Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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