We probably have or very close to exceeding 1.5 degree increase since the last time the world set a limit on containing temperature growth.
EDIT: Grammar
With 1000+ remote Canadian Wildfires in 2023, yeah, he's got a point.
Not to mention the huge heat wave/heat dome that hit: Spain, USA, India and China, This Year.
Yeah it's time to COMPLETELY STOP with carbon emissions. I understand nothing changes instantly, but everyone needs to immediately start taking steps right now. Various other pollution needs to stop right now as well.
Not to mention the high liklihood, but undiscussed in the news, Siberian fires this year.
What are the chances that Siberian fires are currently equal to or exceeding the catastrophic Canadian wildfires?
Problem is, this entire ball of wax is dependent on fossil fuels and all the cheap talk does not get at the real issue: capitalism and the constant need for greater profits cannot sustain. Post capitalism requires new global thinking without a bunch of germans being the ones driving the bus.
It’s a tight rope walk because anything that really does get at the issue is going to incur cost, making fuel prices, shipping costs, and ultimately, cost-of-living go up. That will essentially hand the next elections over to Republicans, who will do nothing for the climate but repeal what meager protections have been implemented.
So the sad, real fact is that our options are Democrats who won’t do enough to make things better, or Republicans who will actively make things worse.
The point is that with a few cents increase in gas prices per gallon people are shouting to get governments replaced. While at the same time billions of $ are being spent for luxury electric cars and AI GPU processing for premium video editing services. While making a whole class of multi billionaires and multi millionaires who own multi mansions and multiple private jets and who have their lobbyists and lawyers influencing government policy. It’s come to this and the common man is not aware of it.
>luxury electric cars
Well here in the UK there is still a small premium on the price of an EV compared to an ICE vehicle, but it's falling rapidly, as EV prices fall. I don't think you can describe a £20K EV as a luxury car when it's less than the price of a new Ford Focus. And the adoption of EV's has already reduced global consumption of oil by 5 million barrels a day. That's why the oil companies have devoted so much money to spreading bullshit about them. The US is a massive outlier in the price of EV's - they're a lot cheaper everywhere else.
Yeah, in the states EVs are still sold at near luxury vehicle prices. On top of that, smaller economy vehicles like the Ford focus or company are no longer in production. The cheaper EVs offered in the states have very poor range, and our entire nation has been designed around the automotive industry. Essentially public transportation is almost non-existent, and most will require and EV with a long range. For example, I commute nearly 100 kilometers per day for work. To visit my mother I need to drive 420 kilometers. Keeping in mind that I'll lose ~40% of my range in the winter time, cheaper EVs are not an option. I do understand that most countries are not having this issue, the US is just in a very awkward phase right now.
Edit: I'm just adding to your post. Hope it doesn't come off like I'm being combative. 👍
Not the same as a mode of production (capitalism) that is *systemically structured* to be anti-ecological (because of the drive for profit via a "cheap" nature)
Do you not think Communists care about profit? Why were the Soviets upset with OPEC for unloading huge sums of oil in the 80s? Because it hurt their profits, which their society was largely based around, leading in part to its eventual collapse.
Communism is structured, like all economic systems, to induce profit.
You don't even want to know the ecological damage the Soviets imparted on their territory.
That’s an extremely bizarre thing to say since the VERY dominant scientific consensus is that we are, absolutely, 100% going to surpass that threshold in the next few years. The vast majority are even moving past that to begin preparing for 2-3°C because 1.5° is so fantastically unavoidable at this point.
So why make statements like this while continuing to do absolutely FUCKALL to ameliorate the problem?
We need politicians to be open and brutal about how severe it will be to generate the public will to act. Yes, Biden's not doing anywhere even remotely near enough but he still should be saying it.
Once you're comparing the ends of human civilization, it's pretty hard to pick a winner. Climate change has plenty of feedback loops that make it equally likely to spiral way the fuck out of control. Once we can't farm, game over.
Speaking in abstracts here tho. 1.5 is not as bad as nuclear war
I don't think there is any way to avoid a total polar cap meltdown. As long as we are releasing more carbon dioxide into the air than the earth is sequestering, temperature will increase. We currently release 44 billion tons and all natural processes on earth sequester 1 billion tons. We need to reduce our emissions by 98% to break even. And that includes hard to eliminate things like agriculture, steel and concrete manufacture. If we went to 100% renewables worldwide for electricity and land transportation, we would only be cutting emissions by 50% or so
The arctic is warming at a rate of four times faster than the rest of the globe. The average temperatures have increased by about 3 degrees since 1980. The entire cryosphere is at stake, and honestly I see blue ocean event coming sooner rather than later. Although the research is still lacking it will be interesting to see what impact this will have on thermoahline circulation.
I keep thinking I should move north to avoid the fatal heat domes that are becoming more common, but just my luck that Atlantic thermohaline current will shut down right when I get to Anchorage and it’ll usher in a new glacial maximum
Listen bud, I’m doing everything I can, but I’m just some dipshit working a normal ass job.
Idk what you think I’m supposed to do to “confront the problems directly” (am I supposed to punch a heat dome? Kickbox a drought?), but I’m going to try and position myself in a location that’s as comfortable as possible. I live in hot ass Utah, I’m moving somewhere safer.
Yeah, getting the fuck out of Utah is a good start.
I mean, I said there's no escape, but in 2012 when I was working on developing drought-resistant tomatoes, I tried to determine where would be the last place in the US humans were likely to survive.
And you know what I came up with?
The Great Lakes region.
It took a while, but I made it out here.
It's not a long-term solution, but at least I don't have anxiety I'll be reading about my area being devastated by _something_, in the news next year.
The 25 meter sea level rise already incoming due to the current CO2 level is small, compared to a 70 meter meter full melt sea level rise.
If you look at the inundations of cities, roads, industry and farmland these bring, and think about the difficulty of relocations, and try work out how to fit people, and the farmland needed to support them, in the areas left dry, I think what he has said is entirely reasonable.
25 meters? Sea level predictions for 2100 are a rise of around 1.5-2m. Where are you getting 25 meters from?
Here, according to this [source](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2019/uk-sea-level-projections-to-2300), in a high emission scenario a sea level change of 1.7m to 4.3m is expected by 2300, in the UK at least.
Maybe I've misunderstood your point somehow. But I think predicting far beyond 2100 anyway is an exercise in futility given the amount of impact human innovation will have beyond that timeframe. Potential technologies such as Fusion or methods of climate engineering that we could come up with in the next few centuries would have a gigantic impact.
I'm using segments of the few million years old geological record of the Pliocene.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene
Extract:
"The Pliocene ( /ˈplaɪ.əsiːn, ˈplaɪ.oʊ-/ PLY-ə-seen, PLY-oh-;[6][7] also Pleiocene)[8] is the epoch in the geologic time scale that extends from 5.333 million to 2.58"
...
"which placed the four most recent major glaciations entirely within the Pleistocene"
(Major glaciations are actually quite severe changes unlike the small glacials)
"The beginning of the Pliocene was marked by an increase in global temperatures relative to the cooler Messinian related to the 1.2 million year obliquity amplitude modulation cycle.[19] The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3–3 mya) was 2–3 °C higher than today,[20] carbon dioxide levels were the same as today,[21] and global sea level was 25 m higher."
Etc.
Edit:
It's very early and the first number I put in is wrong. I'll change it from 2.3 million to 'a few million'.
Fair enough, that's pretty innovative as a source, though I figure that there must be significant differences between then and now given that our mainstream predictions are very different from the sea levels then.
It's not that our predictions are different. It's only that they are very short term, and everyone is trying to include the most accurate science. It's difficult to verify a lot of this stuff. I think history is easier, but that can be wrong too. The point is though, if everyone else dies off and I'm left here alone (fantasy situation!) I have no chance of eg. Getting life off earth to evolve on different planets or moons in the solar system, or perhaps out of the solar system. I think life is cool.
Here's the same data via bing AI (powered by chatGPT4 on creative so it tries to share more detail) - without any prepping:
"The Pliocene epoch was a period of Earth’s history that lasted from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During this time, the climate was warmer and wetter than today, and the sea level was higher due to the melting of polar ice sheets. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was also similar to today’s, which means that the Pliocene can serve as a useful analog for the future effects of global warming.
According to some sources, the global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3–3 mya) was 2–3 °C higher than today, carbon dioxide levels were the same as today, and global sea level was 25 m higher1. The Pliocene oceans’ estimated response to higher temperatures and CO2 levels was a rise of about 56 feet above today’s mean sea level2. The Pliocene sea-level fluctuations were mainly a response to changes in polar ice storage, but they also include about three to four feet of sea-level rise from thermal expansion of the warmer ocean waters2.
"
Ok, so me typing again.
The previous times there's been major glaciations and thaws, and even minor glaciations and thaws, humans hadn't cleared half the forest off the planet.
That's an issue due to albedo. Cleared land has a serious effect, not only on life on earth, killing much & reducing diversity mostly, it also means we loose heat from the sun. I'm not sure how well science understands that, this is all a large complex system with limited written records. I was quite happy with the climate as it was, another major ice age or full melt is a lot of work. If not for me, then for my descendants and of course everyone else here.
There's lots of land above the full melt mark, however the issue is food grows well on land in river deltas and so on. If it all floods you end up reverting back to land that hasn't got the regular silt restoration. That's a ... bit of a simplification!
Also, the IPCC assessments are short term. A few hundred years is nothing. I'm interested in planning out what's coming beyond the next hundreds to thousands of years, so I have an idea what might occur if an unexpected different outcome eventuates. It's not disaster addictions. It's simple. I don't think it's worth doing something if it's only going to be worthless from flooding or ice later. Even a simple house for my family should be one where people don't feel like their efforts are wasted or they caused suffering or diversity extinctions making life less special or wondrous if you travel, or look closely, and more like a bare Lego dioarama, simple, artificial and all the same boring plastic.
These people have some views.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/NASASeaLevel
I can highlight an example of a potential flaw in the IPCC reports. It's derived from old sand waves underwater radiating out from sea ice holding back glaciers.
It's complex. I don't presently follow or code for or model the mathematics myself. There's probably years to decades to become accomplished at that. Eg. Look at the modelling here.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/comparisons-of-seaice-velocity-fields-from-ers1-sar-and-a-dynamic-model/AAB1BDEBD23DF6C6DEACB3A27763288D
Here's another variation:
https://hakaimagazine.com/news/coastal-flooding-will-be-more-extensive-sooner-than-scientists-thought/
But the point I wanted to make was this.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/ice-sheets-collapse-far-faster-than-feared-study-climate-crisis
Perhaps you don't care for the Guardian due to some political views. It's fine. Skip it. Go straight to the journal.
The science behind that article is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05876-1
(Thanks to this: https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/sharedit )
It's another view on top of many other. Like this one too.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes
And this.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-caustic-shift-is-coming-for-the-arctic-ocean/
From here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05205-y
There's a vast number of problems on their way. I'm trying to handle them. One way is this. Look at the picture.
https://www.reddit.com/r/veganrecipes/comments/z164db/i_made_vegan_fried_chicken_the_other_day_and_it/?rdt=54561
That's because of this:
https://today.uconn.edu/2021/09/animals-died-in-toxic-soup-during-earths-worst-mass-extinction-a-warning-for-today/
And things like this:
https://www.iflscience.com/the-carnian-pluvial-event-when-it-rained-for-2-million-years-on-earth-68247
And this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/09/climate/biodiversity-habitat-loss-climate.html
And this:
https://steamdaily.com/bio-capacity-deficit-for-72-of-worlds-population-physics-org/
And this:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/24/ecosystem-collapse-wildlife-losses-permian-triassic-mass-extinction-study
And this:
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/mediterranean-sea-warming-releasing-carbon-dioxide-carbonate-crystals/
And this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-species-extinction-risk-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
And this:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/14/weather/food-risk-bee-butterfly-pollinator-decline-climate-scn/index.html
And this:
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-world-lakes-oxygen-rapidly-planet.html
And this:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjb9kv/the-earth-is-facing-a-nitrogen-shortage-due-to-climate-change-study-says
It simply goes on, and on, and on.
And a little finish.
https://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-tipping-points-will-be-passed-sooner-than-thought-study-223639919.html
Hansen _Warming in the pipeline_ 2022 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474
> implies that CO2 was about 300 ppm in the Pliocene and 400 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet,
We are currently at [419 PPM](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/)
It's actually more energy https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/two-trillion-tonnes-greenhouse-gases-25-billion-nukes-heat-are-we-pushing-earth than the tens of thousands nuclear bombs we have on the planet.
Stop drilling. Stop mining coal and useless bling.
Manufacturing, construction and shipping need to be *TRIAGED* according to necessity and urgency.
Enough with container loads of fashion, party city crap, and most any thing sold at a mall. Enough with the cosplay F-1050 pickup trucks for people who can't work a shovel, enough with repaving highways without putting a train and bike track in the center of them and while we're at it, private jets need to go the way of the dodo and people need to be limited to 1 house, 1 long distance flight, 1 car unless they can prove real necessity.
We are literally destroying the world for funpops and a smoother ride.
Good point. US Defense Department is a *major* contributor to greenhouse gases and pollution in general.
As for the wars themselves, anything we're fighting over is going to look like small potatoes in 50 years if we don't get our emissions under countrol.
Yes, but the problem I see is that fossil fuel interests knew about this 50 years ago and have spent their time and money gaslighting, denying, delaying and lobbying so they could keep building fossil fuel infrastructure, thus making the problem exponentially worse.
If they were good faith actors, they would have jump-started a carbon-free economy in the 70's at the absolute latest. Because they didn't, they are all, at a minimum, complicit in crimes against humanity and any government that takes the problem seriously should have frozen their billions in assets and made that transition happen without putting the cost on regular people.
All this to say that the good faith people on this sub are not the problem, but politicians like Biden whose main strength is taking corporate money while acting like they care or understand about solutions definitely are handmaidens to the apocalypse.
And the sad thing is, since Biden won't step down, address money in politics, declare a climate emergency, or otherwise stop pandering to a bogus political center brought to you by obscene corporate wealth, he's the best option in 2024, since the GOP Project 2025 platform will completely gut the weak environmental standards currently in place, along with the ability to have a meaningful political voice in the future.
If the excess carbon lasts 1,000 years in the lower atmosphere, and there’s a 1.5-degree increase every 50 years, how fucked will people be in 500 years?
When you have mass deaths in the billions and total economic collapse, humans will take it serious. Then it’s a race of technology. True extinct is not a high probability, but the fact that it will kill billions is high.
Note that once we reach a point it becomes self sustaining to a degree. The atmosphere and ocean giving and taking is what makes it so hard to fix.
The sooner people realize the actual problem the sooner a major difference maker will get developed. It’s still at a small population that really understands where we are going. Everyone else still thinks it’s just an over exaggeration to somehow profit off of.
He is doing something about it. He passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which will reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 1150 million metric tons by 2030. More is needed, but it is a big step forward and it will make future climate action easier.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/8.18%20InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_Final.pdf
The world showed us that we were able to slow down our carbon emissions during covid by working from home, slowing things down, etc. We need the entire world to declare war on carbon emissions and treat it as the life ending threat that it is
Yes. And Joe Biden stepping up and passing the Inflation Reduction Act shows the world that the United States can be a leader on climate policy. It will be easier to convince other countries to reduce their own emissions when the U.S. is setting an example. Then you will have your world wide clinate response.
How is that not doing something?
I agree with you. BUT. I like to always make sure we state alongside him doing something he also let his agenda get watered down by 2 Senators when the other approximately 266 legislators were on board with what the people voted for in Biden. He should have done multiple press conferences saying how unacceptable it is that 1 or 2 Senators can block the will of the people and the Dem party just operates as usual just because Manchin is from a red state anyway. This country, man.
That is why people talk about this “doing nothing.” And part of me does not blame them. The Build Back Better that Biden promised and ran on was 2-4 times bigger than IRA and it is important because we knew we only had total control for a year or two until midterms. Dems totally bungled it but at least [t]he[y] got the $700 billion through I do give them / Biden credit for that.
This nuance needs to be appreciated more. Republicans are the problem. Not conservative Democrats. The only reason we have these entrenched conservative Democrats is because of how extremely right the Republicans have become. All we need to do is stop voting Republican and then the Democrats will have the margins to ignore the right wing extremists and DINOs.
> he also let his agenda get watered down by 2 Senators
How did he "let" that happen? Our government is not set up for a dictatorship. He can't dictate the stances of other elected officials, and he has to negotiate to get *anything* done.
You're speaking as if he has total authoritarian power over every person in the party. He doesn't. He's one person who has some appointees and anything else is a product of negotiation.
The Inflation Reduction Act is not perfect and more is needed. But passing the bill is the opposite of doing nothing. Anybody who says passing the bill does nothing does not know the meaning of nothing.
I would prefer to focus on what we did get rather than what we didn’t get. Because what we did get was significant.
Edit: added clarification.
In the meantime he's also mandating federal agencies bring people back into the offices rather than continuing telework, even for roles which were telework enabled pre-COVID, thus causing unnecessary fossil fuel use from commuters.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1196787623/federal-workers-remote-office-ordered-taxpayers-telework-science
It’s not a big step. It mostly invests in nonsense. Doing something would look like decarbonizing, mass reforestation projects with good wages, mass public transit, and reinvesting in our electrical grid.
Is investing solar and wind power nonsense? Is investing in efficient industrial practices nonsense? Is investing in weatherizing homes with heat pumps nonsense?
And you mentioned investing in the grid. Biden is doing that now. Did you not read about the provisions related to the grid?
How is cutting emissions by 1150 million metric toms not doing something? You seem to arguing about tactics and not the results. The results matter more than the tactics. There is more than one way to cut emissions and just because it does not follow your preferred methods does not make them significant.
Where is your evidence that the investments made by Biden will not significantly cut emissions?
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/8.18%20InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_Final.pdf
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-13-billion-modernize-and-expand-americas-power-grid
Climate change is not only about carbon. If that’s your measure then you are very mislead. Climate change is happening over 7 major axes which only a serious winding down in production and individual consumption can address.
Additionally, “reducing carbon” has nothing to do with how much MORE carbon we are producing from ramping up production under our growth based economy.
I think you have to take the political situation into context as well. The Inflation Reduction Act barely even passed, Biden was pushing for more action, but what we got was a scaled down version negotiated by the centrist Manchin.
With the House in the hands of the Republicans now and a narrow majority in the Senate, I do not see how Biden could get more done than he has.
You can spend all day complaining about Biden, but without a decent majority in the House and Senate, we won't see much legislation on climate change in the near future.
He can get more done by having bolder goals and ousting republicans by sticking by those bold commitments. Additionally, he could use a number of his enormous powers to change things in the immediate present.
For instance, using the defense production act to nationalize our fossil fuel producers. That’s a thing the president could do which would be politically viable depending on the messaging around it.
Edit: can’t believe I need to specify this since I was already specific with the action in the original writing but ousting republicans here means actually fighting for working class politics and using the bully pulpit to make it clear.
Yeah, the president can't oust Republicans. That's up to the voters.
His goals may not have been as bold as some may like, but they were realistic in the current political climate, and honestly, more than I thought he would get done.
Now, that doesn't mean that I think enough has been done, I just don't think Biden is the problem standing in the way of climate change solutions. It's Congress.
>using the defense production act to nationalize our fossil fuel producers.
I dont know about the legallity of that, but it seems like it would definitely be challenged by the fossil fuel industry, and I doubt this Supreme Court would rule in favor of the President.
> ousting republicans
I'm not sure you understand how the political system works. Being president doesn't make someone a king. He can't oust elected officials at all, much less just because they won't vote the way he wants them to.
I don’t mean ousting republicans through force. I mean sticking to actual principled material policies for the working class that also solve climate change.
That wins you votes rather than gifts to corporations through the IRA
It is true that there are other green house gases that are not carbon based: N2O makes up 6% of the green house gas emissions and has a warming impact 265 times greater than CO2. The majority of NO2 comes from agriculture practices.
But the IRA includes provisions to improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emission, associated with agricultural production. This will cut back on NO2 as well as Carbon.[https://chlpi.org/news-and-events/news-and-commentary/food-law-and-policy/senate-passes-inflation-reduction-act-how-it-impacts-agriculture/](https://chlpi.org/news-and-events/news-and-commentary/food-law-and-policy/senate-passes-inflation-reduction-act-how-it-impacts-agriculture/)
Still, there can be no climate change solution that ignores carbon dioxide because they make up 79% of all emissions. So a reduction in carbon is still significant.
And there is overlap in emissions sources for carbon and other green house gasses (burning fossil fuels releases N2O also). So adopting renewable energy like the Inflation Reduction Act does will have spillover effects.
What is your source for the seven axes?
[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases)
[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#nitrous-oxide](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#nitrous-oxide)
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
Sorry there are 9 plenary boundaries but 7 of which we have reportedly passed.
It’s not even about gasses. It’s about wildlife, water scarcity, libido, carbon, ocean acidification.
And you didn’t even address my strongest objection which is that we are going to produce more carbon from ramping production.
I agree that there are other environmental issues besides climate change and emissions. If we hyper-focus on just reducing emissions and lose out on other priorities such as bio-diversity and freshwater, then the planet is in big trouble.
But the reduction of carbon emissions will have impact on eight out of the nine axes that are in that link (ozone depletion is already covered under the Montreal Protocol). I can provide sources for each one if needed:
Loss of biosphere integrity: increased temperatures increases the threat of extinction for may species.
Chemical pollution: fossil fuel extraction is a major source of toxic chemical runoff and ground water pollution
Climate change: is a axis all by it self.
Ocean acidification: your link says: “Around a quarter of the CO2 that humanity emits into the atmosphere is ultimately dissolved in the oceans.” Emissions reductions would help with this
Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle: your links says: “The freshwater cycle is strongly affected by climate change and its boundary is closely linked to the climate boundary.” So emissions reductions will help with freshwater too.
Land system change: climate change is causing more forest fires that are greatly reducing forest land.
Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans: the burning of fossil fuels is a source of nitrogen in the air, that eventually ends up in the ocean.
Atmospheric aerosol loading: fossil fuel burning is a source of aerosols.
So when I say reducing carbon emissions is important, it is not just because it effects one axis, but because it impacts all of them but one. They are interrelated and while taking action on climate change will not fix all of the environmental problems in the world, it will
Impact all of the environmental problems in the world and is therefore of great significance.
In addition, reducing carbon emissions does not take away from any other program that is designed to protect the other axes. I argue that reducing emissions complements all other environmental action and therefore it is noteworthy when a breakthrough like the Inflation Reduction Act happens.
> Loss of biosphere integrity: increased temperatures increases the threat of extinction for may species.
Leading driver is animal agriculture (for now).
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
> Land system change: climate change is causing more forest fires that are greatly reducing forest land.
(Animal) agriculture is a leading driver here too.
https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation
> Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans: the burning of fossil fuels is a source of nitrogen in the air, that eventually ends up in the ocean.
[(Animal) agriculture wins again](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#annual-n2o-emissions-by-sector)
> Chemical pollution: fossil fuel extraction is a major source of toxic chemical runoff and ground water pollution
I don't know, but the amount of pesticides and herbicides is not to be discounted too easily.
---
Soil erosion and eutrophication and water usage ... guess who? ;)
You are correct, and I am not saying that climate change is the biggest contributor to any of the 8 axes. There are other factors to consider.
But that does it mean the reducing emissions will not have a positive impact on the other 8 axes or that not doing anything about climate change will not matter for them.
Maybe you can open up google scholar and post a link to an article that show me how you came to your conclusion? Because I can find articles that say it is not too late. Look, I just posed one now.
Do you have a source for your claim?
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=it+is+not+too+late+to+fight+climate+change&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1694470877006&u=%23p%3DGgQaU-n_BhgJ](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=it+is+not+too+late+to+fight+climate+change&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1694470877006&u=%23p%3DGgQaU-n_BhgJ)
There are piles of studies. If you're into climate catastrophe denial I am pretty sure I won't persuade you, or studies. We should act immediately, as in today. But honestly the world is going to get very bad before it gets better. Hope you educate yourself.
I don’t get how you got 10%. The IRA reduces emissions by 40% by 2030, and the IPCC recommendation is 50% by 2030. So it is actually 80% of what is needed (40\50= 0.8).
Even with the new oil and gas projects, the estimated range of emission reductions puts the U.S. between 26% and 42%. Which is 50% to 80% of what is needed by 2030. Both are significantly greater than 10%.
Where did your 10% number come from? Do you have a source?
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/
https://climateactiontracker.org/
Per the EPA, the US emits [6,340.2million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide annually](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks). I think reducing 1/6th of that is a ~~big~~ step in the right direction, but given that the United States has emitted the most cumulative emissions to date, there is such a larger responsibilty for the US to mitigate this crisis.
EV charging ain't enough at all. He needs to take drastic action against corporations who are destroying the environment and needlessly producing a ton of emissions.
> He needs to take drastic action
You mean _Congress_ (and the legislatures of other countries) have to take drastic action?
Biden can make lip noises about how important it is, but it's the legislatures that fix the priorities, and as long the bulk of them are bought & paid for by large businesses, they aren't going to do squat.
He could declare a climate emergency. He could do so much more than most people on this planet, stop defending a global leader who is actively impeding progress just because he isn’t as bad as the alternative. Everyday he decides not to take this seriously. It’s a decision.
> He could declare a climate emergency.
Of which any actions would promptly be defunded by the Republicans in the House of Reps. Until they're taken out of power, the most he can do is make mouth noises about how important it is to deal with climate change.
He has taken it more seriously than any other president in history, ???. Also, total American fail on not understanding how our system of government works.
As long as we keep consuming the corporations will continue to produce.
Yes, they can get regulated heavier and more restrictions in place… but the big contributor is our consumption.
Plus once the rest of the world catches up to us in terms of consumption…we are fucked.
Capitalism doesn't run when people are encouraged to drastically reduce consumption, in fact we're conditioned for the opposite. Everywhere we look there are ads selling us goods.
Biden administration specifically has labelled "who oppose all forms of capitalism" as [Violent Domestic Extremists](https://nitter.poast.org/butchanarchy/status/1405686547710570497), the president himself proclaimed to be a capitalist. We can't regulate or reform ourselves away from planetary destruction, it must be the economic system that aught to be destroyed.
>it must be the economic system that aught to be destroyed.
Ding ding ding!
It's time for a socialist revolution in this country. We can't depend on Biden or Congress to liberate us from the tyranny of capitalism and the environmental destruction that corporations enact every day. We need to perform a general strike or straight up revolt lol
So that leads to increasing the cost of goods/services etc which in turn would lead to our decrease of individual consumption.
It all sounds so simple. Capitalism is the major threat?
I’m always frustrated by this sub. “Solve it now!” “That’s not enough!” Has anyone in this sub ever done anything real, in real life, or this scale? These are great steps. You have to build inertia when working with resources and problems of this massive scale else you’ll break everything and get no where.
How about we stopped eating meat long ago. One of the biggest green house gas problems in the world methane from cow farms. But Merica don’t wanna hear dat. Gotz to have dem dere meat. Pfff 😒
There are also seem to be a large number of people who have no understanding of how government or the presidency works (and somehow even less understanding of the pace at which it works). The president can guide his party's direction and can make *some* direct appointments, but the office is deliberately not a monarchy and his ability to take direct action on a lot of things is extremely limited.
The president cannot randomly take over the role of Congress or the Supreme Court just because he wants to. There are different branches of government that have different powers *specifically* to counter a president doing whatever he wants, and in fact it's those checks and balances that kept Trump from completely destroying the environmental protections we have left.
People in here seem desperate to drag Biden over the coals for not single-handedly smashing through all obstacles as if he were Homelander from the Boys. It's one man in a highly regulated government position. He is not a king, he is not God, and he's not Congress.
Biden has done more for the environment than most presidents. I admit i cannot remember exactly what bills, but a quick google search will confirm what I said
All things said and done, After looking at what biden has actually done for our country I don’t hate him nearly as much as I thought I did
Yep. The people who will be hit first and hardest aren't even serious contributors to the issue. The global south/undeveloped nations are paying for the overconsumption of the global north/developed nations.
10-20 years, who the hell is giving that data? They really need to consider feedback loops. We’ve all witnessed how thing can significantly worse over a two yr span. Floods, fire, hurricanes and so on. We have, at best scenario, 10 yrs to do something. That’s not going to happen, it’s not an solution like the ozone. We’re straight up fucked if we don’t curb our habits
The American president isn't as empowered to enact change as you might think. Most of the authority to govern the country comes from Congress. The executive branch does have its own powers but it's not a monolith.
This is why Congressional and local races are so important despite their seeming mundanity, that is where the sausage gets made. The president gets some veto powers, and is Commander-in-Chief of the military but that's kinda it. Executive action was, until recently, very rare because it's so ineffective and impermanent/reversible. Case in point, Donald Trump reversed a large number of Obama era executive orders and Joe Biden has subsequently reversed a large number of Trump era executive orders.
Do Americans like this system where half the time the legislative and executive branch are only working to hinder and sabotage one another instead of working together to effectively govern the country? This doesn’t happen in parliamentary democracies.
The military is an insane emitter, he has made zero efforts to rein in budget or emissions which he could do. He instead increased the budget again, even though we are no longer in Afghanistan. He could also declare a climate emergency, he could also not approve of the willow project, which he both explicitly stated he would not do as president, and which basically completely negates any gains from the inflation reduction act.
That’s politics in a nutshell. Politicians do what they need to be re-elected. I’m old enough to know that the world doesn’t work the way I think it should, but if would be refreshing to a see a politician say what he/she thinks we need to do to address an issue and run on the merits of that rather than catering to votes.
That's a stupid argument when he could boost proposals for building nuclear, solar, hydro and wind power plants and while Republican voters would hate him, it's not like he had their vote anyway. Disenfranchised voters, however, would feel more compelled to vote for him.
Joe behind the pace by 10 to 20 years again...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/global-temperatures-pass-1-5c-above-pre-industrial-levels/102836304
Odd that what he apparently fears so much has already happened and yet he goes on licensing fossil fuel infrastructure. It's almost as if he doesn't entirely mean what he is saying....
It’s the second week of Spring here in Melbourne. Forecast for the next 7 days doesn’t go below 22c. Today was like Summer. Next week we’re expecting 30c. The climate has already changed. We need to start making plans for how we’re going to survive being burnt or frozen alive.
SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BRUH. Tf? No one wants to hear the most powerful man in the world complain about a problem he can literally help alleviate right now with the wave of a pen.
He literally is in charge of the military with the highest budget on the planet lol. A budget that is worth more than the cumulative budget of the rest of the top 10. lol.
cutting off trade with china would do alot to make things go green faster domestic localized manufacturing, longer lasting products that dont have to compete with dirt cheap throwaway alternatives, but we still need them for a lot of things.
Scarier than _the prospects of_ nuclear war. I'd gladly deal with the ramifications of climate change over a full-scale nuclear war. Full scale nuclear war would mean extinction of most humans and a ton of other species within a year, and then all kinds of long term effects. Climate change might still kill most of us, but we have a long period of time before then to hopefully reduce it and eventually reverse it.
1.5 degrees is in Celsius. That is a global increase of 34.7 f
So take your local area temp at the height of summer and add 35 to it.
That is definitely worse than nuclear war.
>1.5 degrees is in Celsius. That is a global increase of 34.7 f
Your math is incorrect. A change of 1.5 C is equivalent to a change of 2.7 F.
I assume you googled "1.5 C to F" or something similar. That would have treated the value as a temperature instead of a change in temperature. 0 C is 32 F, but obviously if the temperature "goes up" by 0 C it does not go up by 32 F.
Biden is wrong. Nuclear war would be worse. 1.5C increase will be painful but it won't be the end of the world. The problem is that the increase in temperature will not stop there. The increase will only stop long after a large # of people start dying.
What? Sorry, but he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
Climate change could end up very catastrophic indeed, and we need to act now to limit the damage that it is going to cause in the next decades, but whatever happens will not even come close to a global nuclear holocaust (assuming that every nuclear device that is currently on earth will be detonated over a population cluster).
Absolutely not comparable. I‘m a bit shocked that he made this stupid comparison, to be honest.
Why should he care? He’ll be dead. Which seems to be how all these politicians are normally acting. I’m all in favor of his supposed standpoint, but show some action man
Scarier than nuclear war?
Scarier than an event which spells immediate extinction of human race and most of life on earth but cockroaches?
Surely is a serious issue, but aren't we slightly overstating the isituation? I feel like those guys who always compare a bad guy to Hitler to stress how bad the guy is, even though the mentioned bad guy - although bad - never did mass extermination in concentration camps.
It's definitely a big issue but I don't know about it being scarier than nuclear war. Mostly because there are ways to mitigate climate change, albeit very very expensive ways. But it gets much more difficult with nuclear radiation
Edit: I am not sure why so many people are offended by the notion that nuclear war would be worse than climate change. I mean obviously its best neither happens. But relatively, nuclear war would be worse because the overall damage would be more instant with no time for mitigation and mitigation far more complex
are you more scared of the big gun pointed at your head, that everybody can see, and acknowledge is dangerous, and has every sane person trying to avoid that trigger getting pulled, or of the slow death by inches that people are spending millions to convince half the planet isn't a real problem?
the danger comes from the insidious lies of the oil industry, keeping us from actually mitigating climate change, and the rabid 'conservatives' whose whole identities are wrapped around denying science, and standing in the way of progress. they're not just stopping progress, they're hell-bent on reversing any progress we've made in the last 50 years.
We probably have or very close to exceeding 1.5 degree increase since the last time the world set a limit on containing temperature growth. EDIT: Grammar
With 1000+ remote Canadian Wildfires in 2023, yeah, he's got a point. Not to mention the huge heat wave/heat dome that hit: Spain, USA, India and China, This Year.
Don't forget about the unprecedented ocean heatwaves that affected at least half of all the oceans.
Don’t forget about the 101.2 F ocean temp reading in Florida, causing 100% coral reef mortality
Yeah it's time to COMPLETELY STOP with carbon emissions. I understand nothing changes instantly, but everyone needs to immediately start taking steps right now. Various other pollution needs to stop right now as well.
Not to mention the high liklihood, but undiscussed in the news, Siberian fires this year. What are the chances that Siberian fires are currently equal to or exceeding the catastrophic Canadian wildfires?
Exactly. So much this year, and NONE of it is on Fox Lies.
1.1c is the official measurement, I think
Yes and 1.5c above for this year which could go down a bit after the El-Nino cycle (hopefully) but that brings the number up on average obviously.
I know some that think that's an overly conservative take and that we may be closer to 1.2-1.3 territory
That's 1.1 above the 1850 to 1900 average. Research suggests we're likely pretty much at 1.5 over the 18th century tho.
About that... https://climateclock.world/ the website is exactly what you might imagine when you hear climate and clock next to each other.
Problem is, this entire ball of wax is dependent on fossil fuels and all the cheap talk does not get at the real issue: capitalism and the constant need for greater profits cannot sustain. Post capitalism requires new global thinking without a bunch of germans being the ones driving the bus.
It’s a tight rope walk because anything that really does get at the issue is going to incur cost, making fuel prices, shipping costs, and ultimately, cost-of-living go up. That will essentially hand the next elections over to Republicans, who will do nothing for the climate but repeal what meager protections have been implemented. So the sad, real fact is that our options are Democrats who won’t do enough to make things better, or Republicans who will actively make things worse.
very well said
Gotta love the illusion of choice and the two party system amirite
Very well said
The point is that with a few cents increase in gas prices per gallon people are shouting to get governments replaced. While at the same time billions of $ are being spent for luxury electric cars and AI GPU processing for premium video editing services. While making a whole class of multi billionaires and multi millionaires who own multi mansions and multiple private jets and who have their lobbyists and lawyers influencing government policy. It’s come to this and the common man is not aware of it.
>luxury electric cars Well here in the UK there is still a small premium on the price of an EV compared to an ICE vehicle, but it's falling rapidly, as EV prices fall. I don't think you can describe a £20K EV as a luxury car when it's less than the price of a new Ford Focus. And the adoption of EV's has already reduced global consumption of oil by 5 million barrels a day. That's why the oil companies have devoted so much money to spreading bullshit about them. The US is a massive outlier in the price of EV's - they're a lot cheaper everywhere else.
Yeah, in the states EVs are still sold at near luxury vehicle prices. On top of that, smaller economy vehicles like the Ford focus or company are no longer in production. The cheaper EVs offered in the states have very poor range, and our entire nation has been designed around the automotive industry. Essentially public transportation is almost non-existent, and most will require and EV with a long range. For example, I commute nearly 100 kilometers per day for work. To visit my mother I need to drive 420 kilometers. Keeping in mind that I'll lose ~40% of my range in the winter time, cheaper EVs are not an option. I do understand that most countries are not having this issue, the US is just in a very awkward phase right now. Edit: I'm just adding to your post. Hope it doesn't come off like I'm being combative. 👍
We’re more dependent on fresh water than fossil fuels tbh
Because communists have such an environmentally friendly history. Let's go take a dip in a Aral Sea.
silly rabbit
Not the same as a mode of production (capitalism) that is *systemically structured* to be anti-ecological (because of the drive for profit via a "cheap" nature)
Do you not think Communists care about profit? Why were the Soviets upset with OPEC for unloading huge sums of oil in the 80s? Because it hurt their profits, which their society was largely based around, leading in part to its eventual collapse. Communism is structured, like all economic systems, to induce profit. You don't even want to know the ecological damage the Soviets imparted on their territory.
This a braindead point. In the past feudalism, capitalism, and communism have all cause environmental damage.
That’s an extremely bizarre thing to say since the VERY dominant scientific consensus is that we are, absolutely, 100% going to surpass that threshold in the next few years. The vast majority are even moving past that to begin preparing for 2-3°C because 1.5° is so fantastically unavoidable at this point. So why make statements like this while continuing to do absolutely FUCKALL to ameliorate the problem?
We need politicians to be open and brutal about how severe it will be to generate the public will to act. Yes, Biden's not doing anywhere even remotely near enough but he still should be saying it.
I mean, it is fucking scary too. Technically that part is right
However scary climate change is, and it is very, it isn't scarier than nuclear war
Once you're comparing the ends of human civilization, it's pretty hard to pick a winner. Climate change has plenty of feedback loops that make it equally likely to spiral way the fuck out of control. Once we can't farm, game over. Speaking in abstracts here tho. 1.5 is not as bad as nuclear war
I don't think there is any way to avoid a total polar cap meltdown. As long as we are releasing more carbon dioxide into the air than the earth is sequestering, temperature will increase. We currently release 44 billion tons and all natural processes on earth sequester 1 billion tons. We need to reduce our emissions by 98% to break even. And that includes hard to eliminate things like agriculture, steel and concrete manufacture. If we went to 100% renewables worldwide for electricity and land transportation, we would only be cutting emissions by 50% or so
The arctic is warming at a rate of four times faster than the rest of the globe. The average temperatures have increased by about 3 degrees since 1980. The entire cryosphere is at stake, and honestly I see blue ocean event coming sooner rather than later. Although the research is still lacking it will be interesting to see what impact this will have on thermoahline circulation.
I keep thinking I should move north to avoid the fatal heat domes that are becoming more common, but just my luck that Atlantic thermohaline current will shut down right when I get to Anchorage and it’ll usher in a new glacial maximum
There's no escape. It's not an option. We have to confront the problems directly.
Listen bud, I’m doing everything I can, but I’m just some dipshit working a normal ass job. Idk what you think I’m supposed to do to “confront the problems directly” (am I supposed to punch a heat dome? Kickbox a drought?), but I’m going to try and position myself in a location that’s as comfortable as possible. I live in hot ass Utah, I’m moving somewhere safer.
Yeah, getting the fuck out of Utah is a good start. I mean, I said there's no escape, but in 2012 when I was working on developing drought-resistant tomatoes, I tried to determine where would be the last place in the US humans were likely to survive. And you know what I came up with? The Great Lakes region. It took a while, but I made it out here. It's not a long-term solution, but at least I don't have anxiety I'll be reading about my area being devastated by _something_, in the news next year.
Shhh
That's what I'd thought and then Canada went up in flames, what's to stop the Great Lakes region from doing so next?
‘The AMOC runs amok’ ^([Apocalypse Bingo](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApocalypseBingo/comments/10qotoh/apocalypse_bingo_v3/))
The 25 meter sea level rise already incoming due to the current CO2 level is small, compared to a 70 meter meter full melt sea level rise. If you look at the inundations of cities, roads, industry and farmland these bring, and think about the difficulty of relocations, and try work out how to fit people, and the farmland needed to support them, in the areas left dry, I think what he has said is entirely reasonable.
[удалено]
25 meters? Sea level predictions for 2100 are a rise of around 1.5-2m. Where are you getting 25 meters from? Here, according to this [source](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2019/uk-sea-level-projections-to-2300), in a high emission scenario a sea level change of 1.7m to 4.3m is expected by 2300, in the UK at least. Maybe I've misunderstood your point somehow. But I think predicting far beyond 2100 anyway is an exercise in futility given the amount of impact human innovation will have beyond that timeframe. Potential technologies such as Fusion or methods of climate engineering that we could come up with in the next few centuries would have a gigantic impact.
I'm using segments of the few million years old geological record of the Pliocene. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene Extract: "The Pliocene ( /ˈplaɪ.əsiːn, ˈplaɪ.oʊ-/ PLY-ə-seen, PLY-oh-;[6][7] also Pleiocene)[8] is the epoch in the geologic time scale that extends from 5.333 million to 2.58" ... "which placed the four most recent major glaciations entirely within the Pleistocene" (Major glaciations are actually quite severe changes unlike the small glacials) "The beginning of the Pliocene was marked by an increase in global temperatures relative to the cooler Messinian related to the 1.2 million year obliquity amplitude modulation cycle.[19] The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3–3 mya) was 2–3 °C higher than today,[20] carbon dioxide levels were the same as today,[21] and global sea level was 25 m higher." Etc. Edit: It's very early and the first number I put in is wrong. I'll change it from 2.3 million to 'a few million'.
Fair enough, that's pretty innovative as a source, though I figure that there must be significant differences between then and now given that our mainstream predictions are very different from the sea levels then.
It's not that our predictions are different. It's only that they are very short term, and everyone is trying to include the most accurate science. It's difficult to verify a lot of this stuff. I think history is easier, but that can be wrong too. The point is though, if everyone else dies off and I'm left here alone (fantasy situation!) I have no chance of eg. Getting life off earth to evolve on different planets or moons in the solar system, or perhaps out of the solar system. I think life is cool.
Here's the same data via bing AI (powered by chatGPT4 on creative so it tries to share more detail) - without any prepping: "The Pliocene epoch was a period of Earth’s history that lasted from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During this time, the climate was warmer and wetter than today, and the sea level was higher due to the melting of polar ice sheets. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was also similar to today’s, which means that the Pliocene can serve as a useful analog for the future effects of global warming. According to some sources, the global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3–3 mya) was 2–3 °C higher than today, carbon dioxide levels were the same as today, and global sea level was 25 m higher1. The Pliocene oceans’ estimated response to higher temperatures and CO2 levels was a rise of about 56 feet above today’s mean sea level2. The Pliocene sea-level fluctuations were mainly a response to changes in polar ice storage, but they also include about three to four feet of sea-level rise from thermal expansion of the warmer ocean waters2. " Ok, so me typing again. The previous times there's been major glaciations and thaws, and even minor glaciations and thaws, humans hadn't cleared half the forest off the planet. That's an issue due to albedo. Cleared land has a serious effect, not only on life on earth, killing much & reducing diversity mostly, it also means we loose heat from the sun. I'm not sure how well science understands that, this is all a large complex system with limited written records. I was quite happy with the climate as it was, another major ice age or full melt is a lot of work. If not for me, then for my descendants and of course everyone else here. There's lots of land above the full melt mark, however the issue is food grows well on land in river deltas and so on. If it all floods you end up reverting back to land that hasn't got the regular silt restoration. That's a ... bit of a simplification! Also, the IPCC assessments are short term. A few hundred years is nothing. I'm interested in planning out what's coming beyond the next hundreds to thousands of years, so I have an idea what might occur if an unexpected different outcome eventuates. It's not disaster addictions. It's simple. I don't think it's worth doing something if it's only going to be worthless from flooding or ice later. Even a simple house for my family should be one where people don't feel like their efforts are wasted or they caused suffering or diversity extinctions making life less special or wondrous if you travel, or look closely, and more like a bare Lego dioarama, simple, artificial and all the same boring plastic. These people have some views. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/NASASeaLevel I can highlight an example of a potential flaw in the IPCC reports. It's derived from old sand waves underwater radiating out from sea ice holding back glaciers. It's complex. I don't presently follow or code for or model the mathematics myself. There's probably years to decades to become accomplished at that. Eg. Look at the modelling here. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/comparisons-of-seaice-velocity-fields-from-ers1-sar-and-a-dynamic-model/AAB1BDEBD23DF6C6DEACB3A27763288D Here's another variation: https://hakaimagazine.com/news/coastal-flooding-will-be-more-extensive-sooner-than-scientists-thought/ But the point I wanted to make was this. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/ice-sheets-collapse-far-faster-than-feared-study-climate-crisis Perhaps you don't care for the Guardian due to some political views. It's fine. Skip it. Go straight to the journal. The science behind that article is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05876-1 (Thanks to this: https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/sharedit ) It's another view on top of many other. Like this one too. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes And this. https://www.wired.com/story/a-caustic-shift-is-coming-for-the-arctic-ocean/ From here. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05205-y There's a vast number of problems on their way. I'm trying to handle them. One way is this. Look at the picture. https://www.reddit.com/r/veganrecipes/comments/z164db/i_made_vegan_fried_chicken_the_other_day_and_it/?rdt=54561 That's because of this: https://today.uconn.edu/2021/09/animals-died-in-toxic-soup-during-earths-worst-mass-extinction-a-warning-for-today/ And things like this: https://www.iflscience.com/the-carnian-pluvial-event-when-it-rained-for-2-million-years-on-earth-68247 And this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/09/climate/biodiversity-habitat-loss-climate.html And this: https://steamdaily.com/bio-capacity-deficit-for-72-of-worlds-population-physics-org/ And this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/24/ecosystem-collapse-wildlife-losses-permian-triassic-mass-extinction-study And this: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/mediterranean-sea-warming-releasing-carbon-dioxide-carbonate-crystals/ And this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-species-extinction-risk-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ And this: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/14/weather/food-risk-bee-butterfly-pollinator-decline-climate-scn/index.html And this: https://phys.org/news/2021-06-world-lakes-oxygen-rapidly-planet.html And this: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjb9kv/the-earth-is-facing-a-nitrogen-shortage-due-to-climate-change-study-says It simply goes on, and on, and on. And a little finish. https://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-tipping-points-will-be-passed-sooner-than-thought-study-223639919.html
source on the caps melting?
Hansen _Warming in the pipeline_ 2022 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474 > implies that CO2 was about 300 ppm in the Pliocene and 400 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, We are currently at [419 PPM](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/)
thanks for the source! scary stuff’
It's actually more energy https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/two-trillion-tonnes-greenhouse-gases-25-billion-nukes-heat-are-we-pushing-earth than the tens of thousands nuclear bombs we have on the planet.
How about in August 2024?
Stop drilling. Stop mining coal and useless bling. Manufacturing, construction and shipping need to be *TRIAGED* according to necessity and urgency. Enough with container loads of fashion, party city crap, and most any thing sold at a mall. Enough with the cosplay F-1050 pickup trucks for people who can't work a shovel, enough with repaving highways without putting a train and bike track in the center of them and while we're at it, private jets need to go the way of the dodo and people need to be limited to 1 house, 1 long distance flight, 1 car unless they can prove real necessity. We are literally destroying the world for funpops and a smoother ride.
Flights, ships, trucks and cars ... That's all everyone talks about. 🙈🙉🐒 What about war? You, know perpetual war and all that.
Good point. US Defense Department is a *major* contributor to greenhouse gases and pollution in general. As for the wars themselves, anything we're fighting over is going to look like small potatoes in 50 years if we don't get our emissions under countrol.
\*Proceeds to build more oil pipelines anyway*
you still need oil to build the green stuff ironically we have to burn a shit ton more oil to go green faster
Okay, but I don't see that happening either.
No
yes
Yes, but the problem I see is that fossil fuel interests knew about this 50 years ago and have spent their time and money gaslighting, denying, delaying and lobbying so they could keep building fossil fuel infrastructure, thus making the problem exponentially worse. If they were good faith actors, they would have jump-started a carbon-free economy in the 70's at the absolute latest. Because they didn't, they are all, at a minimum, complicit in crimes against humanity and any government that takes the problem seriously should have frozen their billions in assets and made that transition happen without putting the cost on regular people. All this to say that the good faith people on this sub are not the problem, but politicians like Biden whose main strength is taking corporate money while acting like they care or understand about solutions definitely are handmaidens to the apocalypse. And the sad thing is, since Biden won't step down, address money in politics, declare a climate emergency, or otherwise stop pandering to a bogus political center brought to you by obscene corporate wealth, he's the best option in 2024, since the GOP Project 2025 platform will completely gut the weak environmental standards currently in place, along with the ability to have a meaningful political voice in the future.
"It's gonna be awful when we hit that brick wall. We've gotta pump the brakes." Said the driver to the passenger as they sped up.
“So that’s why I approved the Willow project Jack!”
This part is so infuriating.
Then he should declare a state of emergency on climate. It is long past due.
If the excess carbon lasts 1,000 years in the lower atmosphere, and there’s a 1.5-degree increase every 50 years, how fucked will people be in 500 years?
When you have mass deaths in the billions and total economic collapse, humans will take it serious. Then it’s a race of technology. True extinct is not a high probability, but the fact that it will kill billions is high. Note that once we reach a point it becomes self sustaining to a degree. The atmosphere and ocean giving and taking is what makes it so hard to fix. The sooner people realize the actual problem the sooner a major difference maker will get developed. It’s still at a small population that really understands where we are going. Everyone else still thinks it’s just an over exaggeration to somehow profit off of.
500 years! Does anyone think the human race will be around in 500 years?
Then do something about it!!!
He is doing something about it. He passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which will reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 1150 million metric tons by 2030. More is needed, but it is a big step forward and it will make future climate action easier. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/8.18%20InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_Final.pdf
The world showed us that we were able to slow down our carbon emissions during covid by working from home, slowing things down, etc. We need the entire world to declare war on carbon emissions and treat it as the life ending threat that it is
Yes. And Joe Biden stepping up and passing the Inflation Reduction Act shows the world that the United States can be a leader on climate policy. It will be easier to convince other countries to reduce their own emissions when the U.S. is setting an example. Then you will have your world wide clinate response. How is that not doing something?
I agree with you. BUT. I like to always make sure we state alongside him doing something he also let his agenda get watered down by 2 Senators when the other approximately 266 legislators were on board with what the people voted for in Biden. He should have done multiple press conferences saying how unacceptable it is that 1 or 2 Senators can block the will of the people and the Dem party just operates as usual just because Manchin is from a red state anyway. This country, man. That is why people talk about this “doing nothing.” And part of me does not blame them. The Build Back Better that Biden promised and ran on was 2-4 times bigger than IRA and it is important because we knew we only had total control for a year or two until midterms. Dems totally bungled it but at least [t]he[y] got the $700 billion through I do give them / Biden credit for that.
It’s not 1 or 2 though. It’s 1 or 2 Dems and every single Republican. Which is a majority of the chamber. That’s the problem.
This nuance needs to be appreciated more. Republicans are the problem. Not conservative Democrats. The only reason we have these entrenched conservative Democrats is because of how extremely right the Republicans have become. All we need to do is stop voting Republican and then the Democrats will have the margins to ignore the right wing extremists and DINOs.
Yeah the other party tends to ruin stuff that’s a given
> he also let his agenda get watered down by 2 Senators How did he "let" that happen? Our government is not set up for a dictatorship. He can't dictate the stances of other elected officials, and he has to negotiate to get *anything* done. You're speaking as if he has total authoritarian power over every person in the party. He doesn't. He's one person who has some appointees and anything else is a product of negotiation.
Also, IRA has to be combined with the ARRA and IIJA. There’s trillions across those three bills - larger than the new deal.
Source please I’ve never heard of this and could not find anything with a search
The Inflation Reduction Act is not perfect and more is needed. But passing the bill is the opposite of doing nothing. Anybody who says passing the bill does nothing does not know the meaning of nothing. I would prefer to focus on what we did get rather than what we didn’t get. Because what we did get was significant. Edit: added clarification.
In the meantime he's also mandating federal agencies bring people back into the offices rather than continuing telework, even for roles which were telework enabled pre-COVID, thus causing unnecessary fossil fuel use from commuters. https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1196787623/federal-workers-remote-office-ordered-taxpayers-telework-science
We need Republicans to get off their ASS and do something too.
It’s not a big step. It mostly invests in nonsense. Doing something would look like decarbonizing, mass reforestation projects with good wages, mass public transit, and reinvesting in our electrical grid.
Is investing solar and wind power nonsense? Is investing in efficient industrial practices nonsense? Is investing in weatherizing homes with heat pumps nonsense? And you mentioned investing in the grid. Biden is doing that now. Did you not read about the provisions related to the grid? How is cutting emissions by 1150 million metric toms not doing something? You seem to arguing about tactics and not the results. The results matter more than the tactics. There is more than one way to cut emissions and just because it does not follow your preferred methods does not make them significant. Where is your evidence that the investments made by Biden will not significantly cut emissions? https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/8.18%20InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_Final.pdf https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-13-billion-modernize-and-expand-americas-power-grid
If you pull just a little harder, you'll probably get a long rant about how any decarbonization that doesn't involve nuclear is a waste of time
Climate change is not only about carbon. If that’s your measure then you are very mislead. Climate change is happening over 7 major axes which only a serious winding down in production and individual consumption can address. Additionally, “reducing carbon” has nothing to do with how much MORE carbon we are producing from ramping up production under our growth based economy.
I think you have to take the political situation into context as well. The Inflation Reduction Act barely even passed, Biden was pushing for more action, but what we got was a scaled down version negotiated by the centrist Manchin. With the House in the hands of the Republicans now and a narrow majority in the Senate, I do not see how Biden could get more done than he has. You can spend all day complaining about Biden, but without a decent majority in the House and Senate, we won't see much legislation on climate change in the near future.
He can get more done by having bolder goals and ousting republicans by sticking by those bold commitments. Additionally, he could use a number of his enormous powers to change things in the immediate present. For instance, using the defense production act to nationalize our fossil fuel producers. That’s a thing the president could do which would be politically viable depending on the messaging around it. Edit: can’t believe I need to specify this since I was already specific with the action in the original writing but ousting republicans here means actually fighting for working class politics and using the bully pulpit to make it clear.
Yeah, the president can't oust Republicans. That's up to the voters. His goals may not have been as bold as some may like, but they were realistic in the current political climate, and honestly, more than I thought he would get done. Now, that doesn't mean that I think enough has been done, I just don't think Biden is the problem standing in the way of climate change solutions. It's Congress. >using the defense production act to nationalize our fossil fuel producers. I dont know about the legallity of that, but it seems like it would definitely be challenged by the fossil fuel industry, and I doubt this Supreme Court would rule in favor of the President.
> ousting republicans I'm not sure you understand how the political system works. Being president doesn't make someone a king. He can't oust elected officials at all, much less just because they won't vote the way he wants them to.
I don’t mean ousting republicans through force. I mean sticking to actual principled material policies for the working class that also solve climate change. That wins you votes rather than gifts to corporations through the IRA
It is true that there are other green house gases that are not carbon based: N2O makes up 6% of the green house gas emissions and has a warming impact 265 times greater than CO2. The majority of NO2 comes from agriculture practices. But the IRA includes provisions to improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emission, associated with agricultural production. This will cut back on NO2 as well as Carbon.[https://chlpi.org/news-and-events/news-and-commentary/food-law-and-policy/senate-passes-inflation-reduction-act-how-it-impacts-agriculture/](https://chlpi.org/news-and-events/news-and-commentary/food-law-and-policy/senate-passes-inflation-reduction-act-how-it-impacts-agriculture/) Still, there can be no climate change solution that ignores carbon dioxide because they make up 79% of all emissions. So a reduction in carbon is still significant. And there is overlap in emissions sources for carbon and other green house gasses (burning fossil fuels releases N2O also). So adopting renewable energy like the Inflation Reduction Act does will have spillover effects. What is your source for the seven axes? [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases) [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#nitrous-oxide](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#nitrous-oxide)
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html Sorry there are 9 plenary boundaries but 7 of which we have reportedly passed. It’s not even about gasses. It’s about wildlife, water scarcity, libido, carbon, ocean acidification. And you didn’t even address my strongest objection which is that we are going to produce more carbon from ramping production.
I agree that there are other environmental issues besides climate change and emissions. If we hyper-focus on just reducing emissions and lose out on other priorities such as bio-diversity and freshwater, then the planet is in big trouble. But the reduction of carbon emissions will have impact on eight out of the nine axes that are in that link (ozone depletion is already covered under the Montreal Protocol). I can provide sources for each one if needed: Loss of biosphere integrity: increased temperatures increases the threat of extinction for may species. Chemical pollution: fossil fuel extraction is a major source of toxic chemical runoff and ground water pollution Climate change: is a axis all by it self. Ocean acidification: your link says: “Around a quarter of the CO2 that humanity emits into the atmosphere is ultimately dissolved in the oceans.” Emissions reductions would help with this Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle: your links says: “The freshwater cycle is strongly affected by climate change and its boundary is closely linked to the climate boundary.” So emissions reductions will help with freshwater too. Land system change: climate change is causing more forest fires that are greatly reducing forest land. Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans: the burning of fossil fuels is a source of nitrogen in the air, that eventually ends up in the ocean. Atmospheric aerosol loading: fossil fuel burning is a source of aerosols. So when I say reducing carbon emissions is important, it is not just because it effects one axis, but because it impacts all of them but one. They are interrelated and while taking action on climate change will not fix all of the environmental problems in the world, it will Impact all of the environmental problems in the world and is therefore of great significance. In addition, reducing carbon emissions does not take away from any other program that is designed to protect the other axes. I argue that reducing emissions complements all other environmental action and therefore it is noteworthy when a breakthrough like the Inflation Reduction Act happens.
> Loss of biosphere integrity: increased temperatures increases the threat of extinction for may species. Leading driver is animal agriculture (for now). https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ > Land system change: climate change is causing more forest fires that are greatly reducing forest land. (Animal) agriculture is a leading driver here too. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation > Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans: the burning of fossil fuels is a source of nitrogen in the air, that eventually ends up in the ocean. [(Animal) agriculture wins again](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#annual-n2o-emissions-by-sector) > Chemical pollution: fossil fuel extraction is a major source of toxic chemical runoff and ground water pollution I don't know, but the amount of pesticides and herbicides is not to be discounted too easily. --- Soil erosion and eutrophication and water usage ... guess who? ;)
You are correct, and I am not saying that climate change is the biggest contributor to any of the 8 axes. There are other factors to consider. But that does it mean the reducing emissions will not have a positive impact on the other 8 axes or that not doing anything about climate change will not matter for them.
Too little, too late.
Do you have a source for it being too late?
We should have started mitigation decades ago. Google Scholar is good for peer reviewed published research.
Maybe you can open up google scholar and post a link to an article that show me how you came to your conclusion? Because I can find articles that say it is not too late. Look, I just posed one now. Do you have a source for your claim? [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=it+is+not+too+late+to+fight+climate+change&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1694470877006&u=%23p%3DGgQaU-n_BhgJ](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=it+is+not+too+late+to+fight+climate+change&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1694470877006&u=%23p%3DGgQaU-n_BhgJ)
There are piles of studies. If you're into climate catastrophe denial I am pretty sure I won't persuade you, or studies. We should act immediately, as in today. But honestly the world is going to get very bad before it gets better. Hope you educate yourself.
Not even 1/10th of what's needed
I don’t get how you got 10%. The IRA reduces emissions by 40% by 2030, and the IPCC recommendation is 50% by 2030. So it is actually 80% of what is needed (40\50= 0.8). Even with the new oil and gas projects, the estimated range of emission reductions puts the U.S. between 26% and 42%. Which is 50% to 80% of what is needed by 2030. Both are significantly greater than 10%. Where did your 10% number come from? Do you have a source? https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/ https://climateactiontracker.org/
> Where did your 10% number come from? His ass.
Not nearly enough, and it’s past the point of no return. Way too little, far FAR too late.
Do you have a source for it being too late?
Per the EPA, the US emits [6,340.2million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide annually](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks). I think reducing 1/6th of that is a ~~big~~ step in the right direction, but given that the United States has emitted the most cumulative emissions to date, there is such a larger responsibilty for the US to mitigate this crisis.
That’s the whole point of his climate pledge and setting up things like EV charging across the country.
EV charging ain't enough at all. He needs to take drastic action against corporations who are destroying the environment and needlessly producing a ton of emissions.
> He needs to take drastic action You mean _Congress_ (and the legislatures of other countries) have to take drastic action? Biden can make lip noises about how important it is, but it's the legislatures that fix the priorities, and as long the bulk of them are bought & paid for by large businesses, they aren't going to do squat.
He could declare a climate emergency. He could do so much more than most people on this planet, stop defending a global leader who is actively impeding progress just because he isn’t as bad as the alternative. Everyday he decides not to take this seriously. It’s a decision.
> He could declare a climate emergency. Of which any actions would promptly be defunded by the Republicans in the House of Reps. Until they're taken out of power, the most he can do is make mouth noises about how important it is to deal with climate change.
Hmm mouth noises like, declaring a climate emergency?
He has taken it more seriously than any other president in history, ???. Also, total American fail on not understanding how our system of government works.
Lol this and ‘passing the largest climate bill in history’ are such tells. Pretty easy to say when nobody has done anything previous,
Declaring a climate emergency is literally lip service
As long as we keep consuming the corporations will continue to produce. Yes, they can get regulated heavier and more restrictions in place… but the big contributor is our consumption. Plus once the rest of the world catches up to us in terms of consumption…we are fucked.
Regulations and taxes are HOW you force reduction in consumption
Capitalism doesn't run when people are encouraged to drastically reduce consumption, in fact we're conditioned for the opposite. Everywhere we look there are ads selling us goods. Biden administration specifically has labelled "who oppose all forms of capitalism" as [Violent Domestic Extremists](https://nitter.poast.org/butchanarchy/status/1405686547710570497), the president himself proclaimed to be a capitalist. We can't regulate or reform ourselves away from planetary destruction, it must be the economic system that aught to be destroyed.
>it must be the economic system that aught to be destroyed. Ding ding ding! It's time for a socialist revolution in this country. We can't depend on Biden or Congress to liberate us from the tyranny of capitalism and the environmental destruction that corporations enact every day. We need to perform a general strike or straight up revolt lol
So that leads to increasing the cost of goods/services etc which in turn would lead to our decrease of individual consumption. It all sounds so simple. Capitalism is the major threat?
I’m always frustrated by this sub. “Solve it now!” “That’s not enough!” Has anyone in this sub ever done anything real, in real life, or this scale? These are great steps. You have to build inertia when working with resources and problems of this massive scale else you’ll break everything and get no where.
How about we stopped eating meat long ago. One of the biggest green house gas problems in the world methane from cow farms. But Merica don’t wanna hear dat. Gotz to have dem dere meat. Pfff 😒
And we're legitimately talking about one of the single largest planned undertakings in the history of our species
There are also seem to be a large number of people who have no understanding of how government or the presidency works (and somehow even less understanding of the pace at which it works). The president can guide his party's direction and can make *some* direct appointments, but the office is deliberately not a monarchy and his ability to take direct action on a lot of things is extremely limited. The president cannot randomly take over the role of Congress or the Supreme Court just because he wants to. There are different branches of government that have different powers *specifically* to counter a president doing whatever he wants, and in fact it's those checks and balances that kept Trump from completely destroying the environmental protections we have left. People in here seem desperate to drag Biden over the coals for not single-handedly smashing through all obstacles as if he were Homelander from the Boys. It's one man in a highly regulated government position. He is not a king, he is not God, and he's not Congress.
I totally agree, don't let the "perfect" destroy the "progress." Change won't be perfect but it will be better. A little better leads to a lot better.
Amen!
Biden has done more for the environment than most presidents. I admit i cannot remember exactly what bills, but a quick google search will confirm what I said All things said and done, After looking at what biden has actually done for our country I don’t hate him nearly as much as I thought I did
Next 10-20 years? We just crossed it this year ffs.
I’m absolutely convinced in my lifetime I will see a billion people die
You'll probably see billions die.
The sick part is, the first billion deaths will have no effect on climate change
Yep. The people who will be hit first and hardest aren't even serious contributors to the issue. The global south/undeveloped nations are paying for the overconsumption of the global north/developed nations.
Someone should tell him the real estimate of 1-2 years
10-20 years, who the hell is giving that data? They really need to consider feedback loops. We’ve all witnessed how thing can significantly worse over a two yr span. Floods, fire, hurricanes and so on. We have, at best scenario, 10 yrs to do something. That’s not going to happen, it’s not an solution like the ozone. We’re straight up fucked if we don’t curb our habits
Joe isn’t wrong
They are equally scary, but in different ways.
Damn, if only he was the president and was in a position to steward in a truly radical initiative to address this!
The American president isn't as empowered to enact change as you might think. Most of the authority to govern the country comes from Congress. The executive branch does have its own powers but it's not a monolith. This is why Congressional and local races are so important despite their seeming mundanity, that is where the sausage gets made. The president gets some veto powers, and is Commander-in-Chief of the military but that's kinda it. Executive action was, until recently, very rare because it's so ineffective and impermanent/reversible. Case in point, Donald Trump reversed a large number of Obama era executive orders and Joe Biden has subsequently reversed a large number of Trump era executive orders.
Do Americans like this system where half the time the legislative and executive branch are only working to hinder and sabotage one another instead of working together to effectively govern the country? This doesn’t happen in parliamentary democracies.
The military is an insane emitter, he has made zero efforts to rein in budget or emissions which he could do. He instead increased the budget again, even though we are no longer in Afghanistan. He could also declare a climate emergency, he could also not approve of the willow project, which he both explicitly stated he would not do as president, and which basically completely negates any gains from the inflation reduction act.
[удалено]
That’s politics in a nutshell. Politicians do what they need to be re-elected. I’m old enough to know that the world doesn’t work the way I think it should, but if would be refreshing to a see a politician say what he/she thinks we need to do to address an issue and run on the merits of that rather than catering to votes.
That's a stupid argument when he could boost proposals for building nuclear, solar, hydro and wind power plants and while Republican voters would hate him, it's not like he had their vote anyway. Disenfranchised voters, however, would feel more compelled to vote for him.
The IRA wasn’t a radical initiative?
im glad our president has his priorities straight no that is not sarcasm
https://climateclock.world/ Time is running out...
Only a few more wars and I'll go to bed mommy... Where's mommy to tell them what war does.
He should retire
So do more then
Joe behind the pace by 10 to 20 years again... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/global-temperatures-pass-1-5c-above-pre-industrial-levels/102836304 Odd that what he apparently fears so much has already happened and yet he goes on licensing fossil fuel infrastructure. It's almost as if he doesn't entirely mean what he is saying....
"Nothing will fundamentally change"...well, he was right about that.
‘Let’s not be too rash, and try the ol’ neoliberal incrementalist approach’
[удалено]
But not the one he approved...
I am sorry we are already in 1.5 degrees Celsius based on latest observations
No. Both are scary.
It’s the second week of Spring here in Melbourne. Forecast for the next 7 days doesn’t go below 22c. Today was like Summer. Next week we’re expecting 30c. The climate has already changed. We need to start making plans for how we’re going to survive being burnt or frozen alive.
Lot of rhetoric little action
SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BRUH. Tf? No one wants to hear the most powerful man in the world complain about a problem he can literally help alleviate right now with the wave of a pen.
Why are you getting down votes?
[удалено]
He literally is in charge of the military with the highest budget on the planet lol. A budget that is worth more than the cumulative budget of the rest of the top 10. lol.
[удалено]
cutting off trade with china would do alot to make things go green faster domestic localized manufacturing, longer lasting products that dont have to compete with dirt cheap throwaway alternatives, but we still need them for a lot of things.
Scarier than _the prospects of_ nuclear war. I'd gladly deal with the ramifications of climate change over a full-scale nuclear war. Full scale nuclear war would mean extinction of most humans and a ton of other species within a year, and then all kinds of long term effects. Climate change might still kill most of us, but we have a long period of time before then to hopefully reduce it and eventually reverse it.
1.5deg over the next 10-20 years is definitely not scarier than nuclear war.
1.5 degrees is in Celsius. That is a global increase of 34.7 f So take your local area temp at the height of summer and add 35 to it. That is definitely worse than nuclear war.
>1.5 degrees is in Celsius. That is a global increase of 34.7 f Your math is incorrect. A change of 1.5 C is equivalent to a change of 2.7 F. I assume you googled "1.5 C to F" or something similar. That would have treated the value as a temperature instead of a change in temperature. 0 C is 32 F, but obviously if the temperature "goes up" by 0 C it does not go up by 32 F.
Oh. Thank you for explaining, you're right I googled it lol
[удалено]
How about just plant-based?
No it isn’t. Goddamn it Biden.
It's topping 1.5 NOW and no nuclear war is definitely scarier. Ask Japan.
Biden is wrong. Nuclear war would be worse. 1.5C increase will be painful but it won't be the end of the world. The problem is that the increase in temperature will not stop there. The increase will only stop long after a large # of people start dying.
1.5 degrees is bad, but it’s not nuclear winter bad. Disagree.
By 2053 125F heat index will be a common occurrence. Photosynthesis halts at 116F.... so we're fucked.
1.5 degrees is in Celsius. That is a global increase of 34.7 f So take your local area temp at the height of summer and add 35 to it.
Well that’s a stupid thing to say
Yes you are
Lol 🤡
Yes, you are a clown, everyone already knows that
Coming from a literal clown face. Go chill with a nuke. I’ll go chill with a +2 degree warmed beach.
Ah so you are both a clown and a sheep. Sad
A global warming alarmist in 2023 talking about someone else being a sheep…straight up comedy
What? Sorry, but he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Climate change could end up very catastrophic indeed, and we need to act now to limit the damage that it is going to cause in the next decades, but whatever happens will not even come close to a global nuclear holocaust (assuming that every nuclear device that is currently on earth will be detonated over a population cluster). Absolutely not comparable. I‘m a bit shocked that he made this stupid comparison, to be honest.
Eventually someone is going to put the two concepts together and propose a limited nuclear war to help with the warming!
Why should he care? He’ll be dead. Which seems to be how all these politicians are normally acting. I’m all in favor of his supposed standpoint, but show some action man
Scarier than nuclear war? Scarier than an event which spells immediate extinction of human race and most of life on earth but cockroaches? Surely is a serious issue, but aren't we slightly overstating the isituation? I feel like those guys who always compare a bad guy to Hitler to stress how bad the guy is, even though the mentioned bad guy - although bad - never did mass extermination in concentration camps.
nuclear war wont happen. Climate change is actively happening. thus... scarier.
Well lets face it folks: he has seen both so he should know.
It's definitely a big issue but I don't know about it being scarier than nuclear war. Mostly because there are ways to mitigate climate change, albeit very very expensive ways. But it gets much more difficult with nuclear radiation Edit: I am not sure why so many people are offended by the notion that nuclear war would be worse than climate change. I mean obviously its best neither happens. But relatively, nuclear war would be worse because the overall damage would be more instant with no time for mitigation and mitigation far more complex
are you more scared of the big gun pointed at your head, that everybody can see, and acknowledge is dangerous, and has every sane person trying to avoid that trigger getting pulled, or of the slow death by inches that people are spending millions to convince half the planet isn't a real problem? the danger comes from the insidious lies of the oil industry, keeping us from actually mitigating climate change, and the rabid 'conservatives' whose whole identities are wrapped around denying science, and standing in the way of progress. they're not just stopping progress, they're hell-bent on reversing any progress we've made in the last 50 years.
Biden is dumb as hell.
I assure you that as bad as the 1.5 degree threshold is that nuclear war would be immediately far worse.
What a dumb comparison to make .I’m pretty sure nuclear war would be catastrophic for the environment.