If by 'we' you mean the billionaires and political leaders in a position to do something, then absolutely.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
113 points (98.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5240 readers
480 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We are voting for and consuming from those saboteurs. We could do otherwise AND incite something else.
Who is "we", my friend?
People with active/passive voting rights and above global average purchasing power: People in stable representative democracies with mixed economies.
voting rights mean nothing if the candidates represent the rich, not us
Better a rich useful idiot, than a rich enemy.
lol we are the only useful idiots here, they wouldnt be rich otherwise
What keeps you from getting voted then?
copious amounts of money for a political campaign, or terrible ethics so i could accept to pass shitty laws later in exchange for it
Don't forget you're uncharismatic and don't know how to run a campaign!
money can fix that
Yes
Does "we're all fucked" sound like an underestimation to you?
No. The motherfuckers that have us all in a stranglehold are, we just get gaslit into taking the blame and responsibility for it.
load more comments
(6 replies)
i don't think most people are laboring under the illusion that the world will be okay, just the illusion that they and their local community will be okay
I don't know anymore.. I'm more confused about the severity of climate change as time goes on.
Climate change is not a big deal if the life a person is expecting to live is only a slightly more stressful version of a life without climate change (I think this is where we are currently). It is a big deal if it has the same degree of impact of that a mental health disorder might have - work, relationships, and overall lifestyle are significantly impacted and that person needs to make major adjustments to learn to live with it. I don't see a middle ground here, but I'm also not thinking that hard about it.
I don't know where we are going. And yes... I know the world is a big place and some people are going to feel the worst aspects, but to keep things simple (and relevant) I'm only thinking of other "middle" class Canadians living in large urban centers. If this argument takes into account every person on earth then the answer is just going to be a meaningless 'yes'.
Edit: I'm eager to hear from people about this. If you have something to say please share.
I had a conversation with a friend. A well educated friend, who has devoted his life to the cause
He thought he was fighting for his children or grandchildren. I told him no, we've been saying that for two generations - this is our problem. We will feel the hurt. Your water supply is not guaranteed, our food so supply could run dry one year. Our parents were told this was a future generation problem - we're that generation... This is already happening
In the US, in the EU - some places are already feeling it, but we will all feel it soon
Shouldn't we put more weight into your friends opinion?
Another person replied to me with a list of things that are a constant in our world. Except 'collapse of civ' which is exactly the kind of conclusion I'm raising doubts on as there isn't as much to support it. Again, focused on regional impacts and not places that are going to be obliterated.
Another person said 'wait till permafrost melts'. This is already baked into models, it's not expected that all permafrost is going to melt everywhere.
Idk. I'm eagerly waiting for AR7 and I'm regularly checking in on a few places. I'm aware of the narrative that IPCC leans towards conservative estimates or is overly optimistic. Internet forums don't seem to offer much to this conversation and it's mostly people echoing what they already believe. I'm not seeing any exceptions to that norm here in this thread.
The few places:
- http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/
- https://www.realclimate.org/
- https://www.theclimatebrink.com/
An article/search topic that swayed me a while ago:
I expect that geoengineering is going to happen on a larger scale, it would be counter to how people operate to not pursue that option.
That's not the effects I'm talking about - what we were talking about specifically was water shortages, across the US we've drained aquifers that will need centuries to build back up. Another fun side effect is crazy sinkholes
Droughts and lack of snowpack obviously play into it, but across the Western states it's already a critical problem - and we've done very little to address it. We don't have a plan, and the problem isn't going to fix itself - wild ideas like water pipelines across multiple states have been proposed, we could provide drinking water in tankers temporarily, but ultimately this just buys a bit more time. This is a right now problem - we've been rationing and talking about this future problem since I was a child, but water needs have only gone up
As for other similar issues happening right now - wildfires across the continent, massive floods everywhere, massive crop failures in China and India, Spain turning into a desert, algae blooms killing already depleted fisheries, deadly heatwaves, polar vortexes, bigger and slower hurricanes hitting places unprepared for them - the list goes on
It's a right now problem. It affects the vulnerable first, but it's already touched all of us in one way or another. But what happens when the sinks in salt lake City run dry? What happens when someone's house is burned down in a wildfire, twice? What happens when the power grid of Texas keeps going down every heat wave or cold snap?
People who can move will move. People who can't will die in place or become climate refugees when things get bad enough. It will be just inconveniences and news of distant tragedies until somewhere hits a tipping point - hopefully you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time, but even then you'll feel the aftershocks
One thing to bear in mind, is that the draining of the water tables in the western U.S. is completely artificial, as in we could easily refill them with correct management. The issue is a crazy, CRAZY amount of water (inefficient flood irrigation farming accounts for 75% of water use out west) is wasted on growing alfalfa for export, or almonds, and farmers are able to do this due to water rights from 100 years ago.
If we just stopped the farmers from wasting water alone, we'd have enough water to replenish and drastically refill our aquafers.
We could. It's a totally solvable problem - until it isn't. If an aquifer is dry and you're already rationing the water, what can you do? Presumably ship in enough water to keep people alive, if not to sustain commercial needs too
Which is going to drain water from somewhere else, and what if they're having the same issue? Take it from further. Salt lake City was looking into the idea of building a pipeline from the Mississippi, and I'm sure someone is looking into building a fleet of water tankers and checking if there's profit to be had
Now, where's the part in all this where we take back water rights? Where's the part where we start to fix the problem?
Realistically the rubber will need to meet the road at some point, and the wasteful alfalfa and almond farmers need to be cut off straight up, because there's no way a handful of wealthy farmers is going to be prioritized over a city of hundreds of thousands if that city is seriously considering trucking in water.
It's like the Irish potato famine - Ireland had the output to support themselves. You'd think capitalism would bow to survival - but it doesn't
Will we cut off exports to keep people alive? The people with money won't.
The rubber has met the road. Physics has caught up with creative accounting. If we don't act now, will we act when people start dying?
I'm familiar with all of that. I spent a lot of time on /r/collapse until it went completely off the rails. Crop data is available online - output in Asia is still increasing. I'm not sure if you looked at my sources but outside of social media that horrific doom narrative is not prevalent.
You know how we had SARS, and bird flu, and swine flu, and MERS? And every time scientists rang the alarm bell, but it turned out to not be a big deal? It's because they knew COVID was inevitable - they knew the sketchy meat markets were a huge vector for a coronavirus to cross the species barrier.
COVID could've been much worse, but it certainly affected everyone. It also probably could have been prevented, or at least delayed
These smaller, regional problems are warning signs. A lot of people are dying from them already, but if we don't take them seriously they're just going to get big enough to have global effects. Not in the next century, in the next decade
Are we going to go extinct from climate change? I don't think so. Are you going to die from climate change? Probably not. Will someone you know die from it? Possibly. Will it negatively impact your life? Absolutely, it already has, and it will keep doing so in interestingly obvious ways
That helps, good analogy. So the effects will be the things we already see - high cost of living, persistent low wages, fewer economic opportunities, increasing social isolation, additional strain on federal budget, reduced social services, changes in crime patterns, increasing poverty class, lower income countries more or less left to fend for themselves/less support, etc. More of the same, but instead of a limited period of economic depression we move into a long term depression and risk in multiple areas (like another pandemic). I can understand that better than picturing what a famine would look like in Toronto. Am I misinterpreting what people are saying, is that what they are already saying?
That's basically what I'm saying - the US massively overproduces food. There's many problems with how it's done and how it's used, but the Americas aren't likely to starve. So long as the US stands, starvation isn't likely - we literally burn crops to keep production at a level where we could feed much of the world
Climate refugees aren't murderhobos - they're people. People that will mostly without a job, often living out of their cars, and largely desperate. They need just as much to survive, but desperate people do desperate things. The ones that aren't desperate will integrate, the ones who are will be a burden on the system
Let's say Florida or Texas start bleeding population. Almost nowhere is equipped to handle 5 million more people in a short time frame - it would wreak havoc on the job market, strain supply chains, and lead to a massive increase in crime. Desperate people do desperate things
Yes, it's our current problems magnified. There is enough to go around, but not like we do it today. We have to restructure the world - will we do it today, while we have breathing room, will we do it in a decade, when our systems fall apart around us, or will we do it decades from now, when the choice is between sacrifice and death
Climate change is here - it's a right now problem. If we give it time, it could collapse everything - if the US collapses entirely, a famine in Toronto is a possiblity. Every city could starve. I don't think we'll get to that point, but there will be death. There is already death. The sooner we start to address reality, the less suffering our species will undergo
I don't think humanity could die out unless Earth becomes another Venus. We're too adaptable, too widespread for that. And if we've already lost, who cares. It's a pointless line of thinking. We could be screwed, but I don't think we are...I think the Earth trends towards a stability humans can live with. I think we have more systems balancing us, if we go down that road it'll be a slow and painful one we won't live to see
This is a problem that will affect you, it will affect everyone. We can minimize it - many will die no matter what we do. But most could survive, but only if we change the systems at play - I think we'll get there, but the question is how much suffering we endure before then
I don't know where we are going.
Famine, war, collapse of civilisation, rise of warlords, loss of knowledge. Everywhere. Within our lifetimes.
Just look at the first of those and the rest follow. Think about how likely it is that our civilisation will be able to grow crops in the quantity it has up until recently, even five years from now, given the increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events.
That's what I find confusing. We (global we) have already had enormous crop failures and disasters recently. https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/farm-bureau-finds-2022-weather-disasters-amounted-21-billion-crop-losses these events can get amplified on social media and then it's disorientating to me when the effects slip away.
I think what I want is data:
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production
I don't doubt it's going to get worse, but I'm struggling to understand the details of that. You're saying famine in Chicago, full on North Korean style society? War, yes I said already we already do that all the time. Not new. Warlords, not new. Loss of knowledge? Vague. I'm sorry but this is what I'm talking about. How did you reach these conclusions, if you know?
PS: https://lemm.ee/post/45711739
"Climate change: UN report says planet to warm by 3.1 C without greater action | Reuters" https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/climate-set-warm-by-31-c-without-greater-action-un-report-warns-2024-10-24/
That's what I find confusing.
I don't follow. What is it you find confusing?
I think what I want is data
Unfortunately, due to the way time works, nobody can give you data from the future.
You're saying famine in Chicago
Yes.
full on North Korean style society?
I don't know what you mean by that.
I'm sorry but this is what I'm talking about.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean. What is what you're talking about?
How did you reach these conclusions, if you know?
Firstly, the accelerated pace of global warming compared to predictions; we've already exceeded 1.5C globally for a short duration and things are getting worse not better, fast. It looks like we're going to go well beyond 2C and we're going to get there very quickly. The greatest fears of climate scientists 10 years ago now look like optimistic pipe dreams.
Secondly, the inaction from society as a whole. The time to have acted in order avoid the issue was 60 years ago. We're now well into the situation where people are dying and billions, even trillions of dollars of damage is being done by extreme weather and yet there are people in governments who are still literally in denial about the scale of the problem or even whether the problem exists at all. And most critically, the populace is not holding those people to account. Governments are still issuing new oil and gas drilling licenses. Airports are still adding runways. Our civilisation continues to increase CO2 emissions which is the wrong direction if you want to save humanity.
As a civilisation or perhaps species, it seems that we do not have the capacity to deal with this problem. The reality of the situation seems to be beyond the grasp of most people. We don't, as a society, have the means of identifying and fixing the psychological shortfalls that inhibit most people from acknowledging the scale of the problem. It's like the problem is so big and its consequences so dire that people cannot bear to look at it with their eyes open. They would rather keep their eyes closed, even if doing so reduces the likelihood of them and their children surviving. Humanity is like a rabbit, frozen in the headlights of climate change.
I have a suspicion that many governments have already concluded behind closed doors that they cannot prevent global calamity and so are just trying to put off the inevitable downfall of their respective societies and live in comfort for as long as they can.
In a word, yes
Uh huh
4
Uh, yeah?
Yup.
"we"
Wait until the permafrost melts and releases its trapped methane. If you think the existing CO2 models are disturbing we're in for something much more rapidly catastrophic.
If only CO2's warming properties had been discovered in 1856. If only good models of global warming had been created in 1896. If only those had happened, maybe society could have taken more substantial actions...
I got a vasectomy so my kids won't suffer it, and a crock pot to slow cook/tenderize the long pork.
All set.
Yup
Probably. We’re clearly avoidant on this topic.
70s, 80s and 90s = peak humanity.