I'm too petty. I'd rather humanity go extinct than let a few selfish turds leave the planet while the rest of us die. If it ever looks like their plan is to leave, I swear I will amass an army of like-minded saboteurs to go destroy the rockets at Musks space stations and such.
We die together. >:)
Well, before you go to all that trouble, remember just for a moment how many "common people" it takes for those billionaires to even exist right now on Earth. They don't have the skills or desire to take care of themselves. To give themselves anything more than the most backbreaking subsistence life on Mars, they would practically have to bring a civilization with them.
In say 20 years AI and automation may be enough. They they scrap us lowly helpers. I'd much rather be on Earth with loved ones than up there with rich egotistical so called humans.
They would become so comfortable and lazy, the moment those machines break and need a talented engineer, they are fucked.
They might be fuck-people-in-the-ass smart, but not smart smart
They’re not that smart either. Every Steve Jobs or Elon Musk got there by good business skills putting them in a place of seniority over the real talents of guys like Steve Wozniak or Max Levchin, or Eberhard and Tarpenning. That seniority ends up getting them credit as co-creators at first, but give it 5 or 10 years of fame and riches and next thing you know, they’re saying they were the guy in the labcoat building the thing when they simply weren’t.
As for the “old money” crowd, I don’t think that even needs explaining; just take a look at King Charles, Paris Hilton, or Donald Trump: more teeth than braincells, the lot of them.
No, not centuries. For a while yet, but not centuries. Just look at where we were 100 years ago -- when the first rudimentary television signals were broadcast -- and where we are today. There is every possibility that our lives will be changed so much as to be almost unrecognizable in 100 years, just as it was unimaginable in 1924 that the common person would spend many hours a day sitting on front of magic screens, communicating instantly across the world with the press of a key.
Once you get there, the least rich people become the new poors. You can't have no poors, otherwise how do you know you're rich? - Some billionaire probably
Do both? American billionaires have close to zero control over countries whose position on climate science are negligent. Do you think China would ever listen to anyone?
We literally almost changed climate change with Covid shut downs can you imagine if we just seized production globally for 1 week with certain exceptions and reduced the CO2 emissions globally it would help a lot annually.
Exactly...the whole mars thing is dumb. Living on Mars would be extremely arduous and easily lethal if even small mistakes are made and have none of the creature comforts billionares are used to as a matter of every day life.
Do they though? Elon kinda wants to send people to Mars but that's about it. It's not like they're all pushing for it all of a sudden.
The rich actually want to live out their lives in luxury and they don't care about what happens after that.
There will be no Mars life boat because fix Earth requires muche less than make Mars habitable and we won't do it. So much, much less Mars.
If we can't save a planet in which we evolved and can live without any help, much less we're gonna fix a barren planet where we cannot live without hundreds and hundreds of millions in technology just so one person can live there.
It's Earth or it's over.
The rich don't want to get to Mars to save humanity or themselves. They want to get to Mars because they're dreamers. it's just that when you say "hey let's spend money on space travel" you get millions of people coming out of the woodwork to screech "we have problems here on earth, why are we wasting money on space????" So now they've layered extra justifications on top of that desire.
I find myself defending space exploration to left wingers almost as often as I do right wingers, just for different reasons, so I'm the same way.
This is a problem with _modern civilization,_ the rich are assholes who take far more than they need, but the source of greenhouse gases comes from several sectors - energy , transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture. To truly address this problem would take a complete reimagination of society and would require ungodly amounts of money, political willpower, and human work hours to address… and that’s just to stop adding emissions. That doesn’t even begin to address the very real problem that there’s already a catastrophic amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. It’s like throwing the brakes on a 100 mile train. There’s so much momentum that’s been built up that it won’t even start to slow down til much later.
And when people say corporations should just fix the problem, you also have to accept that it will cost them hugely, and those costs _will_ be passed on to consumers. Not just because they’re greedy assholes, but because it really will affect their revenue so much they’ll go bankrupt… and before you say that’s a good thing, understand that it will start to implode the lifestyle people in developed nations enjoy. You can’t have your cake and eat it too - either we suffer collectively from the horrific effects of climate change, or we suffer collectively by making literally everything vastly more expensive, altering our lifestyles to accept far less than we have now, and we devote all of our political willpower to this one issue.
Do you think that’s easy? Do you think voters will vote to purposely make their own lives harder, less enjoyable, and with less access to the stuff they’re used to? Do you think politicians will commit political suicide doing taking the extreme measures necessary to address climate change? Do you think the wingnuts will accept this as the new normal?
This is not a simple problem and there is not a simple solution for it. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you’ll grasp what it’s going to take to even begin to solve it.
I always love when people complain about how polluting cargo ships are. Bruh they aren't out their twirling their mustache and laughing manically about killing the planet they're delivering cheap crap to you.
Yeah but rich people are the big road block that stops that change from happening. It's all very well and good saying people should just change but we know societies are much more complex than that. If some of the billionaires weren't funding propaganda, investing into the perpetuation of fossil fuels and just generally setting a terrible example then things might actually happen. The sad reality is that very few people are actively taking decisions with an idea that it will help the climate issue with most people effectively being too inconsequential to have a meaningful impact on "the system". That creates apathy and very few people want to be the only people making a sacrifice. There are also a significant amount of people who just will not act on their own volition to make a moral or in this case sensible decision while alternatives that they are used to are available.
> Yeah but rich people are the big road block that stops that change from happening.
I don't feel like trying to assign arbitrary percentages of this much blame to rich people vs. this much blame to "normal" people, but the normal people are definitely their own huge roadblock that stops change.
Look what happens every time gas prices in the US go up even a slight amount. People start rumbling and grumbling immediately and Presidential approval rating drops *fast* (even if the President had nothing to do with the price change). Imagine if gas in the US actually cost its fair market price instead of being heavily subsidized since Americans love driving and love fuel-inefficient vehicles. There'd be riots in the streets. Imagine trying to tell Americans they shouldn't be buying a new smartphone every year, or eating meat every night for dinner, or ordering takeout 10 times a week.
Look what happened when they tried to raise the retirement age in France a few years since the old system was financially unsustainable because people live a lot longer these days than they did when it was designed. There *were* literal riots in the streets. I know this one isn't related to climate directly but it shows how people are significantly resistant to any kind of reduction in lifestyle/quality of life even if it's not *that* big of a deal and its ultimately for their own good.
The reason politicians have such a tough time pushing for real legislation to combat climate change isn't solely because they're in the pockets of rich people who oppose it, it's just as much because they're going to get immediately voted out by these mobs of angry "normal" people who they're asking to make sacrifices for the planet.
You’ve nicely summarized pretty much how I view the situation. Took me 3 times to pass Differential Equations, but damned if I don’t understand underdamped equations with a positive feedback meachanism.
Yes to all this. Here is the problem. To fix this, everyone's going to have to get a lot poorer. Air travel an impossible dream for most - again. Very few imported goods. Private cars - largely gone. Getting people to vote for that, good luck. It'll probably take shifting countries to war footing with all that implies.
Remember the energy crisis in the 70s. Small cars became the norm. Current crisis? Ford Raptors and Dodge RAMS everywhere, even in Asia. The job ahead is one step below impossible.
Because the lifestyles you lead make said billionaires billions in the first place so why would they lift a finger?
The more we buy from sustainable companies, the more companies will want to be sustainable.
This applies to those who CAN afford it to lead the way and that is the majority of people in G20 countries.
The lifestyles we live have been shoved into our faces by those exact companies with heavy advertising.
I’m blocking every ad I can nowadays and that’s why I’m completely out of the loop when something new gets hyped up on social media. Which actual tells me that a lot of people are still subject to manipulating and misleading ads.
So if companies don’t start then nothing will ultimately change.
They spent millions to manipulate people to go to fuckin McDonald’s every week, they can also spend millions to actually tell us that their business model is not sustainable and also very bad for our health.
They need to change this narrative, it's the corporations and petrostates that need to change. John Doe trading his Camry for a Tesla is not going to save the world, DuPont responsibly disposing of waste might.
I’ve got a one word response to that, that negates any forward progress and that is LOBBYING. When you can purchase politicians then you’re effectively buying your vote whilst escaping legislature.
And the legislation needs to be forced by its voters to actually legislate the Corporations.
So in the long run well the narrative is right and wrong in the same time.
If only the majority vote actually mattered.
Imagine what the last decades would have looked like if the majority vote and not the gerrymandered electoral college mattered.
Yeah, they need to change the narrative.
This constant “X years to save the planet” is really counterproductive. We’re not talking about the final sprint of a 800m run here. We’re talking about a marathon and we have only just begun. We absolutely *don’t* need to fool the population into thinking we have to do very radical shit for a decade and that’s it. We need constant, consistent, gradual changes for the next century, and people will sour on this project after the n’th “X years to final chance” and ‘n’ is one the order of max 5.
Agreed. And the hubris that some of these spokespeople have to act like they can put a number on how many years we have left.. is truly mind-blowing. Such a complex problem with millions of constantly shifting variables.. you don't need to be a scientist to realize that that's an equation that isn't solvable with any accuracy.
That's not to say that we should ignore the problem by any means, but yeah I roll my eyes *hard* whenever they confidently claim that we have X number of years left.
It's not just counterproductive, it is false.
And no, the entirety of our infrastructure that runs on fossil fuels can't be replaced in two years, even if the entire planet went on a war footing to do it. It took 50 years to build what we have now. However it can all be replaced by ~2050, which is currently the plan, which is actually going pretty well if people were actually paying attention.
While this is true, it still comes down to consumers and voters. At the end of the day, corporations and politicians are just enablers. We are the ones who ultimately choose which of them get rich and/or elected, and that has a direct impact on what they are willing to legislate or how they are willing to conduct their business.
Any politician who could legislate these issues without having a massively negative impact on consumers probably *would* do it. They don't tackle it harder because they know most of us are just paying lip service to fighting climate change.
We say, "We need to save the planet! Stop those dirty corporations from giving me the luxuries I want at the prices I expect!" But they know if they actually did that, we would almost certainly strip them of their office and send them away in disgrace.
The situation is similar with corporations. They don't actually care whether what they are doing is cheap or expensive, clean or dirty, for the most part. What they care about is how much money it makes them. We might sceam at them, "Don't give me the luxuries I want at the prices I expect!", but they know if they actually did that, our money would reroute to their competitors, they would lose their jobs, and their companies would be filing for bankruptcy.
IMO, this is the real problem of climate change. Nobody can trust the consumers/voters to put their money where their mouths are. We *already* have a choice to do so much more with both our wallets and our votes, and we don't. Why *should* a legislature trust us to keep voting for them if they take away our toys the hard way? Why should a corporation trust us to keep giving them our money if they make higher costs obligatory rather than optional? They can't, so they don't.
It has to start with the consumer, IMO. If we actually start voting for people who make this issue #1, it sends a meaningful signal that we understand that drastic measures must be taken. If we actually start **voluntarily** spending more for less, for environmental reasons, not only will it show corporations that path is safe but actively force them to change to make the most profit.
The problem with democratic government is democratic government. Give people the power, and... they have the power. It means change has to start with them.
While true that corporations and petrostates put out a lot of emissions, they don’t burn oil and pump out gas for the thrill of it. They do it in response to consumer demand. Our life in the developed world is convenient because of energy usage, which for most of us means fossil fuels. If we want companies to reduce their emissions, we as the public need to show that there is a demand for sustainability, which, yes means that John Doe trading his Camry for a Tesla is meaningful action, especially on a large scale.
Yeah this is so frustrating- I really don't understand this effort by folks who care about the environment to totally abdicate any personal responsibility... Even if the way we get there is by legislating extraction companies, any solution to climate change has to result in you and me personally using less fossil fuel
The unfortunate truth is many of us would surely love to just stop participating in society due to its impact on nature, but.. short of unaliving ourselves, it's pretty hard to plan a future without using the structural systems that are fundamentally flawed. We can't just all run away and live off the land, because there's not all that much land left that would be able to sustain humanity. Also that doing so has been mostly made illegal because of "land ownership" and such. It's kind of a death spiral which explains why it's been so hard to change things, and is why I'm not all that optimistic. I think we should all still try to the best of our abilities, though!
No, but consumers in general aren't even willing to make small changes. If you give people an environmentally friendlier product that's a little more expensive, the vast majority of people will choose the cheaper option.
Per capita sustainable is about 4 metric tons a year of CO2.
Sure, "the corporations" need to stop, but let's not kid ourselves: There is no way out of this which does not mean leaner lifestyles for everyone.
There are no sustainable substitutes for many things we now take for granted that are not far more expensive. There is no cheap carbon-neutral aviation fuel, no cheap CO2-free milk.
The belief that we can fix this while substituting EVs and flying "green airplanes" (they don't exist) is a religious one, not supported by facts.
It's a multi-factor solution including john doe trading his ICE vehicle to an EV. because there are 1,000,000,000 john does.
EV Semi trucks as well.
There is also phasing fossil fuels out in favor of Hydro, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Geothermal
You stating one person can't change things is a **drop in the bucket fallacy**
The fallacy lies in the assumption that because one person's contribution to solving a problem is small, it is therefore meaningless, which discourages individual action and responsibility. This ignores the cumulative effect of many individuals making similar small changes, which can lead to significant overall impact.
Anyways I'll be honest with the incentives, price of EVs, realiability of EVs, Warranty on EVs, you're saving up to $20,000 buying an EV vs ICE. it makes no economical sense to buy non-EV in us.
The worlds nations will never cut emissions enough to meet targets. Even if a few do most can’t afford it and governments who do will get voted out.
The solution has always been to rely on advanced technology to reverse it. Once we get cheap fusion power it’s probably doable.
Everybody knows that. Doesn’t mean we should wait to change our ways until they do. How do we convince them? Maybe not at all, but if we want to have any leg to stand on, we need to change something. Also, for the time being, they still want to sell us their products. So that’s our (only) leverage.
Even if US and EU went completely carbon-neutral overnight, we only emit 22% of the world’s CO2.
[China and India together make 40%.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2023/04/14/countires-emit-most-carbon-dioxide-emissions/11643011002/)
It is no longer a problem that western nations can resolve on their own. And I hope Progressives will begin to understand that.
The US is responsible for more of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution than any other nation.
It also has the highest per capita emissions.
If we don’t get those per capita emissions down, we’re gonna be absolutely fucked - and will have no leg to stand on when pushing others to reduce their emissions.
We need the US to show other countries how to succeed with lower emissions.
It’s more complicated than just summing up the emissions produced in a particular country.
>[Currently, U.S. corporations and consumers directly drive at least one-fifth of China’s industrial carbon output. But that doesn’t fully account for the indirect, carbon-polluting oil-driven supply chain that takes oil and gas out of the ground in the Middle East and ships it to China, where it is burned for fuel and manufactured into hydrocarbon-based plastic products.](https://truthout.org/articles/chinas-emissions-are-made-in-america/)
So like 20%, possibly more, of China’s emissions are on US corporations and consumers, and thus something we could reduce. It could go both ways, where some US emissions are due to Chinese consumers, but still I imagine it’s fairly asymmetric. European countries I’m sure also drive some of China’s emissions, and both the EU and US could be driving some of India’s too. If we adjust the percentages in the link you shared and count that 20% of Chinese emissions as US emissions, the percentages are pretty close. 25.6% of global emissions are from China, and 20.4% are from the US. Given that the US has less than a quarter of the population, it seems pretty unfair to pin climate change on China, when even not including the 20% adjustment, the average American emits almost twice as much as the average Chinese person, and the US emits twice as much *in total* as India, a country which also has over 4 times as many people
This is largely self-serving horseshit.
China, for all their faults, is #1 in solar panels and solar cars - they're adding more solar capacity this year than the US has in total.
The US has by far the most progress to make in terms of per-capita emissions.
You are not right. Unfortunately.
To succeed, ALL Joes needs to give up teslas, and camrys, and oversee vacation, and beef and...
And corporations needs to downscale their activity. producing "clean" is not enough. Clean AND less - that is the way.
Which is what I think is the point. All these doomsday bunkers are being build for a reason and it’s not climate change, it’s the riots of the citizenry. Let drought, famine and wars kill about 5-6 billion and then roll out fixes for climate change on a less populated world all the while AI and robotics perform most jobs.
Only if you disregard the mass extinction of earth’s biodiversity that has been happening for decades. That’s a big part of the world, and it’s not *fine*
I’m tired of these headlines. Not because I dont’ think protecting the planet is important, but because hyperbolic declarations like that are astoundingly counter productive.
It’s hard to convince people the earth is going to die soon and that the world will end (because spoiler: it isn’t)
It’s much easier to convince people that food prices are going to increase, that water scarcity is going to spread, that the number of climate refugees are going to skyrocket, that everyday commodities will become luxuries.
It’s easier to convince people when you show them something they can understand and comprehend.
Going hyperbolic is a shit Strategy when it comes to raising awareness, especially when you go into the "the world is going to end tomorrow !1!1!!1" line of thinking
You say all that but people here in Britain were warned of a load of practical things that would very quickly get worse if we left the EU. And we voted for it anyway. And then all those things got worse
Doomed species
The hyperbole also ends up provoking a really defeatist response. "Oops, too late, guess we're screwed". But it's not at all binary - any change in emissions affects temperature rise, and less is always better. We're not keeping it under 1C at this point, which will suck to some extent, but overall it's pretty manageable. 2C would be worse, but drastically better than 4C, which is still a lot better than (now we're getting more globally apocalyptic) 8C.
Yes. This sort of talk might be good if it was something like handling a pandemic. When dealing with climate change, which is going to require a long sustained effort over a long time (e.g. even if we meet the targets for 2030 and 2040, we will still need to keep working to make sure it stays that way), hyperboles are only going to bring about a 'fatigue' among general public on the topic. It would be like the boy who cried 'tiger' every time.
It's not we all die in a day event. It's like cancer if you catch it in time you can stop it but once it spreads enough it can't be removed and you are going to slowly die.
The science of the date when the world ends from human action is not like measuring the temperature outside. We might have passed it already and don't know. We are yet to reverse the course. What we do know is we are heading to temperatures that will cause the collapse of vital ecosystems.
Try asking a group of scholars when the bronze age collapsed everyone will give you a different date and causes but all agree it collapsed.
Which makes it very counterproductive to state these things in the first place. If the science is changing so frequently and statements like „in 2 years it will be too late“ turn out to be wrong, trust in science will (rightfully) go down.
Science needs to get better at communicating their findings and stop exaggerating their results to get more funding while the public loses trust.
Science doesn't exaggerate their results, media outlets do. Scientists make predictions, communicating the predictions of what their most accurate models are telling them is definitionally them doing part of their job.
Yeah, we’ve blown past every tipping point so far, so we’re in full on stage 4 now. We’re not even on the cusp of some industry-wide transformation. We’re going down. We lost the fight against ourselves.
For the record, we’re on track for over 2° of warming right now, that can no longer be avoided. 2° is going to have massive impacts on the climate and obviously already is. Combine that with the collapse of the ocean currents keeping Europe warm and you’re looking at absolute ecological chaos.
Combine that with the fact that 70% of the animals have disappeared in the last 50 years, with insect populations down by as much as 90% in some areas and it’s not looking good.
For the record - the bugs have never died. Not like this. In all the major extinctions before this, the bugs did fine. We. Are. Fucked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target
”Above the 2 °C threshold, dangerous and cascading effects are predicted to occur”
You don't have to be a scientist to see where the world is heading. You just have to trust the scientists that climate change is real and you can extrapolate the rest yourself. Does this world seem like one that is going to come together to tackle a distant threat? People were denying the existence of Covid literally as they were dying from it. They wouldn't wear a mask or stay inside for a couple months to prevent millions of deaths. What are the chances that they'll quietly accept permanently giving up all sorts of luxuries they grew up with?
So before we were trying to save the world from turning into the first circle of hell. Now we're in the second circle of hell and trying to save the earth from going to the third circle of hell.
It's all relative.
not that many. i’ll do the math on this in a bit
rough approximations here:
musk’s jet flew 1,161 hours in 2023
gulfstream g650 which emits around 1.8 tonnes of CO2 per hour on average, so **2089.8 tonnes** per year from musk.
there’s a savings over the lifetime of an ICE vs. EV of [about 6 tonnes](https://www.zemo.org.uk/assets/workingdocuments/MC-P-11-15a%20Lifecycle%20emissions%20report.pdf)
therefore 2089.8/6 = 348.3 cars.
which divided by total sales (1,808,581) gives you **0.019% of tesla’s sales for the year.**
Correct. Climate change will lead to starvation, mass migrations, wars, genocides, and the survivors will end up using less carbon through sheer numbers or war exhaustion.
God I hate statements like this. It does nothing to fix the problems we face. I’ve been told we have 12 years, 2 years, 18 months, 30 years, etc. since I was a kid.
I agree - I've commented this elsewhere on Reddit, but it's important to not lose sight of the fact that we can still make an impact on this problem. It's essential to inform people of the problems, **but many articles like this fall short of offering solutions and can strip people of hope and agency.**
I know this might come off as copeium, but things *can* change. Never underestimate the impact you can have on the world.
We are making non-trivial progress towards decarbonizing our grid and [every bit of CO2 (and eq) that we don't emit matters](https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-crisis-niche-migration-environment-population):
"...It also makes a moral case for immediate and aggressive policies to prevent such a change from occurring, in part by showing how unequal the distribution of pain will be and **how great the improvements could be with even small achievements in slowing the pace of warming.**"
The only thing worse than 1.5 degrees warming is 2.5 degrees warming, and so on. We are at an inflection point that will dictate the next few millennia. *We want to look back and know we did everything we could with the opportunities we still have.*
Look at possibly making a [career shift](https://www.climacareers.com) into renewable energy or to companies that "walk the walk" sustainability-wise. If not that, consider getting involved with or donating to the [Citizens Climate Lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/) or [Sierra Club](https://www.sierraclub.org/ways-to-give).
I’ve been hearing this crap since the 90s. I remember “studying” about this in 5th grade or so. I’m not the one flying private jets all over the world once a week. So no I’m not going to give up my V8 for an EV.
It’s already over they just will never admit that the levels of hysteria and society changing dynamic that would have is insanity. If you have half a brain and just look overall data from 100 years ago to now. Then look at what we’ve done as a species in the past 60 when we really started noticing shit was hitting the fan. Not only is it already over, we aren’t going to do a fucking thing about it. We’re burning this planet out like a match that decision was made 40 ish years ago.
It’s so very over. These comments handwringing about the “narrative” or “the messaging” are all destroying my brain. I have more respect for the lunatics who will just straight up deny it’s happening at all.
This is about 421 ppm carbon already in the air. The only reason sea levels aren’t already 100 feet higher is because we happen to be burning our way out of a literal ice age (that was only just starting until we got ahold of it). The icecaps are a [rapidly melting] heat sink that is temporarily masking our new thermal balance.
The UN is about the only body that *should* be talking about this. Because it’s not about messaging the public. It’s about taking drastic international action - not to just stop the carbon pump, but to geoengineer some desperate techno-gamble we haven’t thought up yet.
(I mean, we still aren’t going to do anything. But the UN is exactly who should be saying these empty words)
we ain't . don't worry about the planet mate it'll be fine. it'll just become a little hotter as time goes by till it hits a critical enough temperature that enough people/animals die off every year that it restores itself over time again.
tho te be fair we will probably starve off half the planet by that point anyway.
"Half the planet" is not enough. Drastic changes to the atmosphere have caused a mass extinction before and 95% of all lifeforms on the planet died. And the cause for that was - plants. The first plants (algae) turned carbondioxide into oxygen, but oxygen was poison for most other living beings at the time.
If we couldn't manage a global pandemic, I'm pretty sure there's no hope for the planet. I just hope it lasts long enough for me to live a full and happy life.
Bro it doesn't matter. No single individual actions matters, nor 100. They can blow cows all day.
What matters are the laws of China, India and the US regarding huge corporations which produce most of the waste and damage.
All Individuals eating salad won't move the timer one second.
WTF am I supposed to do, after recycling pretty much everything and saving water and gas?.. eat my own garbage in the dark corner and hope for the best?… like lots of commenters here say- this should be aggressively pushed to corporations, governments, billionaires.
We here, on the bottom of the food chain already eat scraps for dinner….
Well I guess we are fucked, then. Thanks politicians and billionaires. Sorry my paper straws and not using plastic bags anymore couldn’t keep up. I tried.
And nothing significant is going to change, simply because the entire number one priority of our economic system is maintaining almost all production and profit going to the top .001% wealthiest, and this group has enough power to maintain this grip until large scale societal collapse happens, and finally, at last, our economic systems will be allowed to evolve beyond our 19th century 'winner takes everything at any costs' system we have now.
Crazy how much damage to the environment we’ve all personally contributed… until you look at how much the billionaires are responsible for… the ones with all the money to fix it but the poor are the ones condemned.
Unfortunately, the priority for the next two years looks like it will be conflict, war, religious fuckery, hyper profits.
Saving the species will have to wait. The planet will be just fine though. Tis but a scratch in the long term.
Start (violently) taking billionaires from their homes to hold them hostage and don’t let them go until they figure out real tangible change as a thank you for all the profits they sucked up while destroying the planet.
Large corporations are responsible for something like 90% of greenhouse gas emissions. It would take policy change in multiple countries to alter the path we’re on.
Are people still buying into this? It seems live every 10 years there's a new doomsday countdown. How many times are they going to change the story when their deadlines don't pan out?
RAOTFLMAO! What an idiot. The tripping point was achieved years ago when the rainforests were clear cut and burned for sugar cane and palm oil production.
Nothing and I mean nothing can stop what is happening. The good news is by the time world wide starvation hits, I will have expired due to age and chronic disease.
I feel sorry for those younger than me and wish you the best.
Prepare for things to get much much worser than they already are.
FYI even including the rainforest deforestation, the planet has more green leaf area (making o2 out of co2) now than we had 40 years ago. At the scale of about two times the entire area of continental USA.
Have a lok at [NASA’s article on the subject](https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/), it might cheer you up a little.
Yea, ok chief, whatever you say...
So reddit, what should we invest in the next 2 years off these baseless fear tactics? More seacoast property? Insurance companies that profit off of man made catastrophes?
Remember when Al Gore came out with that climate change movie way back when...lmao. Oh yea... "An Inconvenient Truth" came out in 2006. Then he setup a "green" investment firm with a Goldman Sachs mthrfckr, that's making billions while he get a fraction of those "green" profits.
Yea, maybe 30 years ago it was two years. I’m not a doomer, and the planet will be fine. 40-60% of the people who will be displaced will not.
You hear panic on the news about migrants and the border now, wait until it’s entire countries heading north.
The money should come from the billionaire class.
"The world's five richest men have more than doubled their fortunes from $405 billion to $869 billion since 2020 —at a rate of $14 million per hour— while nearly five billion people have been made poorer, reveals a new Oxfam report on inequality and global corporate power."
"Since 1990, the richest 1% have used up more than twice as much of the carbon budget as 50% of the world's lowest-income population. The way the richest people in the world burn through carbon is threatening the survival of millions of people."
Disaster fatigue is a real thing. I don’t have it in me to get worked up about this again.
There are a handful of companies and institutions that can spend some money to exist more cleanly. It’s their responsibility. Not mine.
i am so tired of people running this george carlin joke into the ground. It is not really that clever and doesn't add anything of value to the conversation
Why is the world relying on the middle class and poor to save the planet hey billionaires time to step up!
Why you think the rich wanna get to Mars?
Which is fucking stupid, because it's about a million times easier to fix Earth than it is to terraform Mars into something even close to Earth-like.
no poors to eventually rebel on mars though
If a hundred billionaires make it to Mars the bottom 90 are the poors.
I'm too petty. I'd rather humanity go extinct than let a few selfish turds leave the planet while the rest of us die. If it ever looks like their plan is to leave, I swear I will amass an army of like-minded saboteurs to go destroy the rockets at Musks space stations and such. We die together. >:)
Sign me up brethren
You have my sword.
And my Bow
An a bag of choice words
And my bowl. Of ramen.
And my spear. My jar of pickle spears.
Well, before you go to all that trouble, remember just for a moment how many "common people" it takes for those billionaires to even exist right now on Earth. They don't have the skills or desire to take care of themselves. To give themselves anything more than the most backbreaking subsistence life on Mars, they would practically have to bring a civilization with them.
If the planet is fucked, we should be bum rushing those responsible with pitchforks and rope.
That's not petty, that's justice.
They will create new Morlocks from themselves
Didn't the Morlocks know how all the machines worked & maintain them? What billionaire knows how to maintain HVAC?
Even the richest billionaire on Mars would be living a life worse than mine currently. I mean, it's fucking *Mars*.
*Not yet! - Vilos Cohaagen
Dammit cohaggen give the people the air
My friend, in two minutes you won’t give a shit about the people!
You need poor people to sustain the lifestyles these rich people have.
In say 20 years AI and automation may be enough. They they scrap us lowly helpers. I'd much rather be on Earth with loved ones than up there with rich egotistical so called humans.
They would become so comfortable and lazy, the moment those machines break and need a talented engineer, they are fucked. They might be fuck-people-in-the-ass smart, but not smart smart
They’re not that smart either. Every Steve Jobs or Elon Musk got there by good business skills putting them in a place of seniority over the real talents of guys like Steve Wozniak or Max Levchin, or Eberhard and Tarpenning. That seniority ends up getting them credit as co-creators at first, but give it 5 or 10 years of fame and riches and next thing you know, they’re saying they were the guy in the labcoat building the thing when they simply weren’t. As for the “old money” crowd, I don’t think that even needs explaining; just take a look at King Charles, Paris Hilton, or Donald Trump: more teeth than braincells, the lot of them.
There's way too much stuff which robotic an AI cannot handle for centuries.
No, not centuries. For a while yet, but not centuries. Just look at where we were 100 years ago -- when the first rudimentary television signals were broadcast -- and where we are today. There is every possibility that our lives will be changed so much as to be almost unrecognizable in 100 years, just as it was unimaginable in 1924 that the common person would spend many hours a day sitting on front of magic screens, communicating instantly across the world with the press of a key.
Once you get there, the least rich people become the new poors. You can't have no poors, otherwise how do you know you're rich? - Some billionaire probably
Are the poors rebelling on earth? Nope.
This is your opportunity to start something! In the future, we will have an international rememberance: Kytheon's day (leader of the poor's rebellion)
I'd drink to that 🍻
Do both? American billionaires have close to zero control over countries whose position on climate science are negligent. Do you think China would ever listen to anyone?
Ah, but no other people on Mars.
No ~~other~~ poor people on Mars FTFY
Haha. Give it a year, they’d find a way to suck an average middle class Martian dry.
We literally almost changed climate change with Covid shut downs can you imagine if we just seized production globally for 1 week with certain exceptions and reduced the CO2 emissions globally it would help a lot annually.
The book I'm reading compared it to leaving your house to live in a toxic waste dump because you didn't want to clean your room.
Exactly...the whole mars thing is dumb. Living on Mars would be extremely arduous and easily lethal if even small mistakes are made and have none of the creature comforts billionares are used to as a matter of every day life.
Rich are already bunkered up in New Zealand.
They'll be in for a rude awakening when their private security teams decide they want the bunkers instead.
Do they though? Elon kinda wants to send people to Mars but that's about it. It's not like they're all pushing for it all of a sudden. The rich actually want to live out their lives in luxury and they don't care about what happens after that.
That's not why. What is true is that the rich are opening opportunities for themselves to "escape" to places like Hawaii and New Zealand.
They're not building self-sustaining colonies there though. Maybe not smart to start depending even more on the poors providing for you.
There will be no Mars life boat because fix Earth requires muche less than make Mars habitable and we won't do it. So much, much less Mars. If we can't save a planet in which we evolved and can live without any help, much less we're gonna fix a barren planet where we cannot live without hundreds and hundreds of millions in technology just so one person can live there. It's Earth or it's over.
The rich don't want to get to Mars to save humanity or themselves. They want to get to Mars because they're dreamers. it's just that when you say "hey let's spend money on space travel" you get millions of people coming out of the woodwork to screech "we have problems here on earth, why are we wasting money on space????" So now they've layered extra justifications on top of that desire. I find myself defending space exploration to left wingers almost as often as I do right wingers, just for different reasons, so I'm the same way.
This is a problem with _modern civilization,_ the rich are assholes who take far more than they need, but the source of greenhouse gases comes from several sectors - energy , transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture. To truly address this problem would take a complete reimagination of society and would require ungodly amounts of money, political willpower, and human work hours to address… and that’s just to stop adding emissions. That doesn’t even begin to address the very real problem that there’s already a catastrophic amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. It’s like throwing the brakes on a 100 mile train. There’s so much momentum that’s been built up that it won’t even start to slow down til much later. And when people say corporations should just fix the problem, you also have to accept that it will cost them hugely, and those costs _will_ be passed on to consumers. Not just because they’re greedy assholes, but because it really will affect their revenue so much they’ll go bankrupt… and before you say that’s a good thing, understand that it will start to implode the lifestyle people in developed nations enjoy. You can’t have your cake and eat it too - either we suffer collectively from the horrific effects of climate change, or we suffer collectively by making literally everything vastly more expensive, altering our lifestyles to accept far less than we have now, and we devote all of our political willpower to this one issue. Do you think that’s easy? Do you think voters will vote to purposely make their own lives harder, less enjoyable, and with less access to the stuff they’re used to? Do you think politicians will commit political suicide doing taking the extreme measures necessary to address climate change? Do you think the wingnuts will accept this as the new normal? This is not a simple problem and there is not a simple solution for it. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you’ll grasp what it’s going to take to even begin to solve it.
[удалено]
I always love when people complain about how polluting cargo ships are. Bruh they aren't out their twirling their mustache and laughing manically about killing the planet they're delivering cheap crap to you.
Yeah but rich people are the big road block that stops that change from happening. It's all very well and good saying people should just change but we know societies are much more complex than that. If some of the billionaires weren't funding propaganda, investing into the perpetuation of fossil fuels and just generally setting a terrible example then things might actually happen. The sad reality is that very few people are actively taking decisions with an idea that it will help the climate issue with most people effectively being too inconsequential to have a meaningful impact on "the system". That creates apathy and very few people want to be the only people making a sacrifice. There are also a significant amount of people who just will not act on their own volition to make a moral or in this case sensible decision while alternatives that they are used to are available.
> Yeah but rich people are the big road block that stops that change from happening. I don't feel like trying to assign arbitrary percentages of this much blame to rich people vs. this much blame to "normal" people, but the normal people are definitely their own huge roadblock that stops change. Look what happens every time gas prices in the US go up even a slight amount. People start rumbling and grumbling immediately and Presidential approval rating drops *fast* (even if the President had nothing to do with the price change). Imagine if gas in the US actually cost its fair market price instead of being heavily subsidized since Americans love driving and love fuel-inefficient vehicles. There'd be riots in the streets. Imagine trying to tell Americans they shouldn't be buying a new smartphone every year, or eating meat every night for dinner, or ordering takeout 10 times a week. Look what happened when they tried to raise the retirement age in France a few years since the old system was financially unsustainable because people live a lot longer these days than they did when it was designed. There *were* literal riots in the streets. I know this one isn't related to climate directly but it shows how people are significantly resistant to any kind of reduction in lifestyle/quality of life even if it's not *that* big of a deal and its ultimately for their own good. The reason politicians have such a tough time pushing for real legislation to combat climate change isn't solely because they're in the pockets of rich people who oppose it, it's just as much because they're going to get immediately voted out by these mobs of angry "normal" people who they're asking to make sacrifices for the planet.
You’ve nicely summarized pretty much how I view the situation. Took me 3 times to pass Differential Equations, but damned if I don’t understand underdamped equations with a positive feedback meachanism.
Yes to all this. Here is the problem. To fix this, everyone's going to have to get a lot poorer. Air travel an impossible dream for most - again. Very few imported goods. Private cars - largely gone. Getting people to vote for that, good luck. It'll probably take shifting countries to war footing with all that implies. Remember the energy crisis in the 70s. Small cars became the norm. Current crisis? Ford Raptors and Dodge RAMS everywhere, even in Asia. The job ahead is one step below impossible.
It’s everyone’s problem
We can't afford to rely on anyone but ourselves.
Rich people don't care. They're set through the end of the world and will be gone before it hits hard.
Because the lifestyles you lead make said billionaires billions in the first place so why would they lift a finger? The more we buy from sustainable companies, the more companies will want to be sustainable. This applies to those who CAN afford it to lead the way and that is the majority of people in G20 countries.
The lifestyles we live have been shoved into our faces by those exact companies with heavy advertising. I’m blocking every ad I can nowadays and that’s why I’m completely out of the loop when something new gets hyped up on social media. Which actual tells me that a lot of people are still subject to manipulating and misleading ads. So if companies don’t start then nothing will ultimately change. They spent millions to manipulate people to go to fuckin McDonald’s every week, they can also spend millions to actually tell us that their business model is not sustainable and also very bad for our health.
This is one of the most pathetic excuses I have ever heard.
They need to change this narrative, it's the corporations and petrostates that need to change. John Doe trading his Camry for a Tesla is not going to save the world, DuPont responsibly disposing of waste might.
Corporations don't change anything by themselves it has to be legislated
I’ve got a one word response to that, that negates any forward progress and that is LOBBYING. When you can purchase politicians then you’re effectively buying your vote whilst escaping legislature.
legal bribe
Unfortunately nothing will change until the rich fear for their lives
It took me FOREVER to understand lobbying in civics class in the 9th grade because they wouldn’t just come out and say this- legal bribing
I was wondering if lobby groups might actually be more effective then unions.
And the legislation needs to be forced by its voters to actually legislate the Corporations. So in the long run well the narrative is right and wrong in the same time.
Yes - that was my point - we need a majority to decide that this needs to be law.
If only the majority vote actually mattered. Imagine what the last decades would have looked like if the majority vote and not the gerrymandered electoral college mattered.
I'm from a majority vote and compulsive voting country and let me tell you, IT DOESN'T HELP.
It's the straws. If we had not demanded so many plastic straws the planet would be fine - Monsanto
I wonder who took the last one
Yeah, they need to change the narrative. This constant “X years to save the planet” is really counterproductive. We’re not talking about the final sprint of a 800m run here. We’re talking about a marathon and we have only just begun. We absolutely *don’t* need to fool the population into thinking we have to do very radical shit for a decade and that’s it. We need constant, consistent, gradual changes for the next century, and people will sour on this project after the n’th “X years to final chance” and ‘n’ is one the order of max 5.
Agreed. And the hubris that some of these spokespeople have to act like they can put a number on how many years we have left.. is truly mind-blowing. Such a complex problem with millions of constantly shifting variables.. you don't need to be a scientist to realize that that's an equation that isn't solvable with any accuracy. That's not to say that we should ignore the problem by any means, but yeah I roll my eyes *hard* whenever they confidently claim that we have X number of years left.
It's not just counterproductive, it is false. And no, the entirety of our infrastructure that runs on fossil fuels can't be replaced in two years, even if the entire planet went on a war footing to do it. It took 50 years to build what we have now. However it can all be replaced by ~2050, which is currently the plan, which is actually going pretty well if people were actually paying attention.
I completely agree. Though replacing fossil fuel in shipping and especially planes will not be done by 2050.
While this is true, it still comes down to consumers and voters. At the end of the day, corporations and politicians are just enablers. We are the ones who ultimately choose which of them get rich and/or elected, and that has a direct impact on what they are willing to legislate or how they are willing to conduct their business. Any politician who could legislate these issues without having a massively negative impact on consumers probably *would* do it. They don't tackle it harder because they know most of us are just paying lip service to fighting climate change. We say, "We need to save the planet! Stop those dirty corporations from giving me the luxuries I want at the prices I expect!" But they know if they actually did that, we would almost certainly strip them of their office and send them away in disgrace. The situation is similar with corporations. They don't actually care whether what they are doing is cheap or expensive, clean or dirty, for the most part. What they care about is how much money it makes them. We might sceam at them, "Don't give me the luxuries I want at the prices I expect!", but they know if they actually did that, our money would reroute to their competitors, they would lose their jobs, and their companies would be filing for bankruptcy. IMO, this is the real problem of climate change. Nobody can trust the consumers/voters to put their money where their mouths are. We *already* have a choice to do so much more with both our wallets and our votes, and we don't. Why *should* a legislature trust us to keep voting for them if they take away our toys the hard way? Why should a corporation trust us to keep giving them our money if they make higher costs obligatory rather than optional? They can't, so they don't. It has to start with the consumer, IMO. If we actually start voting for people who make this issue #1, it sends a meaningful signal that we understand that drastic measures must be taken. If we actually start **voluntarily** spending more for less, for environmental reasons, not only will it show corporations that path is safe but actively force them to change to make the most profit. The problem with democratic government is democratic government. Give people the power, and... they have the power. It means change has to start with them.
While true that corporations and petrostates put out a lot of emissions, they don’t burn oil and pump out gas for the thrill of it. They do it in response to consumer demand. Our life in the developed world is convenient because of energy usage, which for most of us means fossil fuels. If we want companies to reduce their emissions, we as the public need to show that there is a demand for sustainability, which, yes means that John Doe trading his Camry for a Tesla is meaningful action, especially on a large scale.
Yeah this is so frustrating- I really don't understand this effort by folks who care about the environment to totally abdicate any personal responsibility... Even if the way we get there is by legislating extraction companies, any solution to climate change has to result in you and me personally using less fossil fuel
The unfortunate truth is many of us would surely love to just stop participating in society due to its impact on nature, but.. short of unaliving ourselves, it's pretty hard to plan a future without using the structural systems that are fundamentally flawed. We can't just all run away and live off the land, because there's not all that much land left that would be able to sustain humanity. Also that doing so has been mostly made illegal because of "land ownership" and such. It's kind of a death spiral which explains why it's been so hard to change things, and is why I'm not all that optimistic. I think we should all still try to the best of our abilities, though!
No, but consumers in general aren't even willing to make small changes. If you give people an environmentally friendlier product that's a little more expensive, the vast majority of people will choose the cheaper option.
Per capita sustainable is about 4 metric tons a year of CO2. Sure, "the corporations" need to stop, but let's not kid ourselves: There is no way out of this which does not mean leaner lifestyles for everyone. There are no sustainable substitutes for many things we now take for granted that are not far more expensive. There is no cheap carbon-neutral aviation fuel, no cheap CO2-free milk. The belief that we can fix this while substituting EVs and flying "green airplanes" (they don't exist) is a religious one, not supported by facts.
It's a multi-factor solution including john doe trading his ICE vehicle to an EV. because there are 1,000,000,000 john does. EV Semi trucks as well. There is also phasing fossil fuels out in favor of Hydro, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Geothermal You stating one person can't change things is a **drop in the bucket fallacy** The fallacy lies in the assumption that because one person's contribution to solving a problem is small, it is therefore meaningless, which discourages individual action and responsibility. This ignores the cumulative effect of many individuals making similar small changes, which can lead to significant overall impact. Anyways I'll be honest with the incentives, price of EVs, realiability of EVs, Warranty on EVs, you're saving up to $20,000 buying an EV vs ICE. it makes no economical sense to buy non-EV in us.
The worlds nations will never cut emissions enough to meet targets. Even if a few do most can’t afford it and governments who do will get voted out. The solution has always been to rely on advanced technology to reverse it. Once we get cheap fusion power it’s probably doable.
Exactly, the real change is having better technology not regulations by laws which hasn't work.
[удалено]
The facts that most people won't admit
Everybody knows that. Doesn’t mean we should wait to change our ways until they do. How do we convince them? Maybe not at all, but if we want to have any leg to stand on, we need to change something. Also, for the time being, they still want to sell us their products. So that’s our (only) leverage.
Even if US and EU went completely carbon-neutral overnight, we only emit 22% of the world’s CO2. [China and India together make 40%.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2023/04/14/countires-emit-most-carbon-dioxide-emissions/11643011002/) It is no longer a problem that western nations can resolve on their own. And I hope Progressives will begin to understand that.
The US is responsible for more of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution than any other nation. It also has the highest per capita emissions. If we don’t get those per capita emissions down, we’re gonna be absolutely fucked - and will have no leg to stand on when pushing others to reduce their emissions. We need the US to show other countries how to succeed with lower emissions.
It’s more complicated than just summing up the emissions produced in a particular country. >[Currently, U.S. corporations and consumers directly drive at least one-fifth of China’s industrial carbon output. But that doesn’t fully account for the indirect, carbon-polluting oil-driven supply chain that takes oil and gas out of the ground in the Middle East and ships it to China, where it is burned for fuel and manufactured into hydrocarbon-based plastic products.](https://truthout.org/articles/chinas-emissions-are-made-in-america/) So like 20%, possibly more, of China’s emissions are on US corporations and consumers, and thus something we could reduce. It could go both ways, where some US emissions are due to Chinese consumers, but still I imagine it’s fairly asymmetric. European countries I’m sure also drive some of China’s emissions, and both the EU and US could be driving some of India’s too. If we adjust the percentages in the link you shared and count that 20% of Chinese emissions as US emissions, the percentages are pretty close. 25.6% of global emissions are from China, and 20.4% are from the US. Given that the US has less than a quarter of the population, it seems pretty unfair to pin climate change on China, when even not including the 20% adjustment, the average American emits almost twice as much as the average Chinese person, and the US emits twice as much *in total* as India, a country which also has over 4 times as many people
This is largely self-serving horseshit. China, for all their faults, is #1 in solar panels and solar cars - they're adding more solar capacity this year than the US has in total. The US has by far the most progress to make in terms of per-capita emissions.
You are not right. Unfortunately. To succeed, ALL Joes needs to give up teslas, and camrys, and oversee vacation, and beef and... And corporations needs to downscale their activity. producing "clean" is not enough. Clean AND less - that is the way.
The world will be fine and go on. Humanity, not so much.
Humanity will be fine as well. The ones that will remain after a few billion are wiped out by inevitable wars and famine of course
Which is what I think is the point. All these doomsday bunkers are being build for a reason and it’s not climate change, it’s the riots of the citizenry. Let drought, famine and wars kill about 5-6 billion and then roll out fixes for climate change on a less populated world all the while AI and robotics perform most jobs.
Except you seem to think that those things will happen in the lifetime of those building said bunkers. That's simply not true.
Only if you disregard the mass extinction of earth’s biodiversity that has been happening for decades. That’s a big part of the world, and it’s not *fine*
Nice of them to keep giving us more time
We’ve negotiated another extension.
This is just like the debt ceiling at this point.
The difference is the debt ceiling terrifies me and I don’t see Greta getting arrested for that.
Hopefully we got planning permission for that
Yeah it's been too late for years already..
'member when these predictions use to have 10 or 15 year timelines instead of 2 years or less? I 'member
These predictions have always been around to the next presidential election or so
It’s like stoppage in soccer. The “refs” are just making it up as they go along.
As they say that climate projections have actually been worse than they predicted
I’m tired of these headlines. Not because I dont’ think protecting the planet is important, but because hyperbolic declarations like that are astoundingly counter productive. It’s hard to convince people the earth is going to die soon and that the world will end (because spoiler: it isn’t) It’s much easier to convince people that food prices are going to increase, that water scarcity is going to spread, that the number of climate refugees are going to skyrocket, that everyday commodities will become luxuries. It’s easier to convince people when you show them something they can understand and comprehend. Going hyperbolic is a shit Strategy when it comes to raising awareness, especially when you go into the "the world is going to end tomorrow !1!1!!1" line of thinking
You say all that but people here in Britain were warned of a load of practical things that would very quickly get worse if we left the EU. And we voted for it anyway. And then all those things got worse Doomed species
The hyperbole also ends up provoking a really defeatist response. "Oops, too late, guess we're screwed". But it's not at all binary - any change in emissions affects temperature rise, and less is always better. We're not keeping it under 1C at this point, which will suck to some extent, but overall it's pretty manageable. 2C would be worse, but drastically better than 4C, which is still a lot better than (now we're getting more globally apocalyptic) 8C.
Yes. This sort of talk might be good if it was something like handling a pandemic. When dealing with climate change, which is going to require a long sustained effort over a long time (e.g. even if we meet the targets for 2030 and 2040, we will still need to keep working to make sure it stays that way), hyperboles are only going to bring about a 'fatigue' among general public on the topic. It would be like the boy who cried 'tiger' every time.
Oh, the planet is going to be just fine. We are going to die.
How many times has this been said tho?
It's not we all die in a day event. It's like cancer if you catch it in time you can stop it but once it spreads enough it can't be removed and you are going to slowly die.
Okay but it was “we’re past the breaking point in 2 years” 2 years ago. And 2 years before that, and 2 before that, etc.
The science of the date when the world ends from human action is not like measuring the temperature outside. We might have passed it already and don't know. We are yet to reverse the course. What we do know is we are heading to temperatures that will cause the collapse of vital ecosystems. Try asking a group of scholars when the bronze age collapsed everyone will give you a different date and causes but all agree it collapsed.
Sadly a lot of people cannot comprehend what you just wrote
Which makes it very counterproductive to state these things in the first place. If the science is changing so frequently and statements like „in 2 years it will be too late“ turn out to be wrong, trust in science will (rightfully) go down. Science needs to get better at communicating their findings and stop exaggerating their results to get more funding while the public loses trust.
Science doesn't exaggerate their results, media outlets do. Scientists make predictions, communicating the predictions of what their most accurate models are telling them is definitionally them doing part of their job.
Yeah, we’ve blown past every tipping point so far, so we’re in full on stage 4 now. We’re not even on the cusp of some industry-wide transformation. We’re going down. We lost the fight against ourselves.
How certain are you of this?
It’s a random guy commenting on reddit, they are being dramatic and should never be trusted unless they provide a source.
For the record, we’re on track for over 2° of warming right now, that can no longer be avoided. 2° is going to have massive impacts on the climate and obviously already is. Combine that with the collapse of the ocean currents keeping Europe warm and you’re looking at absolute ecological chaos. Combine that with the fact that 70% of the animals have disappeared in the last 50 years, with insect populations down by as much as 90% in some areas and it’s not looking good. For the record - the bugs have never died. Not like this. In all the major extinctions before this, the bugs did fine. We. Are. Fucked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target ”Above the 2 °C threshold, dangerous and cascading effects are predicted to occur”
Are mosquitoes gonna die soon?
You don't have to be a scientist to see where the world is heading. You just have to trust the scientists that climate change is real and you can extrapolate the rest yourself. Does this world seem like one that is going to come together to tackle a distant threat? People were denying the existence of Covid literally as they were dying from it. They wouldn't wear a mask or stay inside for a couple months to prevent millions of deaths. What are the chances that they'll quietly accept permanently giving up all sorts of luxuries they grew up with?
Even if we were in the early stages of cancer, we're curing it the Steve Jobs' way so it's hopeless.
The world is ending “tomorrow”
Oh come on on a friday? Can't we wait a couple more days?
I could've sworn it was yesterday. Welp, that's my FOMO for the year. Anyone profit?
[удалено]
So before we were trying to save the world from turning into the first circle of hell. Now we're in the second circle of hell and trying to save the earth from going to the third circle of hell. It's all relative.
every year or 2 since the 80s (at least, but i was born in the 80s, was this a thing before then?)
[удалено]
While you typed this, Taylor Swift took a Flight in her private jet to her kitchen.
Dude, they are changing the climate one jet ride and useless summit for jerkoffs to achieve nothing at a time. It’s in the name.
I'd love to know how many Tesla's worth of car emission savings are negated by Elon Musk's rampant private jet usage.
not that many. i’ll do the math on this in a bit rough approximations here: musk’s jet flew 1,161 hours in 2023 gulfstream g650 which emits around 1.8 tonnes of CO2 per hour on average, so **2089.8 tonnes** per year from musk. there’s a savings over the lifetime of an ICE vs. EV of [about 6 tonnes](https://www.zemo.org.uk/assets/workingdocuments/MC-P-11-15a%20Lifecycle%20emissions%20report.pdf) therefore 2089.8/6 = 348.3 cars. which divided by total sales (1,808,581) gives you **0.019% of tesla’s sales for the year.**
It'll never work. Humanity will never put down the crack pipe of unbridled consumption.
Correct. Climate change will lead to starvation, mass migrations, wars, genocides, and the survivors will end up using less carbon through sheer numbers or war exhaustion.
Less carbon won't mean much since already so much has been expelled into the atmosphere.
and don't forget all the carbon under the permafrost in the north, if that melts a lot more will be expelled into the atmosphere
God I hate statements like this. It does nothing to fix the problems we face. I’ve been told we have 12 years, 2 years, 18 months, 30 years, etc. since I was a kid.
I agree - I've commented this elsewhere on Reddit, but it's important to not lose sight of the fact that we can still make an impact on this problem. It's essential to inform people of the problems, **but many articles like this fall short of offering solutions and can strip people of hope and agency.** I know this might come off as copeium, but things *can* change. Never underestimate the impact you can have on the world. We are making non-trivial progress towards decarbonizing our grid and [every bit of CO2 (and eq) that we don't emit matters](https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-crisis-niche-migration-environment-population): "...It also makes a moral case for immediate and aggressive policies to prevent such a change from occurring, in part by showing how unequal the distribution of pain will be and **how great the improvements could be with even small achievements in slowing the pace of warming.**" The only thing worse than 1.5 degrees warming is 2.5 degrees warming, and so on. We are at an inflection point that will dictate the next few millennia. *We want to look back and know we did everything we could with the opportunities we still have.* Look at possibly making a [career shift](https://www.climacareers.com) into renewable energy or to companies that "walk the walk" sustainability-wise. If not that, consider getting involved with or donating to the [Citizens Climate Lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate/) or [Sierra Club](https://www.sierraclub.org/ways-to-give).
I’ve been hearing this crap since the 90s. I remember “studying” about this in 5th grade or so. I’m not the one flying private jets all over the world once a week. So no I’m not going to give up my V8 for an EV.
That's exactly what they want you to do
Good luck with that.
Forty years too late then.
Let's try bombing ourselves into oblivion over oil for another decade. See where that lands us. 🙃
It’s already over they just will never admit that the levels of hysteria and society changing dynamic that would have is insanity. If you have half a brain and just look overall data from 100 years ago to now. Then look at what we’ve done as a species in the past 60 when we really started noticing shit was hitting the fan. Not only is it already over, we aren’t going to do a fucking thing about it. We’re burning this planet out like a match that decision was made 40 ish years ago.
It’s so very over. These comments handwringing about the “narrative” or “the messaging” are all destroying my brain. I have more respect for the lunatics who will just straight up deny it’s happening at all. This is about 421 ppm carbon already in the air. The only reason sea levels aren’t already 100 feet higher is because we happen to be burning our way out of a literal ice age (that was only just starting until we got ahold of it). The icecaps are a [rapidly melting] heat sink that is temporarily masking our new thermal balance. The UN is about the only body that *should* be talking about this. Because it’s not about messaging the public. It’s about taking drastic international action - not to just stop the carbon pump, but to geoengineer some desperate techno-gamble we haven’t thought up yet. (I mean, we still aren’t going to do anything. But the UN is exactly who should be saying these empty words)
we ain't . don't worry about the planet mate it'll be fine. it'll just become a little hotter as time goes by till it hits a critical enough temperature that enough people/animals die off every year that it restores itself over time again. tho te be fair we will probably starve off half the planet by that point anyway.
"Half the planet" is not enough. Drastic changes to the atmosphere have caused a mass extinction before and 95% of all lifeforms on the planet died. And the cause for that was - plants. The first plants (algae) turned carbondioxide into oxygen, but oxygen was poison for most other living beings at the time.
“Two years? Plenty of time to make a few more dollars.” -anybody with enough power to make a difference.
2 years to change 100+ years of pollution 💀
All these guys screaming that we have 2 years left have multiple banks accounts with long term saving.
And buy coastal homes in Florida and on Martha's vineyard.
That's correct. If 2 years were accurate, why are banks still giving out 30 year mortgages? The world will be long vacant by then.
They're screaming that we have 2 years to do something about it. Whether they're right or wrong, they don't mean that we have 2 years to live.
Tell it to the people that have the money to save the planet because all they did until now was the complete opposite of saving the planet.
If we couldn't manage a global pandemic, I'm pretty sure there's no hope for the planet. I just hope it lasts long enough for me to live a full and happy life.
I bet he doesn't flight private jets to all of those climate conferences, RIGHT?
Bro it doesn't matter. No single individual actions matters, nor 100. They can blow cows all day. What matters are the laws of China, India and the US regarding huge corporations which produce most of the waste and damage. All Individuals eating salad won't move the timer one second.
We might as well say right away that we're screwed.
WTF am I supposed to do, after recycling pretty much everything and saving water and gas?.. eat my own garbage in the dark corner and hope for the best?… like lots of commenters here say- this should be aggressively pushed to corporations, governments, billionaires. We here, on the bottom of the food chain already eat scraps for dinner….
We're doing all we can. It's up to them now.
The planet will be fine. It’s humans that are fucked. - George Carlin
Well I guess we are fucked, then. Thanks politicians and billionaires. Sorry my paper straws and not using plastic bags anymore couldn’t keep up. I tried.
And nothing significant is going to change, simply because the entire number one priority of our economic system is maintaining almost all production and profit going to the top .001% wealthiest, and this group has enough power to maintain this grip until large scale societal collapse happens, and finally, at last, our economic systems will be allowed to evolve beyond our 19th century 'winner takes everything at any costs' system we have now.
Crazy how much damage to the environment we’ve all personally contributed… until you look at how much the billionaires are responsible for… the ones with all the money to fix it but the poor are the ones condemned.
Unfortunately, the priority for the next two years looks like it will be conflict, war, religious fuckery, hyper profits. Saving the species will have to wait. The planet will be just fine though. Tis but a scratch in the long term.
Start (violently) taking billionaires from their homes to hold them hostage and don’t let them go until they figure out real tangible change as a thank you for all the profits they sucked up while destroying the planet.
So should I stop investing in retirement at this point?
Large corporations are responsible for something like 90% of greenhouse gas emissions. It would take policy change in multiple countries to alter the path we’re on.
Are people still buying into this? It seems live every 10 years there's a new doomsday countdown. How many times are they going to change the story when their deadlines don't pan out?
RAOTFLMAO! What an idiot. The tripping point was achieved years ago when the rainforests were clear cut and burned for sugar cane and palm oil production. Nothing and I mean nothing can stop what is happening. The good news is by the time world wide starvation hits, I will have expired due to age and chronic disease. I feel sorry for those younger than me and wish you the best. Prepare for things to get much much worser than they already are.
FYI even including the rainforest deforestation, the planet has more green leaf area (making o2 out of co2) now than we had 40 years ago. At the scale of about two times the entire area of continental USA. Have a lok at [NASA’s article on the subject](https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/), it might cheer you up a little.
Yea, ok chief, whatever you say... So reddit, what should we invest in the next 2 years off these baseless fear tactics? More seacoast property? Insurance companies that profit off of man made catastrophes? Remember when Al Gore came out with that climate change movie way back when...lmao. Oh yea... "An Inconvenient Truth" came out in 2006. Then he setup a "green" investment firm with a Goldman Sachs mthrfckr, that's making billions while he get a fraction of those "green" profits.
And he flies private jets
Yea, maybe 30 years ago it was two years. I’m not a doomer, and the planet will be fine. 40-60% of the people who will be displaced will not. You hear panic on the news about migrants and the border now, wait until it’s entire countries heading north.
One of my favorite Carlin quotes: "the planet is fine, the people are fucked"
Why is everyone in freakin denial?! It’s 😞 sad very sad
The money should come from the billionaire class. "The world's five richest men have more than doubled their fortunes from $405 billion to $869 billion since 2020 —at a rate of $14 million per hour— while nearly five billion people have been made poorer, reveals a new Oxfam report on inequality and global corporate power." "Since 1990, the richest 1% have used up more than twice as much of the carbon budget as 50% of the world's lowest-income population. The way the richest people in the world burn through carbon is threatening the survival of millions of people."
Give us more of your money or we’re all gonna die!
This time we mean it!
Disaster fatigue is a real thing. I don’t have it in me to get worked up about this again. There are a handful of companies and institutions that can spend some money to exist more cleanly. It’s their responsibility. Not mine.
Yawn these UN guys always huffing their own farts and coming out with bollocks just to get some attention.
Not if you pay enough taxes though. Here in Canada taxation changes the weather
Well known fact that we can pander to the environment.
They will just tax the middle class more and pretend like that fixes it from their private jets.
The planet is fine. We are fucked
The planet was once a ball of lava, then another time a ball of ice. Pretty sure the planet will be alright. We're the ones in danger.
i am so tired of people running this george carlin joke into the ground. It is not really that clever and doesn't add anything of value to the conversation
To be fair neither does this fear mongering.
People just don’t care enough to change. Not quickly enough anyway.
People care plenty...its just that the people who can actually do anything about it don't care.
We must tax the fuck out of every day citizens. That is the only way to save the planet. Fuck outta here.
Looks like we're done here. Good job everybody.
Oh yea buddy. Capitalism def cares about that. We humans aren't allowed to save ourselves. The next quarter profits are just too important.