Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MTFHammerDown t1_iul3vvw wrote

I read another post somewhere that said that due to recent efforts over the last decade, predicted warming is only 20% of what it was before. Im starting to hope.

205

SilverNicktail t1_iul4aov wrote

Not 20%, more like 50%, but significantly reduced over the "do bugger all" scenario. A long way to go, but progress has been made. Gotta keep fighting the rest of the way.

163

MTFHammerDown t1_iulb3uy wrote

Hey, even 50% is very encouraging. Thank you for the correction though.

36

grimey493 t1_iuloii9 wrote

Can you link that pls.Fairly recent IPCC stats say something very different,especially with the resumption of thousands more coal plants,millions more cars,etc etc.

23

floralfemmeforest t1_iuohi7k wrote

I posted the link to this same subreddit last week! You can go to my profile and find it

0

TalkOk6693 t1_ium8d66 wrote

God let me just focus on the positive for once .

8

hak8or t1_iumaoyf wrote

It's important to be realistic too.

It's equivalent to feeding all the homeless in NYC for a day and saying how it's "amazing progress" in ensuring no one ever starves in the world. Yeah sure, it's a great change, but in the quantitative sense it did bugger all for the world's homeless.

A glimmer of hope is nice, but it's also critical to be realistic and not let that glimmer turn into thinking it's a guarantee all will be alright.

4

sault18 t1_iummiq4 wrote

No, in your analogy, the Montreal Protocol would be like solving homelessness completely in NYC. Now we just need to take that process we know works and repeat it for every major city in the world. Maybe tweak things for specific cities or whatever, but definitely repeat how this was done.

What I'm saying is we need more cooperation and comprehensive international agreements copying the example of the Montreal Protocol.

3

LALA-STL t1_iumcdrg wrote

That scenario of “feeding the homeless for one day in NYC” might not solve world hunger, but it would be pretty darn meaningful if you were a hungry person who got a meal.

1

hak8or t1_iumhe7q wrote

I don't disagree, it could even save their life. Though I don't see what relevance that has to what I said?

3

LALA-STL t1_iuo5tzb wrote

Sorry, fren. I agree with you too. Your comment just reminded me of the corny story about the kid on a beach who keeps tossing the stranded starfish back into the ocean. His dad says, “Why bother? There’s thousands of starfish on this beach. You won’t make a difference.” So the kid tosses back another starfish & says, “It made a difference to that one.”

Moral of the story: Even if we can’t solve the entire problem, let’s do what we can.

4

anor_wondo t1_iulr4hx wrote

imagine how much better it could have been if fake environmentalists didn't vilify and close down nuclear energy

35

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iulv64n wrote

Just so you know, that is 20-50% of the worst possible outcome: 4+ degrees apocalypse.

I think we now expect 2.7-2.3 degrees if we keep going as is. We're doing some good shit, now we need to keep doing it as hard as possible because we're beginning to reach the point where it will be difficult to reduce climate change. We need to get to 2 degrees or below, which will be hard

34

Got2Bfree t1_iulvy1g wrote

In Europe the politicians always talk about the 1,5 ° goal. Scientist say that this is only reachable if the world completely stopped production CO2 right now and that were only being mislead.

I think our generation is getting massively fucked and there's no recovery from that.

Most of the ozone layer was caused by one chemical which was just banned. It's not that easy this time.

29

SilentHunter7 t1_iumd3n7 wrote

The Biden Administration announced a few months ago that they're funding feasibility studies into geoengineering; releasing reflective aerosols into the stratosphere to increase the Earth's albedo.

That should tell you everything you need to know about where we are with thin.

2

Got2Bfree t1_iumg4oq wrote

Yeah like we completely gave up to actually reduce the emissions.

3

HellsMalice t1_iuoyh9h wrote

Careful being optimistic on reddit, they love their doomer porn.

Reality is we'll be just fine for the foreseeable future. Doom just gets clicks right now.

I can already see a bunch of moron doomers replying to you lmao

9

Strider2126 t1_ium69zy wrote

I am kinda confused..what we are getting now are the consequences of the pollution made a certian amount of time ago? Or the consequences are direct and immediate?

10 years ago here in my country we had snow in winter. Now it's barely cold

2

floralfemmeforest t1_iuohuws wrote

>10 years ago here in my country we had snow in winter. Now it's barely cold

If that is true it would be unlikely that it's caused by global warming... the climate doesn't operate on that kind of time scale.

1

Strider2126 t1_iuojyan wrote

Then i really don't know what to think. I am talking about europe italy

Many think exactly like me

If there are 27°c outside in november and it's not global warming then what is it?

1

mousemoji t1_iupppzc wrote

It’s the same here and I’m from the states…when I was a child it would sometimes snow on Halloween and today the forecast for next week is in the 70 degree Fahrenheit range

1

floralfemmeforest t1_iusq9s8 wrote

I'm in Oregon and we rarely get snow - usually just once or twice a year almost always in January or February, and we have snow predicted for next week on November 9th.

1

MysticCelestial t1_iukw90h wrote

Hell yeah. Hopefully, humanity can solve the climate crisis before it’s too late. We just gotta hopeful.

59

KailTheDryad t1_iul19uk wrote

This proves that we can. I know it’s been said before, but if we work together we can genuinely heal our planet. I just wish more people understood what that meant.

42

Mind43dom t1_iulpcf2 wrote

You see over 20years we banned CFCs and pretty much the entire planet agreed with no fuss.

We can’t even convince 50% of western nations that climate change is caused by humans.

13

sock_puppet0 t1_iulwku4 wrote

The big thing is the climate crisis probably won't be solved until Millenials hit their late 80s.

I've talked to my grandparents and my parents and to them the hole in the O-zone seemed insurmountable. It felt like it would never be fixed and that it was already too late.

With global warming it's going to be the same, probably, when we first learned about it, the challenge seemed truly impossible. But here we are, already seeing results.

These are not issues that can be fixed with one switch or with one grand solution.

They take decades of research, hard work, and sheer fucking will to overcome. And if there is one thing humanity has proven again and again, it's that we are amazingly stubborn about not dying.

12

RectalSpawn t1_iupoy1f wrote

Is climate change reversable?

It's my understanding that it happens naturally, and we've mostly only increased the rate of change.

1

da2Pakaveli t1_ium9m6k wrote

The current damage done is more or less irreversible (earth will adapt eventually on its own but iirc that’ll take quite some time), so we’ll have to deal with increased flooding, extreme heatwaves, increased frequency of higher category storms etc.
It’s incredibly important that we all adapt to a sustainable lifestyle, science already has the answers but too many expect from science that they find methods to keep on living the unsustainable way of life.
We as society need to come together but imo most importantly always listen to science.
There’ve been mentions of a human-made climate change 140 years ago. All the failed construction projects where they didn’t listen to geologists…etc.
Much can be avoided by listening to science.

3

H0vis t1_iuluxi9 wrote

We've got to be hopeful, and we've got to be vocal.

6

H0vis t1_iuluufv wrote

Yeah because there isn't a huge lobbying industry backing the use of CFCs.

There are, and have been since the existence of global warming was confirmed in the 1970s, armies of lobbyists fighting tooth and nail to preserve the fossil fuel industry. It has been almost impossible to make any significant progress against them.

The tide might turn, but it might be too late.

36

lorenzotinzenzo t1_iulw625 wrote

Also: stopping using CFC didn't imply an overhaul of the developed world lifestyle.

25

H0vis t1_ium80ve wrote

Neither does abandoning fossil fuels, or at least minimising their use. Not now we have the technology for renewables anyway. Thing is there are millions of dollars being spent every day to convince everybody otherwise.

​

Fundamentally making the shift could be done in a very short amount of time if the political will to do it ever overwhelmed the lobbying effort to stop it happening. All the necessary technologies already exist.

9

Funktownajin t1_iumht3h wrote

How would we make the shift to electric cars? We don't have the power grid necessary for the massive increase in electrical demand, both locally and in terms of overall power generation.

What technologies exist now to supplant the shipping and aviation industry with carbon free alternatices? None, really, that are close to being scalable.

It's not as simple as you make it seem even if the political obstacles were removed.

The developed world can't just continue business as usual by pretending we can electrify all our problems away while living the same lifestyle

2

H0vis t1_iun0nzo wrote

That's the neat thing, we don't shift to electric cars. Not en masse anyway.

Cities go to cycling. There's decades of work been done showing how this is done, and it works, it's proven tech. Won't be a one size fits all, won't work as a copy/paste of Amsterdam everywhere, but a majority of cities can make that switch and will be much better for it.

Intercity travel goes high speed rail. More freight to rail as well. This is how it used to be done before freight was handed off to trucks.

Maritime shipping, we just have to eat the pollution on that side of things, offset it as much as possible with more localised manufacturing, but its here to stay for now. The good news is we're not going to kill the planet just with container ships. Ditto medium/long range passenger aircraft.

The planet can take a certain amount of abuse, we don't have to turn into a planet of blue Avatar weirdos overnight to beat this thing.

4

Funktownajin t1_iun94x4 wrote

Pretty sure mass cycling is an overhaul of the developed countries lifestyle.

High speed rail takes decades to build, also requires lots of electricity and steel etc. Rail is more efficient that truck transport but not massively so. It still pollutes a lot.

Like I said, these aren't easy choices. And nothing you listed will stop climate change.

2

H0vis t1_iunf9jz wrote

I mean, it is an overhaul, but in a good way. Ten thousand people die to air pollution from cars in London alone.

High speed rail it depends on the country, most places have railway infrastructure, it just needs updating.

I never said this would be easy or comfortable, but to be clear this isn't a choice any more. Modern life is going to change whether we want it to or not because of climate change, so we might as well make some changes ourselves on the off chance that kids born right now don't die in a desert.

​

It's like, the scientists have been saying we can take maybe one or two degrees more temperature increase before we basically kill everything on the planet. And even now, where I am in southern England for example, temperature records were smashed in summer, we effectively haven't had an autumn in terms of the temperature dropping, and according to the weather forecast it's going to be at least a week into winter before we see the temperature drop below ten degrees Celsius.

Point is, it's already way too hot. If this is how the weather is going to stay (let alone if it gets worse) then that represents an overhaul of lifestyles either way, because everything is going to be on fire.

3

Funktownajin t1_iunhx2l wrote

Ok I'm actually advocating for an overhaul, and abandonment, of the developed world's lifestyle. That was the original point of the first comment you replied to when you said that wasn't necessary. High speed rail just means adopting the least efficient form of rail so we can continue our fast paced, travel everywhere lifestyles. It sounds good and easy that it could be a solution but it's not.

Where are the actual, difficult, questions? Things like embracing population decline/veganism, ending any and all subsides for animal agriculture and electricity, banning international tourism, construction moratoriums, and massive increases in taxes. They aren't really talked about because they actually require more sacrifice than people are willing to make. ive realized that almost anyone still eating animal products while talking about techno solutions to climate change is basically a massive hypocrite ignoring the easiest solution right in front of them.

1

H0vis t1_iunpo2c wrote

If all those measures are necessary then they will happen, or I guess we die trying, but you're right they are a much harder conversation.

The question of food is a big one and you're right it's going to probably be the hardest to swallow. The key will probably be in the economics of it. Ending factory farming as a viable business model by appropriate taxation for the land use and emissions will send meat prices through the roof, but that's kind of where they have to be. People tend to be more willing to accept the idea of 'I can no longer afford this thing' rather than 'this thing is banned'.

The benefit is that it will actually be easier to feed everybody in the world if we're not also trying to feed billions of livestock animals as well. Big efficiency saving.

1

nagashbg t1_iup3273 wrote

Aviation is a luxury, in many cases the travel is not essential. As for the ships, have you ever heard of wind powered ships?

1

Funktownajin t1_iup4247 wrote

That's my point? And what are these wind powered ships? Surely they can replace all the super tankers and cargo ships currently in use /s

1

LALA-STL t1_iumd077 wrote

Except:

  • Cost-effective carbon capture, which would be a huge game changer.
  • Cold fusion. Problem solved
0

aldergone t1_iumn1v0 wrote

Today there are approximately seven commercial CO2 EOR projects in Canada, including the largest in the town of Weyburn, Saskatchewan which is operated by EnCana and has sequestered over 10 million tonnes of CO2 since operations began in 2000. The second-largest commercial CO2 EOR project in Canada is run by Apache Corporation at the Midale field in southern Saskatchewan. The Midale project began commercial operations in the fall of 2005, and is predicted to sequester more than 10 million tonnes of CO2 over the life of the project.

cold fusion - really

3

LALA-STL t1_iuo6hgi wrote

Way cool!
Now I’m wondering … How impressive a number is 10 million tonnes?

2

aldergone t1_iuogb4h wrote

its more impressive than zero tonnes

2

LALA-STL t1_iuoglgb wrote

¡Absolutamente!

1

aldergone t1_iuoibxm wrote

Weyburn field injects about ~5,000 tonnes/day which is equivalent to 445,121 canadians per year

2

aldergone t1_iummq1s wrote

there have been massive improvements in efficiency in O&G since the 70's

1

cgamgee t1_iums75l wrote

The only reason we stopped the hole is because it was actually economically viable to do so. It was cheaper to switch to a gas that didn't hurt the ozone layer. This post is kinda a lie.

11

AlGunner t1_iulpbbo wrote

Maybe we should open it up again to let some heat out. /s

9

CaptainKursk t1_iult9gr wrote

We know what to do to stop the world hurting from spiralling environmental disaster.

We know the people and corporations responsible for the mess we're in.

But of course, I can't say what we should do without violating TOS...

9

disasterous_cape t1_ium0uf2 wrote

I’ve never believed that we can’t, it just seems evident that we won’t

7

heitiki t1_iull1as wrote

If it’s quite comfortable to do and rich people don’t risk losing too much money. 👌🏼

6

Madmax1245 t1_iultxwo wrote

I don’t get why you’re being downvoted. The only way it’s gonna happen is when the elite start to realise it’s their problem as well

6

dusti279 t1_iuocuyw wrote

every few months i feel like the news alternates between “climate change is gonna kill us all tomorrow if you touch one more plastic bag” and “guys look we’re fixing it!! don’t worry🥰” and i don’t know what to believe anymore, it’s kind of exhausting

5

mousemoji t1_iupq9ly wrote

I literally live in a state of constant existential crisis because of this exact thing 🤕 like can we just make up our minds?

2

dusti279 t1_iupsxg1 wrote

it’s honestly just anxiety inducing and i’ve stopped seeking out climate news because of it, which i feel is the opposite of what we should want? like keep me informed in a way that isn’t fear mongering or sugarcoating and i’ll be okay

1

TheDanishDude t1_iunx345 wrote

The real problem is that no one wants to be the ones to loose out on their GDP by cutting production and reducing emissions first.

As long as financial gain weighs more, we will have to fight for it.

All the more reason this worship of the stock markets and greed needs to be stopped

4

LearnDifferenceBot t1_iunxa16 wrote

> to loose out

*lose

Learn the difference here.

^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply !optout to this comment.)

2

Gundam_net t1_iult4tu wrote

Reversing a cause always reverses an effect. This is generally great advice.

3

TheDemontool t1_ium8fcy wrote

Why did they tell us this? People will start polluting again since they have more time in the future.

2

shaodyn t1_ium8hcj wrote

Maybe we can do the climate next?

2

gurutar t1_iunozlr wrote

i see a "World close to climate tipping point" thread every fucking day, hopefully this will taper off some time

2

AutoModerator t1_iukvtvo wrote

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.

1

Psychological_Tear_6 t1_iulq1va wrote

This is what I've been saying! Also, look at the Aral sea, the north part of which has been partially restored. It could probably all be restored, and at a benefit, but it would require a partial loss in irrigation waters.

1

thetomahawk42 t1_iumea7r wrote

Not necessarily because of the general populace, though. The general populace will buy and use what's there, and especially what's cheapest. In general, the general populace will destroy the planet if it saves them 5c.

The manufacturors, though, made the choice. And that's the important bit here. The people who needed to make the change went and made the change. It wasn't left to the general population, it was done by those who actually needed to make the change.

1

ToDandy t1_iun4aue wrote

It’s like when your car starts making a weird sound and you ignore it long enough that it fixes itself.

1

Sandy_Bae t1_iuoj3ks wrote

We should have made a similar effort when we discovered micro plastic in our water but it doesn’t seem like anyone gives a shit about that.

1

boersc t1_iuomo31 wrote

Of course we can. However, the ozone layer was much simpler: it was a onedimensiomal issue and yhe resolution was already known (replace one gas with another). Currently, we have about seven issues all at once that all need to be sorted and the solution is not that obvious or not tangable at short term. (War in russia/ukraine, unstable renewables, infrastructure, rise of new economies, cost, to name a few) We can do it, but it's infinitely more complex than the ozone layer issue back then, and even thst took years.

1

GameDestiny2 t1_iuotlpv wrote

I mean, I sort of figured. If the Earth had it before we fucked it up, surely it can fix it. It could probably make an entirely new one with time.

1

Bucket1982 t1_iupq7ow wrote

Especially if there actually WAS an environmental crisis.

1

DanYHKim t1_ium54yd wrote

The oligarchs and conservatives have a different interpretation.

To them, this showed that their normal methods to suppress and distort information and to obstruct cooperation were insufficient. That is why the misinformation and obstruction campaign has been so extreme about climate change and the pandemic.

They went from sowing confusion ("Doubt is our product") to encouraging violence .

−2

25thNightSlayer t1_ium6xju wrote

This isn’t news this is bs. Check out r/collapse , China is still industrializing heavy, we still use gas … etc.

−6

Lonat t1_iumz2xh wrote

Oh no, not the industrialization

2

25thNightSlayer t1_iuob3ep wrote

Hey I'm for prosperity, but I'm just saying it's not gonna stop the globe from warming. If people really looked into it, the scientists talking about the warming aren't looking hopeful or pleased in light of this news.

1

peet192 t1_iulcisk wrote

Have we forgotten that there is a another Ozone hole this time over Africa

−8

SilverNicktail t1_iulgfmj wrote

No, that's the same hole. There's new research that the Antarctic hole may have contributed to early summer warming in South Africa over the past few decades. Not remotely the same thing as "another hole".

14