Submitted by filosoful t3_11wl83z in Futurology
Comments
ZoeInBinary t1_jcywm88 wrote
Every single mitigation plan assumes governments, corporations, and the voting public will sign on.
I have yet to see evidence that this is possible. There's just too much momentum, too much money, and too many people wilfully, constantly refusing to change their course, for this plan to become reality.
Maybe that makes me a doomer, maybe a realist, I don't know. But I don't believe for even a second that we'll avoid disaster.
topazsparrow t1_jcyy75j wrote
There's also too much distrust, and too many powerful people with their own motives.
Daddo55 t1_jczo0d7 wrote
Having the “elite” show up to Davos in private jets is about as hypocritical as you can get. Maybe Leo on his mega yacht is worse.
newest-reddit-user t1_jd2brf8 wrote
I'm so sick of this talking point as if it wasn't seeded by elites who don't want to do anything about climate change in the first place. It's completely obvious and transparent, but perfect for them.
They can, after all, just continue to use their private jets and yachts without worry, because normal people won't want to do anything about it because, hey, the elites have private jets and yachts, so why do anything about climate change?
It's pathetic, really.
Daddo55 t1_jd2zskz wrote
If the leaders who are promoting climate change aren’t doing anything personally to fight it, it’s hypocrisy plain and simple.
newest-reddit-user t1_jd42it0 wrote
Nobody is promoting climate change, except oil executives.
But so what if it's hypocrisy? Who benefits from you deciding that climate change doesn't matter because of it? The same hypocrites!
If it was up to me, private jets and yachts would be illegal (or severely taxed so that the outcome would be similar) for climate reasons. Why aren't they? Because there is no strong political movement to fix it and a big reason for that is nonsense like you are peddling.
Daddo55 t1_jd43igb wrote
Agree on the jets and yachts. If govt was serious on climate change, they would tax the shit out of them.
newest-reddit-user t1_jd46xsj wrote
Yes, but they aren't because people aren't making them—and a lot of people do not take climate change seriously because the "zone has been flooded with shit" to borrow a phrase.
r0bdaripper t1_jd36njy wrote
Regardless of who started it, the point remains the same. When you preach to the world about cutting these things out to save it but show up in a multimillion dollar private jet the message falls flat.
Change doesn't come from people yelling and screaming about it, change comes from doing the thing you want others to do.
jeerabiscuit t1_jd2x7z3 wrote
Covid was dress rehearsal.
Daddo55 t1_jd2zwe2 wrote
Hope not. Covid was an absolute cluster fuck of bullshit measures that did nothing but make big pharma $$$$$.
kinzer13 t1_jd1ix76 wrote
It's really not.
altmorty t1_jcz0bcx wrote
Global covid response is evidence.
ZoeInBinary t1_jcz4b2p wrote
Global covid response was halting, half-assed, and resulted in millions of idiots mainlining horse meds instead of following official mitigation protocol.
Only the most authoritarian of countries were able to even temporarily control the spread, and they were effectively undermined by the Freedumb Corps.
If anything, it's evidence for how hopeless this fight really is.
altmorty t1_jczgica wrote
>Global covid response was halting, half-assed, and resulted in millions of idiots mainlining horse meds instead of following official mitigation protocol.
By "global", do you actually mean America? Pretty sure millions of idiots weren't taking horse meds globally.
Saving millions of lives and creating vaccines in record times, using break through tech, isn't indicative of hopeless.
I'm guessing no amount of evidence will be enough for doomers like you.
ZoeInBinary t1_jczid5r wrote
Horse meds were a largely American problem, but countries such as Russia, Brazil, and India had an equally rough time combating the pandemic. Even China, with their take-no-prisoners authoritarian response, in the end couldn't contain the spread.
Which is my point. We can't depend on a few smaller nations taking needed actions; to beat climate change, we need action from everyone, including the Americas and Brazils and Indias of the world. Particularly considering how much American consumption policy influences global production...
RenterGotNoNBN t1_jd015ib wrote
You'd need straight up rationing and martial law.
Probably wouldn't change my life significantly, tbh.
kadmylos t1_jczioo7 wrote
The vaccine was a pro-market solution. We gave money to companies to help them make more money. That's why it worked. How is it possible to do the same with fossil fuels?
silvusx t1_jczu90z wrote
Fossil fuel become too scarce and expensive will shift the change. When the gas price was high, people were finding ways to reduce gss consumption. Apps like GasBuddy have more users. Google map started implementing fuel saving routes.
The problem is, it'll prob be too late if we wait for the gas reserve to dry up. Goverment subsidized people to trade their gas guzzler cars for a electric car would be a start.
Lightning6475 t1_jd0fada wrote
By making renewable more profitable. The price of solar and wind has gone way down this past decade. EV prices are coming down too and will be around the same price as a regular ICE car.
kadmylos t1_jd21shv wrote
But being more profitable doesn't mean that there won't still be a niche for the less profitable commodity. As long as there's money in the ground, someone will figure out a way to dig it up and burn it.
Lightning6475 t1_jd2q7jv wrote
If it cost more to dig up the ground for oil, than they’re not making a max profit and that’s just a bad investment
Diaperbarge t1_jczah7y wrote
If we can not work together (which we clearly can not) to take care of the one planet that literally gave us everything, maybe we do not deserve to still live on it in 100-200 years.
Lightning6475 t1_jcyxn1q wrote
Tbf, renewable energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuel. At some point in the the next couple year it’ll be more profitable to produce renewable energy than keep relying on Fossil Fuels
Differently t1_jd0hv9a wrote
Already there. Fossil fuels are only sustainable through massive subsidy. Coal in particular is sucking up tax dollars.
CakeRobot365 t1_jd17tmi wrote
I'd agree with that statement. I believe there is too much money to be made by people who aren't willing to make the change, and they have enough control to prevent it.
There are also a whole lot of people that think all of the climate change stuff is fake. That's not going to help matters.
Artanthos t1_jd2rdk8 wrote
Pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere could be done unilaterally, cheaply, and quickly.
It’s a last ditch effort, but it’s results would be immediate and global.
ML4Bratwurst t1_jd328p3 wrote
Wasnt that the end of the world in Matrix?
Artanthos t1_jd381a0 wrote
Volcanos have been doing this periodically for Earths entire history.
Mt. Tambora’s eruption in 1816 lowered global temperatures by ~1^• F for a year.
Anything done by humans would have to be done in a more controlled manner.
ThisElder_Millennial t1_jd328xq wrote
That is a legitimate idea and one that could work. The problem is that once you start, you can't stop. If nations did that unilaterally, it takes the impetus off of states who aren't making CO2 cuts/sequestrations to continue with business as usual.
Artanthos t1_jd37dvy wrote
Cost/benefit analysis.
Which option is worse will depend on the extent of the climate change.
ThisElder_Millennial t1_jd38p29 wrote
I'm mainly talking about how this will be a free rider problem. Geoengineering isn't free and has to be continually maintained. The issue is that since everyone will benefit, there isn't the incentive to contribute to the cause. Or, assuming the end goal is to eventually ween ones self off of geoengineering, free riders will have to be "strong-armed" (for lack of a better term) into going carbon zero (or carbon negative). Otherwise, once one of more parties stop the practice, we'll be right back at square one in regards to problems.
Artanthos t1_jd399lm wrote
I don’t disagree.
But if it comes down to a question of survival and it’s too late for other options, this is the fail safe.
It will cause problems, including acid rain. It will have free riders, it will reduce food production due reducing sunlight, and it will disrupt global weather patterns.
Eristotle t1_jd35m82 wrote
yes and sulfur dioxide would also create acid rain and result in less crop yield
use calcium carbonate instead and you lose the acid rain and gain a marginal improvement to ocean acidity tho you still get lower crop yields with any solar dimming
Mortlach78 t1_jczgxkv wrote
It's hard to remain optimistic when states detailing their plans for the collorado River keep talking about measure in context of maintaining strong economic growth...
No! You're supposed to start using LESS water, not find ways to justify using more! But "less" is the biggest bug bear in capitalism, so I guess we're all doomed.
zam0th t1_jczhon0 wrote
Dude, Apple made a TV show about how Earth and society and corporate greed would look like in 2047 with global warming and stuff and almost looked like a documentary.
runaway-thread t1_jd12g6l wrote
also Don't Look Up on Netflix tackles some of the same topics (not global warming, but still about a world-ending disaster)
XperianPro t1_jd2e7qg wrote
Man that movie was straight up allegory for climate crisis.
runaway-thread t1_jd3bp6y wrote
100%. I loved the movie. I guess I could have phrased my comment better.
Braler t1_jd23phz wrote
Their ending was better than ours. Quick and painless.
ArtMySouls t1_jd0g54w wrote
What’s the show called?
[deleted] t1_jczlaug wrote
[removed]
SuperSimpleSam t1_jd84dmz wrote
Which show?
BareNakedSole t1_jd04ybs wrote
I hate to say it but humanity is way too selfish and fractured to tackle this problem together. We are going to have a much hotter planet in a couple of years so we better learn how to deal with it.
Yeah I’m being a Debbie Downer but realistically we need to start thinking how we live in a hotter world and save as many people as possible
chahud t1_jd1amq8 wrote
I hate that I agree with you. It is what it is.
0-99c t1_jd2qrs3 wrote
Beware the fungus
TheAlgorithmnLuvsU t1_jd6e0pb wrote
Normally I'm more optimistic about things, but I agree here. We are too tribal as a species to bind together for something like this.
alsomahler t1_jczak1n wrote
I thought I recognized this headline.
Almost 18 years apart
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524864-300-climate-change-act-now-before-it-is-too-late/
Willdudes t1_jczezgb wrote
1.5 was a pipe dream we will not make the change’s necessary, our best bet is carbon capture. Industry produces the vast majority of carbon I do not see that changing.
https://harvardpolitics.com/climate-change-responsibility/
This should not stop us from acting but consumers will have to vote with their wallets
right_there t1_jczhhzy wrote
Carbon capture is pie-in-the-sky shit right now. None of the CCS facilities have gotten even close to their targets, and it's being used as a smokescreen to justify extracting even more fossil fuels.
skunk_ink t1_jczunfw wrote
This is the thing that people seem to be blind to. Even if carbon capture was meeting its targets, fossil fuel use must also be reduced in order to stop the planet from further degradation. Yet some how most people seem to be completely oblivious to this and think carbon capture means we can keep using fossil fuels. It's absolutely fucking insane.
Willdudes t1_jd09km9 wrote
Even if every individual did there part that is only 30% decrease. Companies need to do the vast majority, I have little faith in that happening. Unless we have some breakthrough it is very disconcerting.
alclarkey t1_jd0hl1n wrote
Tell this to the person who the only job they could find was 20 miles from where they live. Tell them they have to cut their fossil fuel use. Let me know how that goes for you.
GimmickNG t1_jd0xxjm wrote
Those people have been utterly failed at all levels by their government and society. That needing a car to drive twenty miles is a requirement in certain countries should be enough to hang everyone involved in making things that way.
IgrisDoom t1_jd1iqtx wrote
Oh who would have thought
DamonFields t1_jczwmha wrote
Those who profit from burning down the planet will continue to do so.
ILikeNeurons t1_jd0j188 wrote
Then we need to change the economic incentives.
ILikeNeurons t1_jcyulu8 wrote
The thing is, people already care, they just don't know what to do / feel like they are alone. But the truth is, a record number of us are alarmed about climate change, and more and more are contacting Congress regularly. What's more, is this type of lobbying is starting to pay off. That's why NASA climatologist and climate activist Dr. James Hansen recommends becoming an active volunteer with this group as the most important thing an individual can do on climate change.
InspectorIsOnTheCase t1_jd0ddhz wrote
They know perfectly well what to do: don't make more humans, don't drive, don't eat meat. They just don't want to make those choices.
ILikeNeurons t1_jd0irw1 wrote
Perhaps ironically, your response kind of disproves your point.
I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.
Diaperbarge t1_jczakck wrote
If we can not work together (which we clearly can not) to take care of the one planet that literally gave us everything, maybe we do not deserve to still live on it in 100-200 years.
Leanfounder t1_jd26llc wrote
Nuclear energy is the solution here. But they aren’t serious when these “environments” don’t suggest it and constantly attack it.
Kaz_55 t1_jd2gkoi wrote
> when these “environments” don’t suggest it
These what
Also no, nuclear is not the solution, I don't know how often this has to be pointed out. Nuclear is too slow, to expensive and not even scalable:
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J
https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/nuclear-energy-too-costly-and-too-late
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies
while renewables are pretty much the opposite on every one of these points. The nuclear industry - like the fossil fuel lobby - is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
StraightOven4697 t1_jcyo1v9 wrote
Great. I'm sure the big oil corporations and their puppet politicians will put that right inside the "suggestion box."
Secunda_Son t1_jd15tu5 wrote
Cool. So since we aren't doing any of this shit. Let's just put that survival guide in the trash and start talking about how we reflect 20% of solar heat back out into the space. I'm kind of bored of the useless "if every world government bans oil tomorrow" stuff.
RiotDog1312 t1_jd1gv2a wrote
But it would negatively impact the next quarterly earnings report, so nobody in power will do anything more than wipe their ass with the report as they tick down the years until they drop dead and leave their children and grandchildren holding the flaming bag.
Divallo t1_jd1lujo wrote
The heirs of the wealthy and powerful will be the most sheltered out of anyone from the consequences.
They will have the funds to get the best locations and be able to afford luxuries even as they skyrocket in price.
No points for guessing who gets to hold the flaming bag.
jasmin710 t1_jd2thvu wrote
Yeah relax, sit down and take a deep breath. Nothing is gonna be done. I am sick and tired of us average people being terrorized and made feel guilty while we are doing what we can, while those rich mofos and those who have power to change things for good, do nothing at all. At this point, fuck it. To hell with it. We are all in the same boat, at the end of the day. If they don't care, I'll stop caring too.
FuturologyBot t1_jcylkih wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/filosoful:
Clean energy and technology can be exploited to avoid the growing climate disaster, the report says.
But at a meeting in Switzerland to agree their findings, climate scientists warned a key global temperature goal will likely be missed.
Their report lays out how rapid cuts to fossil fuels can avert the worst effects of climate change.
In response to the findings, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres says that all countries should bring forward their net zero plans by a decade. These targets are supposed to rapidly cut the greenhouse gas emissions that warm our planet's atmosphere.
"There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all," the report states.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11wl83z/un_climate_report_scientists_release_survival/jcyh3rt/
[deleted] t1_jcytf97 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jcyy1e9 wrote
[deleted]
just-a-dreamer- t1_jcz0swl wrote
Get AI in gear and start the cleanup. There are not that many options left.
[deleted] t1_jczs79v wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jcztkij wrote
[removed]
TheseLipsSinkShips t1_jczy58s wrote
They’re going to do too little and it’s too late. Insurance corporations are going to squeeze ocean side communities and there will be a migration inland… worldwide…, and those are just the beginnings of our issues.
[deleted] t1_jd01hm8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd06sff wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd0n4pz wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd21hpd wrote
[removed]
stemphonyx t1_jd24356 wrote
Clearly this is not a priority for governments. In the last 12 months:
- I removed gas and installed solar boiler and heatpump.
- I installed solar panels
- changed my ICE car to an electric one.
Total cost? >100k. Support from Dutch government: 10k and only in the house work. The car is not subsidized at all.
If this was a real priority for them, they would definitely increase the financial support by a lot.
[deleted] t1_jd340vv wrote
Before the flood was a warning and Don’t look up was prophecy.
[deleted] t1_jcyk9f8 wrote
[deleted]
nanowarz t1_jd0q88v wrote
So what happens after a few decades of not emitting greenhouse gases? Global freezing?
m-s-c-s t1_jd0un0p wrote
They're not trying to stop all greenhouse gas emissions. Just excess greenhouse gas emissions. The hope is that the temperature will gradually decrease back to near natural levels, thus averting further sea level rises and severe weather.
I know a few degrees C doesn't seem like much, but that's just because earth is so ridiculously huge. The epa has a good example of this here.
> For reference, an increase of 1 unit on this graph (1 × 10^22 joules) is equal to approximately 17 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year.
We'd have to build 17 duplicates of every power plant on earth to generate as much energy as the ocean absorbed. How can this be? Well, as it turns out there's a much bigger source of heat called The Sun.
Our little itty bit of extra carbon dioxide traps a little itty bit of extra energy from the sun. How much of a little itty bit? Well, from the data? 17x every power plant humanity has running right now. Relative to the giant ball of fusion we orbit? Tiny. Relative to us as a species? Pretty big.
edit: an exponent
SeneInSPAAACE t1_jd29svi wrote
>I know a few degrees C doesn't seem like much
I'll elaborate on this:Last ice age, All of Canada was under a glacier, as was most of England, all of Scandinavia, etc.
Back then, the average global temperature was five degrees less than now. That would mean it was a bit less than four degrees from pre-industrial levels.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd0bch8 wrote
Another one of those:
>The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said [some doomsday crap]
He's not a climate scientist, he's politician and diplomat. All this guy does for the last 5 years is giving out dramatic headlines and final warnings to the press.
- We're on a 'highway to climate hell,' UN chief Guterres says (Nov 7, 2022)
- World headed for climate catastrophe without urgent action: UN Secretary-General (Oct 27, 2022)
- UN chief says the world is in ‘life-or-death struggle’ for survival (Oct 3, 2022)
- Guterres at Stockholm+50: “End the suicidal war against nature” (Jun 2, 2022)
- Climate crisis is a code red for humanity: UN chief (Oct 27, 2021)
- ‘Climate change is battle of my life’ and we’re losing, warns UN chief Antonio Guterres (Dec 11, 2020)
- UN secretary general urges all countries to declare climate emergencies (Dec 12, 2020)
- António Guterres: Climate Change Is Biggest Threat to Global Economy (Jan 25, 2019)
- U.N. Secretary-General issues a grave warning about climate apocalypse (Dec 2, 2019)
- UN chief warns of ‘point of no return’ on climate change (Dec 1, 2019)
- Climate change: Failure to tackle warming 'suicidal' (Dec 13, 2018)
No wonder many people are afraid of having kids or even too depressed to live today. Want to relax? Emergency! Catastrophe! Point of no return! Want to live? Suicidal! Grave warning! Want to have hope? "We are losing!".
Doomers' crap
GimmickNG t1_jd0y80v wrote
When people are drowning because of sea levels rising, are you still going to claim it's "doomer crap" because you don't see any difference in your life?
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd2hsyf wrote
As per IPCC we are on track to 2.5-2.7C warming by 2100.
Estimated sea rise for 2.5C is 58 cm.
People will not "be drowning" because of sea rise.
I believe in science. I don't believe in doomers crap.
[deleted] t1_jd3iqft wrote
[removed]
cptn__ t1_jd11gis wrote
All he's doing is bring more attention to the results of IPCC's reports? This isn't his personal opinion, but the consensus of a large group of scientist who specialize in this field, and were tasked with making reports to summarize how/why climate change is going to affect humanity and what we can do to minimize it.
What would be the point of UN creating this panel if the results were to be ignored and never brought up by any politicians?
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd2h9zc wrote
No, these headlines are not consensus of large group of scientists. He interprets IPCC reports whatever he sees fit for headlines and dramatizes science to the point of perversion.
Dramatic and factually false headlines have clear psychological side effects on people with unknown long term consequences. I regularly see people on this sub citing climate as *main* reason they do not have kids or do not plan for future.
Thanks to headlines like this. Thanks to people like him. And to people like you who see nothing special in his lies, because "the cause is just".
cptn__ t1_jd2tkxi wrote
Dramatizes? Because he uses terms such as "suicidal", when it's a perfect analogy for how we are self harming with our excessive pollution.
It sounds more like you're upset you can't stay ignorant anymore and have been forced to stare the inconvenient truth in the face. It should absolutely shock and affect peoples behavior, because it's not some fake propaganda or a Mayan' doomsday prediction, it's an inevitable fact, and the best solution we have right now is to try our best to work together to mitigate its effects.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd35yq3 wrote
I never was ignorant and listened to scientist opinion on the matter since I first got a wind of it 20 years now.
You making accusations and assumptions is just you making yourself an excuse to continue supporting people making hysterical doomer false comments and hurting other people's lives and futures with those comments. Lives that should not have been otherwise hurt by any real climate danger.
m-s-c-s t1_jd0r3og wrote
Are you a climate scientist?
edit: I'm asking because, ya know, he got his reports from climate scientists. Just wondering if you have any data other than "this guy seems really worried about the climate."
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd2hyfx wrote
I am not making any independent statements. I completely and fully rely on opinion of experts in the field (Antonio is not an expert in the field). If I rely on experts' opinion I don't need to be a climate scientist to make correct statements.
Reports he gets from scientists are fine. Opinions he spits out in doomsday manner that are *nowhere to find* in those reports are full of shit.
m-s-c-s t1_jd3fzer wrote
> Reports he gets from scientists are fine. Opinions he spits out in doomsday manner that are nowhere to find in those reports are full of shit.
Literally your second link has a link to the climate report he’s citing along with the names of the numerous contributors to the report. Ditto for the 4th link that has links to further reports.
The rest are written by third party news sources (whom he has no control over re: data transparency) or a press release linking to one.
Go read the reports and get back to me.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd3th56 wrote
>your second link has a link to the climate report he’s citing
That report is about projected warming of to ~2.8C by 2100, just like many other similar reports that put it into 2.5-2.8 range. And just like others it discusses possiblities and scenarios of getting in below 1.5 and 2C. Which are very illusional and those unreachable in rational terms scenarios Antonio uses to scream loud titles and get anxious clicks from modern "final day witnesses", despite there is nothing about "catastrophe", "bUrNing" or similar doomers' vocabulary in the report.
>Go read the reports and get back to me.
Why? You can't read yourself?
m-s-c-s t1_jd40u6k wrote
> That report is about projected warming of to ~2.8C by 2100, just like many other similar reports that put it into 2.5-2.8 range. And just like others it discusses possiblities and scenarios of getting in below 1.5 and 2C. Which are very illusional and those unreachable in rational terms scenarios
Says you, decidedly NOT a climate scientists. On the other hand, the climate scientists in that report seem to think they're necessary goals.
> Antonio uses to scream loud titles and get anxious clicks from modern "final day witnesses", despite there is nothing about "catastrophe", "bUrNing" or similar doomers' vocabulary in the report.
The title of the report is literally "The Closing Window Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies"
It discusses extensively the risk and impact of failure to address climate change.
> Why? You can't read yourself?
I can, and did. Did you? If so, you missed this in the third paragraph of the introduction:
"Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published two reports as part of its Sixth Assessment cycle, on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a) and Mitigation of Climate Change (IPCC 2022b). The reports record the vast impacts of climate change that we are already experiencing, and how the climate risks of the future are of a much greater order of magnitude. Once again, these reports document that the scale and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, finding that projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming. This year, as has repeatedly been the case in recent years, many countries have experienced an unprecedented number of climate events, with extreme weather leading to flooding, drought and wildfires, and causing food shortages, health problems, and major damage to ecosystems and human habitats, leading to internal displacement and migration around the world."
There's that doomer language you claimed wasn't in it. That's why I asked you to read it.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd4e0og wrote
Sice you mentioned really good example of how it should be done, I'm done discussing Antonios bullshit .
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a).
This one is actually a great scientific report. I used technical summary since whole report is too large.
Not too hard to understand. For those who don't have time to read there is an awesome list of Representative Key Risk on page 113, as well is great succinct recap on them:
>For most RKRs, potentially global and systemically pervasive risks become severe in the case of high levels of warming, combined with high exposure/vulnerability, low adaptation or both
And looks like it says exactly what I highlighted: in vulnerable regions that fail to adapt.
Who would have thought?.. /s
Page 116 is actually brilliant sum up of risks and *conditions* under which under which risks could become severe. Note how real science does not talk "doom, inevitable doom and death, grave, grave, point of no return"? This is the whole point of my rant.
I gotta thank you now that I have scientific report to point it is going to be easier to drive my point that doomers are just that, doomers. There is no inevitability, it is not global, it is not indiscriminate, it is not unconditional and here is a scientific report that point that out: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_TechnicalSummary.pdf
m-s-c-s t1_jd5emdp wrote
Man, I'm not sure why you're thanking me. These are your sources. Paper written in 2022, and has an excellent summary.
That said, it is a wonderful example that António Guterres is correctly echoing the sentiment of the reports.
Here's some of the detail you missed:
From Page 116:
> Latin America: "5.8 million people pushed to extreme poverty by 2030 (7; 11)"
That's 7 years from now, but who's counting?
> Worldwide: "Global GDP losses of 10–23% by 2100 due to temperature impacts alone (3; 12; 13)"
Note that they didn't say "lack of growth," they said "losses."
Or look at the map on page 81, where it shows the number of people who will be displaced by more severe costal flooding. Tens of millions of people in India by 2040.
Also take a look at page 80, where substantial portions of the world will be at risk of death from heat and humidity. It's literally a map of where it will be effectively uninhabitable because there will not be a single day in the year where it's safe to go outside. It will literally be too hot to live there.
Another problem would be the wildfires,
> "At a global warming of 2°C with associated changes in precipitation global land area burned by wildfire is projected to increase by 35% (medium confidence)." Page 55.
or as you put it: "bUrNing". Actually, you also claimed they didn't use the word "catastrophe", but a conjugation of it shows up 3 times in your source.
> Page 45: "Climate-induced extinctions, including mass extinctions, are common in the palaeo record, underlining the potential of climate change to have catastrophic impacts on species and ecosystems (high confidence)."
> Page 50: "Between 1970 and 2019, drought-related disaster events worldwide caused billions of dollars in economic damages (medium confidence). Drylands are particularly exposed to climate change related droughts (high confidence). Recent heavy rainfall events that have led to catastrophic flooding were made more likely by anthropogenic climate change (high confidence). Observed mortality and losses due to floods and droughts are much greater in regions with high vulnerability and vulnerable populations such as the poor, women, children, Indigenous Peoples and the elderly due to historical, political and socioeconomic inequities (high confidence)."
Note that they used the past tense there, as in catastrophic impact has already occurred.
> Page 87: "Restoration of ecosystems in catchments can also support water supplies during periods of variable rainfall and maintain water quality and, combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence). Restoring natural vegetation cover and wildfire regimes can reduce risks to people from catastrophic fires."
Note here that they use both the things you complained about, catastrophe and burning.
Like look man, I can't help but think you still aren't reading these since they directly contradict your thesis.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jd945q9 wrote
"Wildfires are predicted to be larger, and wildfires happen in the world, so 'the world is burning' is a correct phrase, and if you don't see how this makes sense, then you're silly climate denier!!!" - gist of your comment
I also noted how you managed to find and highlight doom words even in paragraphs dedicated to positive things, like wildlife restorations, this really tells a whole story about doomers, they will find doom-words anywhere and conjure up a world of them while ignoring everything else.
What you and Antonio do has beed described in a form of comic long time ago: https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2013/08/0c729810e4e921d67bf898e0069f88b8.jpg
m-s-c-s t1_jdbgai8 wrote
Cool. Can you give me one of those positive paragraphs to talk about? I'm having trouble identifying one.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdcrh3g wrote
Really? My dude, it was the last one you quoted, come on. It is talking about supporting water supplies with the restoration of ecosystems, basically recommending a path for vulnerable areas to reduce or maybe even remove a risk to their water supply.
>...combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence)
What is the best hint that your mind skips over good stuff and over-focuses on the bad than this? It's not healthy for you or anyone.
m-s-c-s t1_jdcsfea wrote
Uh… those are all suggestions about what we need to do more of. They’re not saying “this is fine because we’re doing these things.” They’re saying “this will be fine if we take action like Antonio has been begging you to do for years.”
> TS.D.4.5 Ecosystem-based adaptation measures can reduce climatic risks to people, including from flood, drought, fire and overheating (high confidence). Ecosystem-based adaptation approaches are increasingly being used as part of strategies to manage flood risk, at the coast in the face of rising sea levels and inland in the context of more extreme rainfall events (high confidence). Flood-risk measures that work with nature by allowing flooding within coastal and wetland ecosystems and support sediment accretion can reduce costs and bring substantial co-benefits to ecosystems, liveability and livelihoods (high confidence). In urban areas, trees and natural areas can lower temperatures by providing shade and cooling from evapotranspiration (high confidence). Restoration of ecosystems in catchments can also support water supplies during periods of variable rainfall and maintain water quality and, combined with inclusive water regimes that overcome social inequalities, provide disaster risk reduction and sustainable development (high confidence). Restoring natural vegetation cover and wildfire regimes can reduce risks to people from catastrophic fires. Restoration of wetlands could support livelihoods and help sequester carbon (medium confidence), provided they are allowed accommodation space. Ecosystem-based adaptation approaches can be cost effective and provide a wide range of additional co-benefits in terms of ecosystem services and biodiversity protection and enhancement. (Figure TS.9 URBAN, Figure TS.11a) {2.6.3, 2.6.5, 2.6.7, Table 2.7, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.5, Box 4.6, Box 4.7, 12.5.1, 12.5.3, 12.5.5, 13.2.2, 13.3.2, 13.6.2, Box 14.7, 15.5.4, Figure 15.7, CCP2, CCP5.4.2, CCB NATURAL, CCB SLR}
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jdcw130 wrote
There are signs of looming local catastrophes, that can be mitigated if we do enough. We should be talking about saving those people, that would be a positive twist. A saving mission, what can be more noble and relatable to westerners?
Instead Antonio uses fear. And I agree with one grandma that recently said on TV in relation to republicans banning books: "Fear is not future. Fear is control"
And Antonio using fear is not begging, Antonio is manipulating for control.
m-s-c-s t1_jde06t7 wrote
They tried the saving mission, and most countries ignored the recommendations at any meaningful scale. You want a positive outcome? Stop making excuses about the source of the messaging and start doing what the scientists recommend instead of claiming we’re already on a positive trajectory.
Edit: it bugged me so I had to address it. 10-20% of global GDP and millions of people is no longer “local.” Moreover, the catastrophes are not “looming,” they’re already happening as articulated by the scientists in your own source.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_jde1k8q wrote
>They tried the saving mission
This BS probably works for you with younger dudes, but I've been in thinking capacity since the time it was called 'global warming', and it has always been about "everybody dies unless we stop fossil in ___ years".
>start doing what the scientists recommend
As far as I'm concerned we're already doing it. And we're already on positive trajectory as compared to those RCP scenarios that were extensively used in 90s and 2000s as mainstream scenarios.
m-s-c-s t1_jdfa2wr wrote
> This BS probably works for you with younger dudes, but I've been in thinking capacity since the time it was called 'global warming', and it has always been about "everybody dies unless we stop fossil in ___ years".
Global warming and climate change refer to different things.
By the way, not everybody dies, just far more people than need to. They literally catalogue how many they anticipate in the source you provided.
> TS.C.6.3 Increased heat-related mortality and morbidity are projected globally (very high confidence). Globally, temperature- related mortality is projected to increase under RCP4.5 to RCP8.5, even with adaptation (very high confidence). Tens of thousands of additional deaths are projected under moderate and high global warming scenarios, particularly in north, west and central Africa, with up to year-round exceedance of deadly heat thresholds by 2100 (RCP8.5) (high agreement, robust evidence). In Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, urban heat-related excess deaths are projected to increase by about 300 yr-1 (low emission pathway) to 600 yr-1 (high emission pathway) during 2031–2080 relative to 142yr-1 during 1971–2020 (high confidence). In Europe the number of people at high risk of mortality will triple at 3°C compared to 1.5°C warming, in particular in central and southern Europe and urban areas (high confidence). {6.2.2, 7.3.1, 8.4.5, 9.10.2, Figure 9.32, Figure 9.35, 10.4.7, Figure 10.11, 11.3.6, 11.3.6, Table 11.14, 12.3.4, 12.3.8, Figure 12.6, 13.7.1, Figure 13.23, 14.5.6, 15.3.4, 16.5.2}
See what I mean?
> As far as I'm concerned we're already doing it. And we're already on positive trajectory as compared to those RCP scenarios that were extensively used in 90s and 2000s as mainstream scenarios.
Here's the CO^2 trendline. Where's the dip we'd see if we were doing this action?
Oh, and the 90s and 2000s mainstream scenarios? Here are some examples:
> Schneider’s forecast is considerably more ominous.
> “Six of the warmest years in the last 100 occurred in the ‘80s,” he said recently at a meeting of chemists in Miami. “And I’ll give you odds that the ‘90s will be warmer than the ‘80s.”
When that was published in 1989, we were at 0.27C increase. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed 8 years later in 1997, it was 0.33C.
> "I am a fundamentally optimistic person, but it is getting more and more difficult, because I see the message of science has not fundamentally changed from when I started working in this field, which was 20 years ago," said Thomas Stocker, a professor of climate and environmental physics at the University of Bern in Switzerland.
> Based on two assumptions — that it is not economically feasible for nations to make emissions reductions of more than about 5 percent per year and that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have a moderate warming effect — he calculates a 2.7 degree Fahrenheit (1.5 degree Celsius) cap on warming, for which island nations vulnerable to rising sea levels have pushed, is already unrealistic. (That cap is often compared to a speed limit for warming; while some consequences — heat waves, species loss and so on — are expected to occur at lesser levels of warming, the repercussions are expected to become more dire as warming increases.)
> Reductions would need to begin by 2027 for the more widely accepted 3.6-degree F (2 degrees C) cap to be achievable, and a 4.5 degree F (2.5 degree C) cap becomes unrealistic after 2040, he calculates.
We were at 0.65C then.
Now, a year after the industrial world shut down to the point that rivers ran clear, it's 0.89C.
ascended036 t1_jd13bee wrote
Oh BBC is reporting it and the UN is supplying the report so it must be legit information! Wake up people
ILikeNeurons t1_jd1bu8t wrote
ascended036 t1_jd1ct4a wrote
OH WOW NASA (really ran by the government and fbi)! yeah they don't lie about statistics to justify there budget. Elon musk out performed them in the last decade than there entire existence there owned by wef. Stop sending me your propaganda and look outside and just admit to urself.that the world isn't ending and everything's gonna be OK all the while being reasonable with advancing cleaner energy sources and not giving full authority to these morons passing insane policies and laws "in the name of climate change" they don't give 2 shots about the environment or human life, they just want power
zeezyman t1_jd2fsrg wrote
*their, *outperformed, *their, *they're
ascended036 t1_jd32yc6 wrote
God you're the worst. Spelling nazi thank you
filosoful OP t1_jcyh3rt wrote
Clean energy and technology can be exploited to avoid the growing climate disaster, the report says.
But at a meeting in Switzerland to agree their findings, climate scientists warned a key global temperature goal will likely be missed.
Their report lays out how rapid cuts to fossil fuels can avert the worst effects of climate change.
In response to the findings, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres says that all countries should bring forward their net zero plans by a decade. These targets are supposed to rapidly cut the greenhouse gas emissions that warm our planet's atmosphere.
"There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all," the report states.