Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

Didn't BP just announce a few days ago that they've made so much money off of petroleum these past year or so that they are scaling back their renewable initiatives?

https://leaders.com/news/business/bp-backs-away-from-renewables/

Yea…

This isn’t uplifting! An ounce of prevention and all that.

As a louisianian i can say that’s a Common BP L and there are smarter companies who can look farther to the future

Great, let's keep the momentum going

Hooray for the IRA!… the american one

My father is a Trump loving, conservative who thinks climate change is a hoax, but he drives an ev and has solar panels on his roof. Why? Because it saves him money.

Possibly the only way to convince climate change deniers to go green.

My neighbor is (until he took it down last fall) a Trump-flag-flying loudmouth. But I finally shut him up when I asked if he'd rather make solar panels here or just let China own the growing worldwide market.

Your father reduced so much carbon footprint.

Kudos.

Now a global cooling crisis is inevitable

"thanks Obama"

It's almost as if spending money on R&D on a technology that provides a basic requirement of our civilization while needing a fragment of the logistical support, of previously the old technology was a good long term investment.

Making it about money is the only way to get people in America to pay mind to it.

"Even if countries meet commitments made under the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world is heading for a 3.2 degrees Celsius"

Green capitalism isnt gonna save us.

Didn’t they cause an oil spill?

Don't need the green washing any more perhaps?

But it's surely going to make a bunch of money selling us EVs and solar panels.

Under capitalism? Not a fucking chance!

"Seen as profitable" is not the same as "profitable".

This article isn't saying that the cost of green technology production has decreased or even that private companies want to sell green technology to customers, rather that governments are more willing to pour tax money into green tech and companies are happy to gobble that money up.

Sorry, another depressing comment by me in r/upliftingnews .

If fighting global warming is profitable, capitalism guarantees someone will go too far for a few extra bucks

Capitalism works.

Yep, those 50 years of sabotaging progress to sell more oil is sure working out for us.

The current "momentum" still has us headed for catastrophic climate change.

Which oil spill. Most companies have done several

🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪

Global temperature is still going to rise by up to 3 degrees dude, global cooling won’t be even a suggestion of an issue for a good hundred years or so

No it actually doesn't. As it is, we're heading for roughly +1.8 degrees. That's seriously damaging but not catastrophic.

But those predictions are assuming constant activism and constant efforts to implement renewables and fossil fuels. We need to work hard to meet those assumptions.

Semantics. The Middle East and India are in for deadly heatwaves and wet bulb events respectively, those will displace tens of millions of people at a minimum, that's a catastrophe in my eyes.

It is semantics, but semantics are important here. Displacing tens of millions of people is different to killing hundreds of millions - and that's the difference between serious impact and catastrophe. If we use the worst words for bad outcomes, what words do we use for the worst outcomes?

We need to be able to explain to people the difference between 3 degrees and 1.8 degrees. Because there is a massive difference between the impacts of those temperatures.

Dont worry, 20 years later it'll be found out that our current green solutions is somehow worse and is causing devastating damage to the ecosystem, then we're gonna waste another 80 years bickering about it until the new solution becomes cheaper, thus creating the cycle.

BP the guys that invented the carbon footprint to defect away from them just having the wost oil spill in history and ruined most of the coastline in the gulf of Mexico. They have never carried about the environment only thier bottom line

What're you talking about? The current trajectory isn't acceptable, we failed to tackle climate change, and the outcomes *will* be catastrophic. Displacement (and inevitably, death) of tens of millions *is* catastrophic.

The fact that the situation feasibly could be worse doesn't make the situation better.

You wanna be clear in your communication? How about this ranking:

1. Catastrophic climate change.
2. Societal collapse.
3. Threat of extinction.

We're at 1 at the moment. Downplaying the threat of climate change (which, in my opinion, you are doing right now) is incredibly dangerous. In a lot of peoples mind if it's not catastrophic then there's no rush (look at any climate conference). Not pressing the grave importance of immediate climate action is how we end up with even worse outcomes.

That's the sound of a company that definitely shouldn't have its assets seized and its executives tried and executed wink wink

They can have a lot of profits when they get nationalized and tried at the Hague.

So tired of politicians pretending that we can rely on the same people that put us in this mess to get us out of it.

True, everyone remembers the AT&T Brazilian Oil Spill of '93

The economy is a function of the government. Specifically, it is a function of the United States government. Building renewables could have always been profitable because we could have shaped regulations to where that was the only option. Jobs would have still been created, value would have still been created, and the economy would have moved just as efficiently.

The only difference is there would be different winners and losers. Our government has always picked the same people who put us into this mess to be the winners.

True but bp had the biggest and most dangerous

[removed]

How the fuck does displacing tens of millions of people not sound catastrophic to you?

The problem still remains with Capitalism only understanding things in monetary terms.

Apparently corporations and governments will "embrace green" if they can "make green" from it.

It is catastrophic. But that leaves no room for the description of worse outcomes.

Sure it does. It's called even more catastrophic. Calling the displacement of tens of millions of people as "seriously impacting" just gives people wiggle room to downplay the crisis as not as bad as it's being made to seem.

If you just continuously describe things as "even more" whatever, you are going to have a very hard time explaining the real situation to the public.

As was predicted!

"Ok, I guess we'll stop terraforming the planet to be hostile towards human life, as long as there's profit to be made by it."

It's difficult to overstate how shitty humanity is.

Capitalism was the source of this problem. Capitalism is a fucking disease and on our current trajectory will be the cause of humanity's mass destruction in the name of private profit.

They'll keep pretending as long as they keep getting their cut of the profits.

I work at a company where because of all this carbon footprint stuff we are introducing measures to reduce it, because that's what customers expect of us now. What I'm trying to say is I don't think there is anything wrong with idea of carbon footprint itself, if applied to places where it matters.

pay mind to it. Nice

Progress over perfection, even if we end up with a damaged earth it's a hell of a lot better than if we just said fuck it and kept doing what we were doing.

That's like the difference of riding a moped into a brick wall at 90 mph as opposed to 150. Capitalism as a system is inherently driving climate change.

Portions of the planet becoming unhabitable isn't progress. Developed countries, despite driving almost a majority of emissions since the 1700's, might be able to get by, but for how long until tens of millions of migrants rightfully seek shelter, how long until wars & civil unrest are sparked over resources, how long until fascists take hold of people's frustrations and turn it against one another? That isn't progress.

It's always been profitable for one entity or another

The point of mentioning the carbon footprint is to call BP hypocrites because they were the ones that created it

A portion becoming inhabitable beats the entire planet becoming inhabitable, what are you talking about? You're saying extinction is the same as a 3c raise in temperature.

What I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to ignore the elephant in the room. Capitalism needs endless growth. The 3.2 projection is by no means static. There's really no reason tens, if not hundreds of millions of people need to suffer so capitalists can continue to keep making money.

That's not something anyone should be interested in seeing happen.

So use better descriptors.

"Destabilizing to society"

"Cataclysmic"

"Endangering the survival of humanity"

"Extinction level threat"

"A danger to all life on Earth"

There's plenty of room to increase the severity of the language used. The fact that you're opposed to describing the projected effects of climate change as catastrophic is mind boggling to me.

I'm not opposed to describing 2.5 degree + as catastrophic, I just think that describing 1.8 degree as catastrophic makes the rest of the scale meaningless.

I'd say 1.8 would cause "serious destabilization of society", 2.2 "massive destabilisation of society", 2.5 "catastrophic", 2.8 "cataclysmic", 3.2 "threatening breakup of society", 3.5 "apocalyptic", 3.8 "threatening extinction", 4.1 "hope that the Svalbard seed vault works after the survivors leave the bunkers", 4.4 "at least antarctica will be nice after we're gone".

People only want the profit in the end

[removed]

Can I get you to acknowledge that we're looking at an area currently occupied by 20-ish percent of the human population becoming next to uninhabitable without constant and energy intensive airconditioning? To me that fits any definition of catastrophic, regardless of where you live on the planet.

We can't keep on moving the goalpost on climate action, not so many years ago the discourse was that we had to limit the increase to 1.5degrees to avoid the worst effects.

I'm not advocating for moving the goalposts at all. We should attempt to push it down to 1.5 and then zero.

The only way that has any feasibility of happening is if we're honest about the severity of the consequences we're headed towards. Using soft language around climate change gives politicians and corporations who are dragging their feet plausible deniability. Pointing out that their hesitancy is putting millions and millions of lives at risk is necessary to push them to action.

If you went back to the 90's, the outcomes we're talking about as realistic today were seen as fear mongering, now it's just the cost of doing business. And that slow creep will continue if we don't address it.

Why are you trying to use your beliefs to ignore science?

Why are you being overdramatic?

Highlighting the fact, that you're ignoring science, is not 'being overdramatic'. So can you answer the question?

My point as that, if it's profitable, people will take it too far. How am I ignoring science?

The Earth is not in any way going to cool in the near to medium term. Fact.

Who is having a future of "living within one's means" profitable? Less consumerism, less energy usage, personal carbon footprints etc.

What is uplifting about crapitalism, which ruined the environment, now making profit off of it? Why are we happy that companies can make profit off of destruction? What is this timeline?

And are companies actually doing what they are saying? I highly doubt it because lying and cover up is the norm these days.

Actually true in a sense, Marco- . Warming lowlands and oceans instigate stratospheric instability with polar vortex weakening, so polar vortex spills out, drops a freeze down, seeking homeostasis? It's gonna get alot hotter and way colder while it gets alot wetter but then windier and drier... but yeah, alot hotter.

[removed]

Brilliantly present!

A bit late to the conversation, but I'm just posting to point out that this number is very misunderstood.

According to the most recent projections, 3.2 degrees of warming is the absolute worst-case scenario. It can only happen if the world does nothing at all to improve on the policies that currently exist... and even then, it's the higher estimate in a wide range of possibilities. But if states honor the pledges they made up to 2030, that'll bring us down to 2.6. And if they honor all of their announced pledges, we get 2.0.

These numbers represent a massive improvement over the status quo that existed less than a decade ago, when the worst-case scenario was 4 degrees Celcius and failure seemed inevitable. While the Paris Agreement might technically fail (we're still very unlikely to reach 1.5), activists in every sector have already made enormous progress. It got the ball rolling.

It's not a hopeless fight. Every little bit of progress equates to countless lives saved.