Submitted by imrussellcrowe t3_yhkeey in worldnews
You just described houston
At the way we are going we are on track for Venus. Natural processes sequester a billion tons a year. We release 45 billion tons. That 45 number is increasing every year, not decreasing. Even if you could snap your fingers and all global electricity and transportation was electric and renewable we would still be emitting like 20 billion tons a year
Also southern AZ.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)
> As intensifying climate impacts across the globe hammer home the message that greenhouse gas emissions must fall rapidly, a new UN Environment Program report finds that the international community is still falling far short of the Paris goals, with no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place.
> The "Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window-Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies" finds that urgent sector and system-wide transformations-in the electricity supply, industry, transport and buildings sectors, and the food and financial systems-would help to avoid climate disaster.
> Action in these four areas can reduce projected 2050 food system emissions to around a third of current levels, as opposed to emissions almost doubling if current practices are continued.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: emission^#1 transformation^#2 financial^#3 food^#4 climate^#5
Time frame is over the "century" kind of vague, my understanding is we have 80 more years to go. Correct me if I'm wrong based on facts.
Well, might as well kick back and enjoy what we have now while we have it. Nothing we can do about it if the powers that be don’t care about ending the world as we know it
And to think you too will probably look back fondly at the weather.
Do you have kids? When you have kids this defeatism just evaporates and you want to fight it like Don Quixote
Yes, the warming is calculated for 2100. Point is that a part of the warming is locked in regardless. The more we emit, higher temperatures are locked in regardless if in 2060 for example we stop all emissions.
Not yet. I’m still in my twenties. I’m trying to build a life that will allow me to fight for climate action but right now I’m powerless, so I have to accept what is
No and i never will.
What about those carbon capture plants? And really they should be building them on top of factories.
A 2.6 degree increase will see a migration crisis in the billions. Most of you reading this live in areas that will become uninhabitable if this happens.
I'll not be having children because willingly subjecting them to impending ecological disaster is unethical.
> When you have kids
A lot of people are choosing not to, because why fight the unbeatable?
So many defeatists on here. It’s a good fight, it gives meaning to many people’s lives. If it weee easy it wouldn’t be so meaningful.
I’m not a defeatist, I’m a realist. Human nature is not suddenly going to change in the next 50 years lol, climate change is simply too vague for the human mind to consider the danger, our brains simply are not wired that way.
We couldn’t cause a hothouse Venus on Earth if we devoted our entire civilization to the task. There just aren’t that many greenhouse gasses on Earth.
Unbeatable? If warming is 2.4 to 2.6C there will be a lot of bad things, but it’s not something that will cause the collapse of civilization or anything. Society will continue on, more stressed than it is now but onward nonetheless. You aren’t dooming children to a life of strife and suffering due to climate change if the warming is indeed 2.4-2.6C.
People are too busy trying to survive from day to day to think about the long term.
The problem is, there won't be a long term. Humanity will not survive much longer. The planet will recover eventually.
For the people that do survive, mass food and water shortages, disease and death on an enormous scale won't make it a world worth living in. The richest will probably be OK for a time, but most of the planet won't be inhabitable, people will be moving around and putting even more pressure on the little remaining inhabitable land.
Cling to that belief like a lifeboat if I were you…
Running a carbon capture system is incredibly energy-intensive — it essentially requires building a new power plant to run the system, which would create another new source of air and carbon pollution. That undermines the whole goal of capturing carbon in the first place. While our country emits roughly 5 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, removing 1 billion tons of that through direct air capture would require nearly the entire electricity output of the United States.
We need something like a fusion power breakthrough to make it work.
It’s also important to consider the scale of what would be needed. The Energy Department recently announced $12 million to fund ‘direct air capture’ projects and touted the possible removal of 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To put this in perspective, the largest corporate polluter in 2018 was responsible for releasing 119 million tons of CO2 equivalent — and that’s only one of them.
I do think it’s possible we will go underground, coupled with genetic engineering (of ourselves and our food sources). But most of the biosphere will be likely fucked.
Would work if nuclear powered. Say wonder why we dont have more nuclear power plants?
Bingo. It’s all hand waiving. The ultra-wealthy and high-up political peeps already know this and their job/incentive is to keep the peace and maintain their power. Humans and greedy creatures.
Also, our absolutely brightest minds already predicted how things would go and it has been on track for 30-40 years almost perfectly. It’s called the “business-as-usual” scenario by MIT.
Widespread displacement and lack of resources start wars. It’s not the actual climate we are all worried about; we won’t be melted to death; we will starve or die out from attrition.
The Bay Area is already uninhabitable so I can’t even imagine.
It’s the empirically supported prediction put forth by the same climate scientists that raise the issue in the first place. It would seem odd to me to only selectively believe the information they provide.
Right…those are the major concerns for warming of over 4C. That’s a realistic scenario if warming exceeds 4C (though more likely 6C…it just becomes a plausible reality around 4C). If we hit that level, collapse of civilization is on the table. Hitting that level also was realistic until the last couple years.
Warming 2.4-2.6C is really bad for a lot of people; it does not destroy and stress civilization to the point of widespread displacement and war.
We should be calling a world war against climate change and rally the entire new world around a beautiful vision of the future!
But instead we get Putin, Xi, Trump, and a bunch of other cowards with no courage whatsoever to do what needs to be done. There’s no one leading the charge here. It could be as simple as a big press conference with a beautiful rallying speech, broadcasted around the world. Which world leader is going to step up ?
Fission? I guess it's possible, but I think there are still problems. Fusion would work better at that scale if we could build reactors that actually work cleanly.
Unless there’s some sudden mass die off of the ultra wealthy worldwide we’re just going to sleep walk to extinction. Fucking sucks but that’s the reality. The only people that could do anything about it either don’t see it as their problem, something that won’t effect them because they have so much money, they see it as a financial opportunity (opening arctic trade lanes otherwise unusable due to ice). They WANT volatile markets so they can scoop stuff up for cheap. It’s some real delusional shit- because there’s going to be nothing for them to ‘rule’ over once we’re over that fence.
[removed]
Way less than 80 it's happening now.
Loss of habitat is already underway there will be no safe places.
I don’t need a link to a video. I need you to make your original post comprehensible.
Southern Arizona will just simply become uninhabitable or entirely nocturnal
Ironically, people having kids is part of the problem.
Humanity should of course not suddenly stop having children entirely, but from a climate change perspective every added human (even one raised with good values) is definitely a much bigger negative than every SUV or every airplane journey.
My preachiest environmentalist friends are for some reason fine with having three children. It just seems like a massive amount of hypocrisy.
Fission is pretty clean as long as it doesn't have a massive meltdown and toxic waste is disposed of properly. Also did you know coal apparently produces more radiation than a fission plant does?
Actually there are, but they are locked up in limestone rock in the earths crust. That limestone was mostly laid down by coral reefs over billions of years. As we add carbon to the atmosphere we make the oceans more acidic, and they start dissolving that limestone wherever it is under the ocean, potentially creating a runaway feedback effect. Have a nice day.
This is a stupid argument. How do you know a child won’t grow to be a brilliant scientist or orator and reduce more greenhouse gas emissions that they produced?
Do you want to calculate the odds of that?
The vast, vast, vast majority of humans, including those who have gotten a very good upbringing, even just counting those who become scientists, create a hell of a lot more emissions than they reduce. Creating kids on the off chance that they might have a positive net effect on the environment is like going around shooting people on the off chance that you just accidentally remove a tumour from their body in the process.
Having multiple children is a selfish decision that is awful for this world. Way worse than anything else anyone does.
That’s such a negative, pessimistic, defeatist attitude. You have no idea what the chances of someone being a benefit to the environment in the future. No clue, but you defaulted to negative. There are too many nihilistic pessimists like you out there, you justify your negativity by convincing yourself you’re being realistic when you are absolutely not. I don’t have time to talk to nihilists. Please don’t respond back
That’s included in the calculation. It’s been studied and determined as an impossibility. Overstating the problem is nearly as detrimental as understating it, because it is obviously absurd and easily ignored.
You're beautiful
I am aware of the properties of fission nuclear reactors. Something I would encourage you to consider is the scale that would be needed. Look at the proposition critically and serious challenges emerge.
I wouldn't describe my perspective on this approach to be hopeful. We need serious advances on multiple fronts to even make a dent in carbon emissions with capturing systems, and these advances need to happen quickly and enable rapid scaling.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)
> As intensifying climate impacts across the globe hammer home the message that greenhouse gas emissions must fall rapidly, a new UN Environment Program report finds that the international community is still falling far short of the Paris goals, with no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place.
> The "Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window-Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies" finds that urgent sector and system-wide transformations-in the electricity supply, industry, transport and buildings sectors, and the food and financial systems-would help to avoid climate disaster.
> Action in these four areas can reduce projected 2050 food system emissions to around a third of current levels, as opposed to emissions almost doubling if current practices are continued.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: emission^#1 transformation^#2 financial^#3 food^#4 climate^#5
imrussellcrowe OP t1_iue6wat wrote
From the article:
>To meet the Paris Agreement goals, the world needs to reduce greenhouse gases by unprecedented levels over the next eight years.
Unconditional and conditional NDCs are estimated to reduce global emissions in 2030 by 5% and 10% respectively, compared with emissions based on policies currently in place. To get on a least-cost pathway to holding global warming to 1.5°C, emissions must fall by 45% over those envisaged under current policies by 2030. For the 2°C target, a 30% cut is needed.
Such massive cuts mean that we need a large-scale, rapid and systemic transformation. The report explores how to deliver part of this transformation in key sectors and systems.