

This new report is such a big wake up call. I feel like ive been punched in the face this morning lol

Honestly do not know the extent of what i can do as an individual but it's becoming more clear that if we don't learn basic respect towards nature (both as individuals and collectively)

We.Are.Royally.FUCKED.

[ghsotword]

58 minutes ago, thefxbip said:

Massive amount of suffering coming our way...

Karma is a bitch.

It's unfortunate that the way karma works here is mainly that the boomer generation screws up the environment and the generations after them take the punishment

[droid]

AR6 doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. In some ways its comforting to see the IPCC align with less mediated predictions. At least it's all out in the open now. This is the doctor telling you that you're gonna lose the leg no matter what and if you don't change your lifestyle you'll be dead in 5 years.

In short, we act now or we're fucked.

 

[zkom]

1 hour ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Not necessarily though. I don't think the "the rich have no urgency to change because they don't experience the problems" narrative is still a strong one. (it was perhaps, but things change, imo)

Forest fires in a rich country could be - and are, I would argue - just as devastating and life threatening as in a poor country, as an example. And we've seen plenty of those already. (And seeing - Turkey, Greece..) Or those recent floods in Germany?

Living in a modern western society could give a false sense of safety, I guess. But it doesn't take much for those privileges to be taken away. Nature doesn't give a F#ck. To a certain extent money can temporarily provide some help, but dealing with those massive forest fires or floods...I don't think a rich country can just buy itself out of those. And if it does, it requires a lot of money. And there comes a point where prevention is way cheaper, if you catch my drift.

Or in other words, I expect the dynamics of the political discussion to change. We don't live in a static world. The climate's changing. But the political dimension is also changing. It might not be fast enough, but that doesn't mean it isn't changing.

 

I wasn't trying to drive that narrative. What I meant was that people dying in the developed world is more beneficial to the environment than people dying in the poor countries but unfortunately the climate change is most likely to going to be killing the poor first.

The difference between the poor and rich countries facing the issues is that maybe the floods and forest fires are bad and kill some people, but it's nothing compared to the immediate threat of massive famine within few months due to crop failure.

[ignatius]

FU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thefxbip]

33 minutes ago, droid said:

AR6 doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. In some ways its comforting to see the IPCC align with less mediated predictions. At least it's all out in the open now. This is the doctor telling you that you're gonna lose the leg no matter what and if you don't change your lifestyle you'll be dead in 5 years.

In short, we act now or we're fucked.

 

The really fucked thing about it is of course if you're individually sick from too much whatever, you can change your individual behaviour and be fine, but what we're seeing here is a change is needed on this massive collective scale!

Basically YOU need to change your behaviour AND all your neighbours AND all the other people in your country AND in ALL the other countries as well or else you lose leg + life. The success depends entirely on the community as a whole. It is terrifying. A good reminder of interdependence i guess lol

Wild fkin times to be alive.

Edited August 9, 2021 by thefxbip

[thefxbip]

1 hour ago, ghsotword said:

It's unfortunate that the way karma works here is mainly that the boomer generation screws up the environment and the generations after them take the punishment

Sure is but

Pretty sure most gen x and millenials would find it more painful having to live without internet for one month than hearing about the biodiversity in their country being absolutely destroyed.

lol

I don't think we are that much better to be honest. We grew in an artificial techno-industrial bubble and we are feeding it. And it is ready to explode.

In the end, i don't know if the blaming is of any use tho. This is a really chaotic and complex situation and both boomers and younger generations are in. The complex web of civilization became more and more complex. The system became toxic in itself beyond individual actions, because of the way it developed. Like, right now, even if i don't want to use plastic or internet or some fossil fuel im nearly forced to use them because of the circumstances. Boomers at large mostly didn't know the effects of fuel and were forced by circumstances to own a car or work in polluting industries. Can you blame a working class miner that wanted to feed his family? I guess you could, but he didn't know better, probably didn't have any other options. Everyone is in the same boat. Humanity didn't know better and fucked it up. The big structure got built up and built up.

Comes down to the ignorance that what you inflict nature will also come back at you. We are not really separated from nature. There is not a separate environment in which we live in and that we can exploit to our own profit. You poison the air, you will be poisoned.

Now what tho?

That is indeed the question.

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by thefxbip

[may be rude]

3 hours ago, Amen Lare said:

There are no proofs in this report (the full 4000 pages one) either. It just goes high confidence this, very likely that.

A global bureaucracy of an organization built specifically for that task. Highly likely the solution would be: you, peasant, sit tight as we say, live in a pod, eat bugs -- and go extinct to save the planet/starving Africa/our expert asses. And if not, what's the sceptics interfere with, precisely? United fooking Nations?

 

 

nice hot take but the report has citations.

Edited August 9, 2021 by very honest