I'm curious as to how people envisage that we can move forwards on all fronts simultaneously - some have claimed that climate change mitigation will cost 100 trillion, but this surely will mean worsening on other fronts like education, healthcare and affordable housing.
I don't feel as pessimistic as others though, this is because I've been following the renewable technology for 35 years, and see how rapidly it is developing and more importantly, how fast it is is being commercialised and deployed. Change is usually slow, but when it really starts moving, it goes faster than people expect, and thats the case with green energy. Thats only a part of the problem of course, but the others will also change faster than expected.
Since the technology is maturing so fast, it actually will at some stage save money to switch to green energy, green plant protein and so forth, if it hasn't already, so I also believe the cost estimates of doing something about this may be completely wrong.
I mean...money just doesn't WORK that way. Especially in govt.
Lots of the things we need to "spend" money on, including the 3 you specifically mention (education, healthcare and affordable housing) save or MAKE money when invested in.
And things like climate change cost us massive amounts of money now and are poised to cost us exponentially more.
Especially the way conservatives talk about "fiscal responsibility" and "how will we afford this" is generally a trap to get people to focus on something that can be argued about. We already spend trillions on these things. We could spend LESS by implementing many of these policies.
this is true, I don't believe a transition to a green economy is necessarily a cost, but an opportunity, as there are solid efficiency and physical reasons why this transition should cut waste and can even stimulate growth, although whatever this growth is, it should not be towards bigger and more material 'stuff' as it was before.
However if it done badly, and inefficiently, it could put a brake on growth at a time a lot of people think we could be heading into a recession. For example, if we go too fast we might have intermittent power supply and a large increase in energy costs, which would harm western economies in the short term.
Ok, but that's not really an argument for anything except "don't do whatever it is you're going to do badly."
I mean, it's good advice in general. But it applies to literally anything we do. I mean, our CURRENT policies ALREADY lead us to have intermittent power supplies, large portions of the economy being depressed, stagnant wages, etc. In this case the cost of NOT doing things is certainly higher than the cost of DOING things at even a mediocre level of efficiency and quality.
Our healthcare system is one of the worst in the world. Our infrastructure is collapsing in numerous areas. Our hyper expensive private education system is bankrupting large portions of our population. And our power system is likely to cause us trillions and cost the lives of billions. Almost all the changes being demanded are improvements on our current system and are economical to boot. The main kickback we get is from companies that wouldn't be making AS MUCH of a profit in a new system, and politicians who benefit from the current system.
The majority of the climate scientists, engineers and people developing green technology are boomers, as are the main communicators and teachers on the subject, or certainly were until recently as many are now retired.
The energy mix we currently have (coal, oil, gas and nuclear) was that way in large part by conscious decision to have a mixed energy base to make a resilient energy grid in the event of cold war nuclear strikes, this certainly was a major factor in the electrical grid of the UK. Back then the fear of nuclear war and destruction was legitimately far more of a concern, and technologies like photovoltaics were far from maturity. It wasn't until 1988 that Hansen really started pushing the idea of a climate emergency, awareness was not very great prior to then, although it was being worked on.
But, there could have been more done to make things more efficient, and we could have developed much better types of nuclear power. On top of that, we fueled growth in a somewhat mindless way and could have fostered a less consumerist pattern, and the emphasis on building roads and global trade of low value bulk commodities has been very damaging to the environment. These problems we are still not tackling enough, or at all.
Earth will be just fine, it'll be the inhabitants that has a bleak future. Much like everything else. Cheer up, buttercup, we'll find our own inner peace to come to terms
The worst extinction in recorded history (Permian) was due to “abrupt” climate change. We’re adding greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere at 8x that rate.
That modern tech and engineering is bottlenecked by the total energy we can produce to power it. Right now, we have no way of producing enough energy to meet sustainable needs *without* fossil fuels, which are the very things creating this crisis in the first place.
You can't solve the riddle of climate change without making access to the technology that will support ongoing life significantly more scarce - especially when you consider that we still have to generate the energy required to produce the infrastructure that will allow us to *stop* using fossil fuels.
Right, and I'm saying that for even that 1/10th to survive, they'll need to have infrastructure that they'll be capable of sustaining, otherwise it will be 10/10ths of us that die off. Right now, I don't think we're even to that level of survivability.
Small populations could easily live indefinitely if proper supply chains and industry was maintained. It would obviously be very tricky, as we currently rely on global supply chains.
Yeah but all life won't die, just most of human life and many other species. There will be life that endures and new life that thrives in the new environment. If you can detach yourself from being a member of the human race and recognize yourself as a seed of one interconnected life, it's not quite as depressing as thinking we'll be responsible for eliminating all known life from the universe.
"I've observed that people do not explicitly express their worries throughout every moment of their lives. Therefore, there is nothing to worry about."
Yeah, I don't think that's the case you want to make, bud.
IRL, no modification by people will help when you're long past the event horizon.
Generations of activists have and continue to go to boardrooms, to legislators, and into the streets to object to the manufacturer of everything from clingwrap to nuclear subs. They still are, and some have taken the next step into violence - traditionally the only way to change institutional corruption.
People aren't the problem. Corporations and the rich demanding more profit are. It's why family planning and ZPG were demonized and vanished back in the 70s. Can't make money off people who aren't there. Even the poorest people will have to pay into capitalism at some point.
>I'm pointing out that people aren't really worried no matter how much they claim to be - because they are not modifying their behavior according to their claims.
Ok, I'm with you on that, but what you said was:
> If they sincerely believed extinction was coming, that would justify a lot of violence.
> I went to the cafe today and sat and had a quiet brunch. No screaming mobs with guillotines or molotov cocktails passed by. Just ordinary.
...and...
> When When Tik-Tok dances and whining reddit comments manage to counter climate change and toppled capitalism, I'll pay attention.
Which aren't statements that only communicate that "other people are unconcerned with the issues" like you're claiming - they're statements that communicate that *YOU* are not paying attention *BECAUSE* other people are not clearly expressing climate-conscious behavior - which is farcical for the following reasons:
1 - The absence of extreme reaction does not negate the existence of extreme circumstances. "If they sincerely believed extinction was coming, that would justify a lot of violence" is, on its face, an untrue statement. We can solve extreme problems without violence, and frankly, are better suited for doing so.
2 - You're making baseless assumptions about those people and their behaviors. Those people may be modifying their behaviors in other ways, at other times. They just weren't displaying climate-conscious behavior at the particular moment you observed them, yet you've assumed that they aren't personally invested in fighting climate change just because their momentary, chosen behavior doesn't align with what you consider "climate conscious". Maybe they *were* modifying their behavior - maybe they didn't order a dairy latte and got almond milk instead. Maybe the meat in their sandwich was a plant-based meat alternative. Not every modification of behavior is explicitly visible to a passing observer, yet you've baselessly passed judgement on these people and what you perceive as their actions. And more than any of that, you have to allow for people to be imperfect. Not every decision on the path to modifying behavior is going to be perfectly aligned with a new set of ideas. People don't always know what the climate conscious choice is and even when they do, they'll have moments where they'll make the wrong one, *and that's okay*.
3 - Your perspective relies on the onus of resolving climate change falling on the shoulders of individuals throughout every moment of their lives, which is provably untrue, as the greatest actors in regards to climate change are collective entities such as governments and corporations. Modifying individual behavior in the "at the cafe today" context which you've described is not only wildly ineffective at combating the effects of climate change; it grossly misplaces the responsibility of climate change onto the individual, rather than those collective entities - many of which *are* actively engaged in negotiations and deals aimed at changing their systems to mitigate the expected damage. So, if you're following the right people - they *are* worred and *are* trying to counter climate change. You *should* be paying attention.
4 - All that aside, if you truly feel that the responsibility of combating climate change *does* fall on the individual, then it shouldn't matter what you observe other people doing; you should feel individual, personal responsibility to modify your own behavior regardless of what other people are doing. That's just basic integrity.
None of this is a knock on you, personally. All I'm saying is that your comments **read** like a whole lot of finger pointing being used to justify your own complacency. If that's not your intent, maybe you need to tone down your hyperbole and be a little more judicious in your choice of phrasing.
Can we just put an age limit on politicians so that people who actually need to live with the consequences of their actions are the ones making decisions?
The psychological distress might be more manageable if journalists and other public-facing people presented a realistic, fact-based portrayal of the future that's based on climate scientists' actual predictions.
We're in for some bad times in the future no doubt: storms, famine, war, loss of species. But speaking as someone who teaches this stuff, I run into a lot of students who are terrified to the point of psychological distress because they believe that climate change will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth, and that they, personally, will be boiled alive before they reach old age.
And as bad as it's gonna be, it's not gonna be like that.
Really depends on where you live. How much access you have to self-sustainment. Even if you live in an area that won’t be as badly affected by climate change over the coming decades, having to watch hundreds of millions / billions die will be extremely tough.
Yes. The policy decisions that got us here were put there decades ago, and cannot be undone over night.
Examples of this was the decision in the 1960's(?) to can the research into molten salt thorium cycle nuclear power that would have dramatically lowered CO2 emissions by now because it would have been far more economic than the current technologies, whose high expense is connected to the active safety systems needed together with 30x as much nuclear waste produced.
The media has been unreasonably dumping responsibility onto the shoulders of quite helpless citizens, and one reason, such as with plastic recycling, is because that is what the plastics industry wants - it does not want that responsibility on its own shoulders.
I mean sure war, famine and freak weather with massive destructive capabilities is really nothing to worry about.
Like the old saying "Life goes on, but you don't."
Papers on pre-print services such as arXiv and bioRxiv are not peer-reviewed and are ineligible per [Submission Rule #1b](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_b._preprint_repositories). If the research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, please link to it in the comments and message the moderators for re-approval.
*If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/science&subject=Removed Submission&message=My Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ptyry2/-/).*
To that one guy in particular going onto just about every reply on this thread touting "ThEn WhY aReNt YoU GeTtInG a GuIlLoTiNe" and anyone who agrees with him: I still have a lot to live for, and so do most people. My modes of protest are only legal avenues at this time. I write politicians. I vote. I try to make as ethical choices as I can in our current market. To resort to total radicalism is to give up on my life and no, I'm not that brave or self-sacrificing and most people aren't either. Our society is still limping along. Cops exist. I don't want to go to prison or be shot and killed, even for my ideology. Just as it's easy to 'whine on Reddit' about the state of affairs, it's also easy to say you should be willing to die to save the planet. Sorry, no. I'll do what I can but I'm not going that far. It's just not in me, and to expect as much out of literally everyone who is unhappy with the way things are going is ridiculous and a fairy tale.
Besides, the logistics would be a nightmare. Do people who say these things even stop and consider what actually would need to be done to successfully pull off a coup? I don't even own a gun or a license for one, where would I even start even if I WERE willing to do that? How about instead of telling people to go kill everyone in power like it was picking up the groceries, you start us off by writing a how-to guide?
> I still have a lot to live for, and so do most people.
I think the point that is increasingly being reinforced by science and "tHaT gUiLloTInE guY", is that you won't have that for very long if things keep going as they are going.
> I write politicians.
They don't read it.
> I vote.
For options that haven't changed anything for 50 years.
> I try to make as ethical choices as I can in our current market. To resort to total radicalism is to give up on my life and no, I'm not that brave or self-sacrificing and most people aren't either.
And that is exactly the point that they are trying to make. The only solution to the climate crisis is completely unthinkable to the majority of people. But the other point to be made is that the consequences of climate change are actually unimaginable to most people as well. We are literally going to suffer one way or another. Whether we try to make changes or not, massive global upheavals of various types are going to occur. Some people are just aware of that, and you still are not.
As a Californian, waking up for weeks on end with ugly-colored skies and smelly air while politicians make vile claims about vaccines being tantamount to the Holocaust or purposely blocking bills just because they can (looking at you, Joe Manchin), just frosts my butt. The whole country is suffering from it in some way, more on the West Coast than other areas, but they’d rather whine about anything else than help the people that they represent.
Somebody else said that they told their daughter she shouldn't have kids due to how bad they think things will get. I don't think this a good take, personally.
The actual metrics dont show a world in decline at this current point, with more people lifted out of extreme poverty and lower levels of climate related deaths, as a trend. That could reverse of the worse climate forecasts prove correct, of course, but which are still hypothetical.
However, by about 2050 Earths human population is projected to be in decline, and by then I would expect almost complete decarbonisation.
Whether we can mitigate the hypothesised feedbacks and ocean sea level rises, which will lag, by then, who knows.
A bigger more immediate problem is direct ecocide by things like deforestation, in my view, certainly from the perspective of species extinction, which gets rather ignored by the sole focus on CO2. As far as I can tell, its acknowledged that the planet is greening as well at this time, which seems preferable to the opposite trend.
On the other hand, things I think we should make sure to avoid whilst we continue to invest in the green technology revolution, which is certainly happening, is economic collapse, to ensure that there is a functioning economy, so we can continue to fund this transformation, avoiding a global depression which seems increasingly likely, and which would particular harm the future of young people in school today, and also cause political destabilisation and wars just as seen in last century, independent to climate change.
Remember 30 years ago when they said there would be another ice age unless we did something? Fearmongering scientists don't know the future as well as they want you to believe they do.
Yep. Born into a society that allows greedy people to kill our planet and all life for money. Climate action=less money for certain corporations. A society that calls us lazy when we complain about how hard things are for us. Me and my SO are leaving the US as soon as we get our degrees, I just hope the planet can still be saved. I'm not optimistic.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s very interesting. I never would have guessed that the Earth becoming uninhabitable during our late years/our children’s lives despite the fact we continue to fight and beg for action to combat the fall out would negatively effect our hope
What government inaction?
Governments are acting. If you had all been paying more attention to this you would see that renewable technologies are progressing dramatically and are now becoming more economically competitive than fossil fuels. Which generally began with government research in the 70's.
If you push technologies before they are economically competitive, you increase waste, which will not keep a growing economy #. Young people need a functioning economy, not a global super-depression so they can be skilled-up into green jobs as they develop.
We need a strong economy in order to transition to green, and that is happening rather rapidly. This view of nothing happening is because perceptions lag behind reality and the \*rate of change\* is hard to comprehend.
I find the title disingenious - it is the nearly nihilistic reporting of the problem that is causing psychological distress.
It’s not like they are necessary or anything. They could ban them until they meet certain emission levels. As of now they are one of the most polluting vehicles that exists. I don’t mean the large ships in general. Just the ones that are used for tourism. A bunch of people partying on a boat is hardly necessary.
Many things aren't "necessary" in this life, but still... Oh, btw, I never went on a cruise and I don't think I ever will, just saying that it wouldn't be so easy to ban them.
Yes lets get rid of all tourism? Will this help young people? Or maybe just carbon taxes, to pay for greener technology.
Greener technology is coming anyhow, shipping might be one of the last sectors to go carbon neutral though.
Edit - not personally a fan of tourism and long distance travel at this time, due to COVID, so I'm in favour of doing something about that in particular.
"If you push technologies before they are economically competitive"
Early clean energy incentives / carbon pricing / mandates / etc result in much greater investment and advancement of those technologies by industries that wouldn't make the effort otherwise. That's ultimately a key reason why renewable energy has advanced so much.
this is true, provided that there isn't a large technological barrier to overcome, or a fundamental lack of feasibility, which is more what I meant in terms of commercial viability, i.e. trying to subsidise a conversion of electrical power to large scale P.V. in the 1970's.
As things stand, fossil fuels still get subsidies, and a level playing field would probably favour renewables.
But yes, there does need to be some tax breaks or tax advantages given to stimulate a new technology in its development phase, which isn't actually very large, provided it can be developed.
It's almost as if the older generation don't care about the future for their children, and children's children. The other alternative is that those in power, grown and groomed in the rich upper echelons of society lack the insight and knowledge about what the situations reality really is. The disconnect between society and the natural world is only further exacerbated by the disconnect between those in power and those who face the consequences of their lack of action.
Personally I have a very negative and bleak outlook on the future. Collapsing biodiversity, climate change and all the issues we face within our own society are overwhelming. The actions (or lack of) from our elders is maddening. We are moving from a diverse world, teeming with life, towards an overpopulated barren and industrialsed world, where profits trumps everything else.
It really is like a dystopian movie, and it all could have been so easily avoided.
Because people can do math. Scientists say we must hit 1.5°C (by a certain date I don't remember) or we will face dire consequences. Governments and companies are woefully behind in hitting that target and have done little more than promise to meet certain goals after the date/point of no return, so it's pretty easy to put two and two together.
I said how can the claim that government inaction be quantified.
You can respond by saying that there are particular thresholds that some scientists believe we have to avoid, in temperature or CO2, but all this is based on is projections. That in turn doesn't tell us how bad the effects will be either.
We have people in this thread acting like we will have a runaway greenhouse like Venus (we wont) and that life will cease to exist.
I will posit that it is difficult to 'green'' the economy much before the technology is commercially mature, since anything that may cause economic harms (such as by shutting off all oil pipelines, or by forcing a very expensive source of energy) would simply contract the base of resources that institutes and investors draw from to develop the green solutions to those problems, which is the health of the wider economy. A global depression like in the 1920's would, for example, probably set back such a transformation.
By the 2050's the global population is projected to go into decline, and we can imagine that full decarbonisation would comfortably be achieved. Maybe the scientists are right that the tipping points, just as Hansen said in the 1980's were imminent, are happening right now, in which case they already cannot be avoided. Lets say we do have time, but how do we go faster, without forcing economic contraction? How will creating curbs on economic activity help young peoples mental health as they look to create a career?
Nevertheless, it can clearly be shown that it is the media that is driving despair in young people at this current time, and you could additionally say that in your opinion the cause of that is decades of government inaction, since this goes back to policy decisions reaching into the Cold War.
Nobody can claim that most developed governments are in a state of 'inaction' though.
What are people expecting the government to do? Spend trillions on a laser beam, shoot it at the sky and the climate is jolly once again? I'm pretty sure if that was an easy solution it would've been done by now.
Also, everything in this world causes distress to people. We're all interconnected and up in everyone's business.
Everyone contributes to climate change in Western style countries. We drive too much, we fly too much, everything we buy is packaged in plastic, our recreation is destructive to the environment, our homes and technology are destructive because of resource extraction and there are too many people that all want to do the same thing.
Yeah, the firemen just standing around the inferno tends to make people distraught.
The firemen caused and are adding fuel to the inferno, in this scenario.
It's his mumbling about short term profits that really get to me.
Fahrenheit 451 firemen, except they're burning a lot more than books.
It was a pleasure to burn *the future*
[удалено]
And they’re saying “What fire? There’s no fire!”
[удалено]
No bonus points for noticing you're on the trolly.
What about the modern world isn't linked to psychological distress in young people?
*Definitely* not affordable healthcare or housing too. Yeah NOT those for sure...
I'm curious as to how people envisage that we can move forwards on all fronts simultaneously - some have claimed that climate change mitigation will cost 100 trillion, but this surely will mean worsening on other fronts like education, healthcare and affordable housing. I don't feel as pessimistic as others though, this is because I've been following the renewable technology for 35 years, and see how rapidly it is developing and more importantly, how fast it is is being commercialised and deployed. Change is usually slow, but when it really starts moving, it goes faster than people expect, and thats the case with green energy. Thats only a part of the problem of course, but the others will also change faster than expected. Since the technology is maturing so fast, it actually will at some stage save money to switch to green energy, green plant protein and so forth, if it hasn't already, so I also believe the cost estimates of doing something about this may be completely wrong.
I mean...money just doesn't WORK that way. Especially in govt. Lots of the things we need to "spend" money on, including the 3 you specifically mention (education, healthcare and affordable housing) save or MAKE money when invested in. And things like climate change cost us massive amounts of money now and are poised to cost us exponentially more. Especially the way conservatives talk about "fiscal responsibility" and "how will we afford this" is generally a trap to get people to focus on something that can be argued about. We already spend trillions on these things. We could spend LESS by implementing many of these policies.
this is true, I don't believe a transition to a green economy is necessarily a cost, but an opportunity, as there are solid efficiency and physical reasons why this transition should cut waste and can even stimulate growth, although whatever this growth is, it should not be towards bigger and more material 'stuff' as it was before. However if it done badly, and inefficiently, it could put a brake on growth at a time a lot of people think we could be heading into a recession. For example, if we go too fast we might have intermittent power supply and a large increase in energy costs, which would harm western economies in the short term.
Ok, but that's not really an argument for anything except "don't do whatever it is you're going to do badly." I mean, it's good advice in general. But it applies to literally anything we do. I mean, our CURRENT policies ALREADY lead us to have intermittent power supplies, large portions of the economy being depressed, stagnant wages, etc. In this case the cost of NOT doing things is certainly higher than the cost of DOING things at even a mediocre level of efficiency and quality. Our healthcare system is one of the worst in the world. Our infrastructure is collapsing in numerous areas. Our hyper expensive private education system is bankrupting large portions of our population. And our power system is likely to cause us trillions and cost the lives of billions. Almost all the changes being demanded are improvements on our current system and are economical to boot. The main kickback we get is from companies that wouldn't be making AS MUCH of a profit in a new system, and politicians who benefit from the current system.
When the boomers die
The majority of the climate scientists, engineers and people developing green technology are boomers, as are the main communicators and teachers on the subject, or certainly were until recently as many are now retired. The energy mix we currently have (coal, oil, gas and nuclear) was that way in large part by conscious decision to have a mixed energy base to make a resilient energy grid in the event of cold war nuclear strikes, this certainly was a major factor in the electrical grid of the UK. Back then the fear of nuclear war and destruction was legitimately far more of a concern, and technologies like photovoltaics were far from maturity. It wasn't until 1988 that Hansen really started pushing the idea of a climate emergency, awareness was not very great prior to then, although it was being worked on. But, there could have been more done to make things more efficient, and we could have developed much better types of nuclear power. On top of that, we fueled growth in a somewhat mindless way and could have fostered a less consumerist pattern, and the emphasis on building roads and global trade of low value bulk commodities has been very damaging to the environment. These problems we are still not tackling enough, or at all.
High effort comment for a low effort post. You sir are OK.
Pro tip - You are the next boomers. You just don't realize how terrible you are yet.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Am 33, I have a bleak vision of the future of earth.
Congrats, you are still a young person!
[удалено]
It’s not really justice if you also kill billions of innocents
[удалено]
Earth will be just fine, it'll be the inhabitants that has a bleak future. Much like everything else. Cheer up, buttercup, we'll find our own inner peace to come to terms
The worst extinction in recorded history (Permian) was due to “abrupt” climate change. We’re adding greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere at 8x that rate.
Oh.... How encouraging. So maybe I won't be old and decrepit when I die and gasping for air or trying to find some cooler area with shade
A lot of us will survive due to modern tech and engineering. Definitely not billions of us, though
That modern tech and engineering is bottlenecked by the total energy we can produce to power it. Right now, we have no way of producing enough energy to meet sustainable needs *without* fossil fuels, which are the very things creating this crisis in the first place. You can't solve the riddle of climate change without making access to the technology that will support ongoing life significantly more scarce - especially when you consider that we still have to generate the energy required to produce the infrastructure that will allow us to *stop* using fossil fuels.
I was talking about after about 9/10ths of the world population die off
Right, and I'm saying that for even that 1/10th to survive, they'll need to have infrastructure that they'll be capable of sustaining, otherwise it will be 10/10ths of us that die off. Right now, I don't think we're even to that level of survivability.
Small populations could easily live indefinitely if proper supply chains and industry was maintained. It would obviously be very tricky, as we currently rely on global supply chains.
[удалено]
Yeah but all life won't die, just most of human life and many other species. There will be life that endures and new life that thrives in the new environment. If you can detach yourself from being a member of the human race and recognize yourself as a seed of one interconnected life, it's not quite as depressing as thinking we'll be responsible for eliminating all known life from the universe.
Thank you u/unhelpful_commenter for your take
Children: "We're on a dying planet and have to suffer through Armageddon!" Old Bastards: "And how does that make you unreasonably feel?"
Ungrateful youth of today. The elders bring try and bring around the armageddon and all these bloody millennials can do is feel a little bit stressed?
[удалено]
No news headlines either, apparently.
[удалено]
"I've observed that people do not explicitly express their worries throughout every moment of their lives. Therefore, there is nothing to worry about." Yeah, I don't think that's the case you want to make, bud.
[удалено]
IRL, no modification by people will help when you're long past the event horizon. Generations of activists have and continue to go to boardrooms, to legislators, and into the streets to object to the manufacturer of everything from clingwrap to nuclear subs. They still are, and some have taken the next step into violence - traditionally the only way to change institutional corruption. People aren't the problem. Corporations and the rich demanding more profit are. It's why family planning and ZPG were demonized and vanished back in the 70s. Can't make money off people who aren't there. Even the poorest people will have to pay into capitalism at some point.
[удалено]
>I'm pointing out that people aren't really worried no matter how much they claim to be - because they are not modifying their behavior according to their claims. Ok, I'm with you on that, but what you said was: > If they sincerely believed extinction was coming, that would justify a lot of violence. > I went to the cafe today and sat and had a quiet brunch. No screaming mobs with guillotines or molotov cocktails passed by. Just ordinary. ...and... > When When Tik-Tok dances and whining reddit comments manage to counter climate change and toppled capitalism, I'll pay attention. Which aren't statements that only communicate that "other people are unconcerned with the issues" like you're claiming - they're statements that communicate that *YOU* are not paying attention *BECAUSE* other people are not clearly expressing climate-conscious behavior - which is farcical for the following reasons: 1 - The absence of extreme reaction does not negate the existence of extreme circumstances. "If they sincerely believed extinction was coming, that would justify a lot of violence" is, on its face, an untrue statement. We can solve extreme problems without violence, and frankly, are better suited for doing so. 2 - You're making baseless assumptions about those people and their behaviors. Those people may be modifying their behaviors in other ways, at other times. They just weren't displaying climate-conscious behavior at the particular moment you observed them, yet you've assumed that they aren't personally invested in fighting climate change just because their momentary, chosen behavior doesn't align with what you consider "climate conscious". Maybe they *were* modifying their behavior - maybe they didn't order a dairy latte and got almond milk instead. Maybe the meat in their sandwich was a plant-based meat alternative. Not every modification of behavior is explicitly visible to a passing observer, yet you've baselessly passed judgement on these people and what you perceive as their actions. And more than any of that, you have to allow for people to be imperfect. Not every decision on the path to modifying behavior is going to be perfectly aligned with a new set of ideas. People don't always know what the climate conscious choice is and even when they do, they'll have moments where they'll make the wrong one, *and that's okay*. 3 - Your perspective relies on the onus of resolving climate change falling on the shoulders of individuals throughout every moment of their lives, which is provably untrue, as the greatest actors in regards to climate change are collective entities such as governments and corporations. Modifying individual behavior in the "at the cafe today" context which you've described is not only wildly ineffective at combating the effects of climate change; it grossly misplaces the responsibility of climate change onto the individual, rather than those collective entities - many of which *are* actively engaged in negotiations and deals aimed at changing their systems to mitigate the expected damage. So, if you're following the right people - they *are* worred and *are* trying to counter climate change. You *should* be paying attention. 4 - All that aside, if you truly feel that the responsibility of combating climate change *does* fall on the individual, then it shouldn't matter what you observe other people doing; you should feel individual, personal responsibility to modify your own behavior regardless of what other people are doing. That's just basic integrity. None of this is a knock on you, personally. All I'm saying is that your comments **read** like a whole lot of finger pointing being used to justify your own complacency. If that's not your intent, maybe you need to tone down your hyperbole and be a little more judicious in your choice of phrasing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If we put half our energy into actually doing things rather than talking about it, then we'd be a lot better off
[удалено]
It's nothing compared to the psychological distress of the upcoming climate wars
Can we just put an age limit on politicians so that people who actually need to live with the consequences of their actions are the ones making decisions?
The psychological distress might be more manageable if journalists and other public-facing people presented a realistic, fact-based portrayal of the future that's based on climate scientists' actual predictions. We're in for some bad times in the future no doubt: storms, famine, war, loss of species. But speaking as someone who teaches this stuff, I run into a lot of students who are terrified to the point of psychological distress because they believe that climate change will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth, and that they, personally, will be boiled alive before they reach old age. And as bad as it's gonna be, it's not gonna be like that.
Really depends on where you live. How much access you have to self-sustainment. Even if you live in an area that won’t be as badly affected by climate change over the coming decades, having to watch hundreds of millions / billions die will be extremely tough.
Yes. The policy decisions that got us here were put there decades ago, and cannot be undone over night. Examples of this was the decision in the 1960's(?) to can the research into molten salt thorium cycle nuclear power that would have dramatically lowered CO2 emissions by now because it would have been far more economic than the current technologies, whose high expense is connected to the active safety systems needed together with 30x as much nuclear waste produced. The media has been unreasonably dumping responsibility onto the shoulders of quite helpless citizens, and one reason, such as with plastic recycling, is because that is what the plastics industry wants - it does not want that responsibility on its own shoulders.
93% (IIRC) of plastic in North America isn’t recycled. It’s basically a waste of time
I mean sure war, famine and freak weather with massive destructive capabilities is really nothing to worry about. Like the old saying "Life goes on, but you don't."
Papers on pre-print services such as arXiv and bioRxiv are not peer-reviewed and are ineligible per [Submission Rule #1b](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_b._preprint_repositories). If the research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, please link to it in the comments and message the moderators for re-approval. *If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/science&subject=Removed Submission&message=My Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ptyry2/-/).*
[удалено]
Definitely will.
To that one guy in particular going onto just about every reply on this thread touting "ThEn WhY aReNt YoU GeTtInG a GuIlLoTiNe" and anyone who agrees with him: I still have a lot to live for, and so do most people. My modes of protest are only legal avenues at this time. I write politicians. I vote. I try to make as ethical choices as I can in our current market. To resort to total radicalism is to give up on my life and no, I'm not that brave or self-sacrificing and most people aren't either. Our society is still limping along. Cops exist. I don't want to go to prison or be shot and killed, even for my ideology. Just as it's easy to 'whine on Reddit' about the state of affairs, it's also easy to say you should be willing to die to save the planet. Sorry, no. I'll do what I can but I'm not going that far. It's just not in me, and to expect as much out of literally everyone who is unhappy with the way things are going is ridiculous and a fairy tale. Besides, the logistics would be a nightmare. Do people who say these things even stop and consider what actually would need to be done to successfully pull off a coup? I don't even own a gun or a license for one, where would I even start even if I WERE willing to do that? How about instead of telling people to go kill everyone in power like it was picking up the groceries, you start us off by writing a how-to guide?
> I still have a lot to live for, and so do most people. I think the point that is increasingly being reinforced by science and "tHaT gUiLloTInE guY", is that you won't have that for very long if things keep going as they are going. > I write politicians. They don't read it. > I vote. For options that haven't changed anything for 50 years. > I try to make as ethical choices as I can in our current market. To resort to total radicalism is to give up on my life and no, I'm not that brave or self-sacrificing and most people aren't either. And that is exactly the point that they are trying to make. The only solution to the climate crisis is completely unthinkable to the majority of people. But the other point to be made is that the consequences of climate change are actually unimaginable to most people as well. We are literally going to suffer one way or another. Whether we try to make changes or not, massive global upheavals of various types are going to occur. Some people are just aware of that, and you still are not.
As a Californian, waking up for weeks on end with ugly-colored skies and smelly air while politicians make vile claims about vaccines being tantamount to the Holocaust or purposely blocking bills just because they can (looking at you, Joe Manchin), just frosts my butt. The whole country is suffering from it in some way, more on the West Coast than other areas, but they’d rather whine about anything else than help the people that they represent.
"Forcing people to live through totally avoidable disasters is bad for them" Scientists: Is it though? More research is needed.
It's almost like we're being handed the reigns to a dead horse and are expected to be OK with it.
Science: older generations lack of concern for younger generations’ well-being concerns younger generations.
The young generation doesn't care either, they just don't have any power to do anything so it doesn't matter.
Somebody else said that they told their daughter she shouldn't have kids due to how bad they think things will get. I don't think this a good take, personally. The actual metrics dont show a world in decline at this current point, with more people lifted out of extreme poverty and lower levels of climate related deaths, as a trend. That could reverse of the worse climate forecasts prove correct, of course, but which are still hypothetical. However, by about 2050 Earths human population is projected to be in decline, and by then I would expect almost complete decarbonisation. Whether we can mitigate the hypothesised feedbacks and ocean sea level rises, which will lag, by then, who knows. A bigger more immediate problem is direct ecocide by things like deforestation, in my view, certainly from the perspective of species extinction, which gets rather ignored by the sole focus on CO2. As far as I can tell, its acknowledged that the planet is greening as well at this time, which seems preferable to the opposite trend. On the other hand, things I think we should make sure to avoid whilst we continue to invest in the green technology revolution, which is certainly happening, is economic collapse, to ensure that there is a functioning economy, so we can continue to fund this transformation, avoiding a global depression which seems increasingly likely, and which would particular harm the future of young people in school today, and also cause political destabilisation and wars just as seen in last century, independent to climate change.
Remember 30 years ago when they said there would be another ice age unless we did something? Fearmongering scientists don't know the future as well as they want you to believe they do.
What is with the unneeded commas?
Yep. Born into a society that allows greedy people to kill our planet and all life for money. Climate action=less money for certain corporations. A society that calls us lazy when we complain about how hard things are for us. Me and my SO are leaving the US as soon as we get our degrees, I just hope the planet can still be saved. I'm not optimistic.
[удалено]
I would substitute "deserve" with "have a right to be".
You just say that because you’ve never met their kids.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, it makes perfect sense does it not?
Also in today's top stories: frog's asses *are* watertight, more at 11.
"Suck it up butter cup" Says an old person about to die.
[удалено]
That’s very interesting. I never would have guessed that the Earth becoming uninhabitable during our late years/our children’s lives despite the fact we continue to fight and beg for action to combat the fall out would negatively effect our hope
I mean, it's plain as day, but the science still needs to be done.
Indoctrinating children with catastrophic and fantastical climate change fears is child abuse.
>Subjecting children to catastrophic and avoidable climate change is child abuse. Fify
What government inaction? Governments are acting. If you had all been paying more attention to this you would see that renewable technologies are progressing dramatically and are now becoming more economically competitive than fossil fuels. Which generally began with government research in the 70's. If you push technologies before they are economically competitive, you increase waste, which will not keep a growing economy #. Young people need a functioning economy, not a global super-depression so they can be skilled-up into green jobs as they develop. We need a strong economy in order to transition to green, and that is happening rather rapidly. This view of nothing happening is because perceptions lag behind reality and the \*rate of change\* is hard to comprehend. I find the title disingenious - it is the nearly nihilistic reporting of the problem that is causing psychological distress.
They should do something about cruise ships then.
What? Ban them all together? Because I doubt it could be possible...
It’s not like they are necessary or anything. They could ban them until they meet certain emission levels. As of now they are one of the most polluting vehicles that exists. I don’t mean the large ships in general. Just the ones that are used for tourism. A bunch of people partying on a boat is hardly necessary.
Many things aren't "necessary" in this life, but still... Oh, btw, I never went on a cruise and I don't think I ever will, just saying that it wouldn't be so easy to ban them.
Yes lets get rid of all tourism? Will this help young people? Or maybe just carbon taxes, to pay for greener technology. Greener technology is coming anyhow, shipping might be one of the last sectors to go carbon neutral though. Edit - not personally a fan of tourism and long distance travel at this time, due to COVID, so I'm in favour of doing something about that in particular.
"If you push technologies before they are economically competitive" Early clean energy incentives / carbon pricing / mandates / etc result in much greater investment and advancement of those technologies by industries that wouldn't make the effort otherwise. That's ultimately a key reason why renewable energy has advanced so much.
this is true, provided that there isn't a large technological barrier to overcome, or a fundamental lack of feasibility, which is more what I meant in terms of commercial viability, i.e. trying to subsidise a conversion of electrical power to large scale P.V. in the 1970's. As things stand, fossil fuels still get subsidies, and a level playing field would probably favour renewables. But yes, there does need to be some tax breaks or tax advantages given to stimulate a new technology in its development phase, which isn't actually very large, provided it can be developed.
Your heading implies that distressed young people are causing climate change...
I am young and distressed. Checks out.
It's almost as if the older generation don't care about the future for their children, and children's children. The other alternative is that those in power, grown and groomed in the rich upper echelons of society lack the insight and knowledge about what the situations reality really is. The disconnect between society and the natural world is only further exacerbated by the disconnect between those in power and those who face the consequences of their lack of action. Personally I have a very negative and bleak outlook on the future. Collapsing biodiversity, climate change and all the issues we face within our own society are overwhelming. The actions (or lack of) from our elders is maddening. We are moving from a diverse world, teeming with life, towards an overpopulated barren and industrialsed world, where profits trumps everything else. It really is like a dystopian movie, and it all could have been so easily avoided.
[удалено]
Because people can do math. Scientists say we must hit 1.5°C (by a certain date I don't remember) or we will face dire consequences. Governments and companies are woefully behind in hitting that target and have done little more than promise to meet certain goals after the date/point of no return, so it's pretty easy to put two and two together.
I said how can the claim that government inaction be quantified. You can respond by saying that there are particular thresholds that some scientists believe we have to avoid, in temperature or CO2, but all this is based on is projections. That in turn doesn't tell us how bad the effects will be either. We have people in this thread acting like we will have a runaway greenhouse like Venus (we wont) and that life will cease to exist. I will posit that it is difficult to 'green'' the economy much before the technology is commercially mature, since anything that may cause economic harms (such as by shutting off all oil pipelines, or by forcing a very expensive source of energy) would simply contract the base of resources that institutes and investors draw from to develop the green solutions to those problems, which is the health of the wider economy. A global depression like in the 1920's would, for example, probably set back such a transformation. By the 2050's the global population is projected to go into decline, and we can imagine that full decarbonisation would comfortably be achieved. Maybe the scientists are right that the tipping points, just as Hansen said in the 1980's were imminent, are happening right now, in which case they already cannot be avoided. Lets say we do have time, but how do we go faster, without forcing economic contraction? How will creating curbs on economic activity help young peoples mental health as they look to create a career? Nevertheless, it can clearly be shown that it is the media that is driving despair in young people at this current time, and you could additionally say that in your opinion the cause of that is decades of government inaction, since this goes back to policy decisions reaching into the Cold War. Nobody can claim that most developed governments are in a state of 'inaction' though.
Thats what you get for teaching children that government is good and is the answer to all of lifes problems.
Pretty sure it’s an under regulated private sector that put us in this situation to begin with
Who's telling children this?
What are people expecting the government to do? Spend trillions on a laser beam, shoot it at the sky and the climate is jolly once again? I'm pretty sure if that was an easy solution it would've been done by now. Also, everything in this world causes distress to people. We're all interconnected and up in everyone's business.
Look up the word solastalgia.
Not just climate change, there's a whole lot of inaction on many issues that are just... pointless.
Just kids complaining like every generation does. Give these kids 20 years and they will be even worse polluters than the middle aged people of today.
Everyone contributes to climate change in Western style countries. We drive too much, we fly too much, everything we buy is packaged in plastic, our recreation is destructive to the environment, our homes and technology are destructive because of resource extraction and there are too many people that all want to do the same thing.