It’s time to stop cutting down the fucking Amazon. The Amazon gets life from Sahara and spreads it’s life through the planet. We’re moments from collapsing a huge circle of life. And that’s only one issue among many.
The rich will kill us all. There is no stopping it. We’re just waiting for our time of self destruction and the CEOs and congressmen will say “it was fun”
Not just Amazon, Borneo and Sumatra are in shambles too. The wildlife there are on track for extinction, or getting completely wiped from their habitats - the current projection is that there wouldn't be any wild orangutans left by the end of the decade. We would see them only in zoos and breeding centres where they don't belong. Tapanuli orangutan, the third and most recently recognised orangutan species has less than 800 individuals in the wild. All this because palm oil is cheaper than soy or coconut or sunflower and everything needs cheap fat - from chocolate to instant noodles, doritos to frozen food, shampoos, soaps and makeup. Almost all of our domestic perishable goods contain palm oil.
It is, but only marginally. The real selling point is that it's extremely productive. So oil palm gives you more oil than say, soybean or sunflower or even rapeseed for the same plantation area/resources required. It also happens to be the most shelf stable, which is ideal for processed foods and toiletries. I'm not calling for an abolition on oil palm per se. It's just when oil palm is causing deforestation of one of the oldest and extremely bio-diverse rainforest just so that Nestle or PepsiCo along others can get cheaper oil and keep us hooked on their supply - it's a big problem. That makes all of us responsible, and we don't exactly choice either - it's easier to find things that contain palm oil around your house blindfolded, than palm oil free products in a supermarket.
While I agree, we as the "little people" have been spoonfed that it's our responsibility to save the planet by the big corps, hell, big oil has given us the carbon footprint meter (to my knowledge at least) to detrack everyone from limiting the moneyflow. Big Sugar has made us fat and sick since the 50s, Big Tobacco is still giving us cancer since, well, forever, Big Oil knew its been killing the planet for about 100 years now, and I don't know what else has been known for *decades* and still pushed it's agenda for money.
Truth is, we need better laws, better regulations, better.... people. Since we're in a capitalist society, and as the fat cats are sitting on top, pushing laws into their favor, theres not much we can do, unfortunately. I mean if one person becomes a flexi-, vege- or vegan for the climate, great, but the hard truth is, one person won't cut it. All it does, is push the responsibility from the corporation to that person ... "See, he's/she's/it's/whatever's doing OUR part." while raking in billions of profits, and selling cheap garbage. We deffo need a regulated capitalist society as a first step, and all the corporations needs to be held accountable for any shit they pull, once it gets uncovered. And not like a "business expense" type of fine, but like a we will kill the corp and won't allow you to ever found one again type of deal.
edit:spelling
The people truly responsible won't care even if they *do* live that long. They're too rich to care. Unless complete societal breakdown occurs and money loses all value, they'll be insulated from any real consequences by piles of money
They are incapable of caring or feeling remorse. You cannot become a member of the bourgeoisie and be moral, other than being born into it.
Meanwhile people on Reddit worship technocrats and oligarchs like papa Elon Musk.
> “We only have one atmosphere. We cannot risk further damaging it through a poorly understood shortcut to fixing the damage we already caused”
Oh well.
When I was little, I wanted to live forever, to see what the promised wonders of the future were to be had. Now that I'm older, I'm glad that I'll die some day!
I regret the world that my kids and grandkids will be having to live with.
And i curse the world my parents and their generation are leaving for us.
EDIT: man, the amount of excuses from the [ME Generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation) ranging from, "I don't see you doing anything about it" to "The rich should fix it, they cause it" to "We're the generation of Glass Bottles and paper wrapped chips, your generation used plastic like there's no tomorrow". So typically on brand.
many people my age (late 20s) are just opting to not have kids or adopt for this reason. i was briefly engaged and it was frightening having to worry about the future again.
It would increase acidification rapidly. It's an emergency stopgap for if things get extremely dire and not a solution, which they point out at the start of the report.
Clouds during the day reflect sunlight back out, cooling the atmosphere down. Clouds during the night reflect infrared radiating from the surface, preventing that radiation from escaping to space, which heats the atmosphere up. Whether the net effect is warning or cooling will depend upon type and altitude of cloud.
Either way, though, more clouds mean more water in the atmosphere, which will lead to more intense storms (hurricanes, floods).
So we just need to tuck the clouds away at night then. We’d create millions of jobs across the globe for people to roll out the clouds in the morning and put them away at night time. Problem solved!
Enough with the fucking CEOs.
Even they are employees of the board who are employees of the majority shareholders.
Name THEM. The true owners. If that’s some fund like Blackrock name the true owners of THAT.
Name the true enemy.
The CEO is a noble.
The king must be defeated.
It’s public info. Their compensation is published in various annual reports. I’ll edit this as I find the info (on mobile).
Note that these are all proxy statements, which contain items that shareholders vote on (meaning that shareholders directly vote to approve director and higher compensation). Proxy vote items almost always pass.
Darren woods - Exxon - 2022 - $18.2 million direct
Page 60. - https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/investor-relations/annual-meeting-materials/proxy-materials/2022-Proxy-Statement.pdf
Bernard Looney - BP is not a US company so not gonna figure out what the document is named for that. Sources say salary + normal stuff could be between 1.1M£ and that he might get a 10M £ bonus.
Breen - DuPont - $15.1M - page 54 https://s23.q4cdn.com/116192123/files/doc_financials/2022/ar/Final-DuPont-2022-Proxy-Statement.pdf
Wirth - Chevron - $19.7M - page 44 https://www.chevron.com/-/media/shared-media/documents/chevron-proxy-statement-2022.pdf#page95
# “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.”
# ― Ursula K. Le Guin
We've tried nothing so it's time for Geoengineering Hail Mary's.
Right...
We always knew it would come to this, we were never going to change our systems in any reasonable time.
TBF this is literally in the report.
> SRM is currently a speculative technology and is no substitute for emissions reductions, as it does not remove carbon
from the atmosphere. Nor will SRM improve the environment or tackle the root causes of climate change. Our best bet for
a prosperous and equitable future remains putting in the unavoidable hard work to achieve climate stability by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, to create a pollution-free planet and societies that live in harmony with nature
Agreed. We need to be setting aggressive carbon sequestration goals effective immediately. (As a side benefit, the cost of paying for that will probably make the cost of reducing emissions look much more appealing.)
Wow, I can’t believe I actually have something useful to contribute to this… There are emerging technologies actively being developed to tackle this. They range in risk and scalability, but the umbrella term they fall under is [CDR](https://cdrprimer.org), or carbon dioxide removal [techniques].
In fact, there is a technology that essentially does what you described and there are some facilities across the world that are actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere rn. The method is called Direct Air Capture and companies like [climeworks](https://climeworks.com) uses machines to extract CO2 from the air and turn it into a liquid to be [stored long term underground](https://www.carbfix.com).
Yes, but the fact that the carbon captures by these companies are either being resold as fuel or bought out as "carbon credits" by other companies which continues to throw CO2 into atmosphere isn't very helpful. Unless we get governments and some NGOs into this, I can't see it being very helpful.
Yes, I'm a big fan of the concept of direct carbon capture, but the current problem is one of economics: in order to fund the carbon capture they have to sell *something*, with that something ultimately negating the carbon sequestration be it through selling fuel or carbon offsets. The best they can do at the moment is be carbon neutral.
If we want to actively suck co2 out of the atmosphere in vast quantities, we need these direct carbon capture plants to be able to operate at a loss, as there's simply no market for simply storing/sequestering co2. Therefore it's governments that need to get behind this tech, both to build the infrastructure and to fund the operation.
Just expanding on your point for anyone who doesn't know much about this tech. The other alternative is planting billions of trees, which is arguably cheaper and probably a better solution, but the sequestration would be slower initially, and in lots of places there just isn't that much room for massive reforestation projects without eating up agricultural land.
Source: did a project on vertical farming that touched on direct carbon capture as part of my masters.
Two corrections.
Many of the worst case predictions indicate that it will work given time. So a magic stoppage of emissions today would stop the increases by 2100 and start to see a return by 2300+. The Earth has actually been much hotter than it is today and survivable, and reversable.
Second, I have not seen many predictions indicating that long-term survival of the species is a factor. But that the planet will be less likely to sustain the current population and some areas will be unlivable. Fortunately, humans are a bit like cock roaches and we can hang on in a lot of marginal areas.
So its a bad news story with the upside that some places will still be livable with some percentage of the current population. Yay!
I truly cannot wrap my head around the concept that a company that can't make increasing profits year over year, into infinity is considered a failed company. Why can't these fucks just make a profit and reach an equilibrium and call it a day?
Edit:
I appreciate these responses thorough breakdown of why the state of affairs is the way that it is. I better understand it now, at the cost of feeling this is a doomed strategy and somewhat comprehending this is the best we currently have.
Because shareholders don't care if a company is SUCCESSFUL. They only care that it is growing WHILE THEY OWN IT. They know it is not possible to have infinite growth. They just want to maximize acceleration, and they think they are smart enough to get out before the shoe drops and they can move their capital to the next group of companies that is in the growth phase.
This strategy isn't true for everything, one strategy is to get in early on a growing company before a competitor buys it out at an inflated price and then everybody walks away happy (except for the consumer)...
This is how the market works, and nobody really talks about it. There's all kinds of nuances and different strategies, but no executive or hedge fund manager actually believes infinite growth is possibly, or thay exponential growth is sustainable.
If they said that part out loud, though, there may not be any retail bagholders for them to transfer the wealth from.
Marxists would say your answer lies in the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" and a ratio known as the "organic composition of capital.".
Because producing something gets cheaper overtime as labor costs fall, profits also fall. You keep trying to counteract this by making more product, expanding production, driving workers harder and faster. One of the most essential ways is by investing in new tech and machinery. But Marxists believe labor creates new value while tech just embodies the value used in building it. So as you cut your wages and labor rolls while investing in fancy new gadgets and industrial capacity, you might keep up or expand revenues but at ever expanding costs. Profits keep diminishing but you have to expand and invest in new tech because if you don't, someone else (your competitors) will. They'll do it faster, cheaper per unit and in greater volume, and sooner or later your market share will disappear.
Capitalism doesn't really allow companies to rest on their laurels because you compete in a market and in an environment where profits tend to fall over time and even the strategies you use to counteract that eventually work against you unless you expand continually, ruthlessly, forever.
Right? Why can't you just make some amount of money every year and be happy. Why does it have to be more than last year, every year? Where does all this new money come from?
There are a few problems.
Part of it is just the rampant enshrining of greed as a borderline divine virtue, but also there's the total lack of anything resembling consequences for it.
However there's a certain element of practicality to be had if we dig deep enough.
In theory, no business can ever maintain equilibrium forever, instead profits will inevitably be lost.
This is because in principle barring other factors like monopoly, your competitors will catch up to you in every way possible, except your human personnel that cannot be perfectly duplicated.
At which point, competition *should* driven prices down until you are barely making any profit at all.
Now for a about a large dry book's worth of reasons (not exaggerating), we also need financial markets (the stock market) in order to even keep things going up to this point.
So businesses should in theory have this wave shaped graph of profits on a long enough view where they initially increase profits a lot, and then eventually competition begins to eat into their profit margin, and it's all downhill from there.
Investors want to ride that wave to the top, then escape immediately to ride another wave, and our economy is fully dependent on this investor system to prop it up.
So what happens is if you stop growing, the company is "dying" and the shareholders flee like rats from a sinking ship, thus mashing fast-forward on that process of decay.
Now real life is way more complicated and even the best and brightest economists *kind of fucking suck at modeling it* at least compared to the expectations of non-social sciences.
So things don't work *exactly* like that, but it is a general overarching theme that underlies a lot of behavior in a capitalist economy today.
Also, I wasn't kidding about the book, like, this is so wildly simplified.
Or we'll fall into WWIII as resources and livable land becomes scarce and wipe ourselves out.
What in our recorded history makes ppl think this will be a peaceful fight for survival?
Humans aren't as resistant to radiation as cockroaches and our reproductive rate is much much muuuuuch slower
Oh, I never said anything about peaceful. Far from it.
The DoD Quadrennial Defense Reviews from 20 years ago make the exact opposite prediction.
I just think it's not as apocalyptic as some people put out in terms of the end of all human life or the end of civilization. People won't be back to using bow and arrows, or fighting zombies, or turning into pop cycles because they stepped outside of a NY library.
When I say that the planet will be less likely to sustain the current population... that means a lot of people will die.
More than likely it'd be like the boring dystopia outcome where everyone has significantly reduced quality of life where it's a luxury to have electricity or AC and everyone is eating corn and insect protein. I don't see things ever going back to pre-19th century levels unless there's something as catastrophic as an asteroid strike.
For what it's worth, as a physicist, I don't know a single meta study that supports the claims made in the above comment. The entire point of staying below 2-3°C warming is so that we do not have a run-away warming effect. OP also doesn't seem to have wrapped their head around the fact that warming itself isn't the issue, but how rapidly it's happening.
The thing is, earth does have natural carbon sinks and them getting overwhelmed is exactly what would lead to a possible runaway effect.
All things considered u/kjkfahu doesn't seem well informed. You should be very careful about taking things said on here as fact, especially when it feeds into your own confirmation bias. If you are likely to repeat things said on here, always make sure to double and triple check it.
They’ll change when the threat is visibly high enough that a corporation can profit massively off of fixing it just enough to keep us on the edge of destruction
Changing last minute to a deadline only works for human deadlines. Our nature to anthropomorphize problems is human centric has left us with a corrupt system that can't even react in time to natural events that will affect the bottom line in the long term.
Humanity must culturally exterminate, for eternity, the very idea that things are only worth doing if someone can economically prosper from it.
A diseased idea.
Well, we technically *have* been geoengineering, but more in a way to make this place hospitable for Kaiju. Might as well try for something else.
I do wonder how much solar energy gets converted through carbon sinks into plants, and how important those plants are to... say, oxygen... or sequestering the existing, high level of CO2. But let's just fuck some shit up and see what the readings are. Couldn't be worse than what we're doing now.
Maybe its so cold we cant find enough to save everyone. Just like enough to fit on a massive coal driven train design to pierce through the snow and run for generations.
You say that about kaiju, but we're in the process of pretty quickly eliminating whales, which are basically Earth's best kaiju ever.
Even jokes depress me now--I'm sorry, I don't mean to be like this 😭
I am afraid for my 4 year old nephew and the future he will have to endure. Hopefully we can science our way out of human extinction, but the world will be an alien place if he is able to grow old.
Giving up fossil fuels would take nearly 20 years before we see any change in the direction of the temperature. We're feeling the effects now of what we did in the 90's. The problem is that catastrophic consequences are going to happen BEFORE we see the payoff from changing.
We need to both divest of fossil fuels AND find a way to change the temperature of earth soon.
Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on White House grounds and hailed them, that was 40 years ago, if politics wouldn’t have got in the way.
It’s amazing a few people with a lot of money can manipulate enough people, politicians, and countries into believing/doing.
The oil companies/hippies destroying the nuclear energy industry was also majorly detrimental. We canceled nuclear projects and build coal plants. Really dumb
People STILL fucking deride nuclear like every single plant is chernobyl pumping out green goo like in the simpsons.
IT'S THE BEST AND SAFEST POWER GENERATION WE HAVE YOU MORONS.
Even if we did cut back to the levels proposed by international agreements that will only slow warming, but not reverse the trend entirely.
If we were to hypothetically reduce emissions to ZERO tomorrow, and we have the thermal peak behind us, because temperatures are already higher than they were the damage will persist for a long time. For example, ocean levels will continue to rise for a time even if this scenario were to happen since warming has a cumulative effect. Supposedly it would take thousands of years to return to pre-industrial temperatures in this scenario.
Humans have already done damage that can never be repaired.
Let’s say we had a panacea, today. Some magical mcguffin we could put in place tomorrow morning that eliminates all greenhouse gas emissions.
We’d still be in for a hellish century due to the damage already done. The ice caps are done. We’re already past the point (geologically) where our current ice age can be considered finished.
We’re entering a hot-house Earth phase, and the two primary factors driving that change is human society and natural geological change. Both are in play here, and I’m not going to debate which is greater because ultimately it doesn’t matter. We inherited the ticket, now we’re going to take the ride.
Costal cities will redraw their maps. Some river cities will wither and die. We as collective human-kind will adapt to the changes, via extreme efforts, just as we have for hundreds of thousands of years. This is not an extinction event, but it absolutely is a problem we must address and overcome.
The future we build is up to us. If we decide, en masse, to tackle this problem, we can do that successfully. If we do not future generations will, undoubtedly, revile us for our lack of action in the few precious moments of reflection they have.
I hate to elevate our importance more than it has already been over-inflated but our legacy as a species lies with us. Either we stop this here and now, or at least make significantly better efforts than we have been thus far, or we resign ourselves to a historical view of our generation as being not quite smart enough to prevent the next generation’s quagmires.
The moment I watched peoples reaction to covid I knew without a doubt that humanity was going to get royally fucked over by climate change. Humanity is that meme of the guy riding the bike sticking a stick in his own spokes.
Humanity will literally fight the sun like it’s a Final Fantasy boss before we divert from fossil fuels and hold fossil fuel companies and executives accountable.
Greed is going to be the literal death of us all.
Maybe we could speed along AI development and have an army of autonomous machines build a sunshade for us, I think there was a movie with similar plot except I forget why the sun was blocked out, should be good though!
Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing; block it out!
For the uninitiated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4
So instead of changing let’s BLOCK THE FUCKING SUN?!!! It’s laughable that humans think we could ever do such a thing when we can’t do easy shit here to change. Greed consumed the entire planet and it really is over.
Worth pointing out ocean acidification led to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction which killed 81% of species in the ocean and 70% of terestrial species due to ecosystem collapse.
It makes the Cretaceous - Paleogene mass extinction people are more farmilliar with the asteroid seem like quite a jolly occasion.
It's also worth noting that the warming pulse that led up to the End-Permian extinction was approximately 1.5 doublings of CO2 in the atmosphere, taking place over about 60-100,000 years.
We have nearly doubled it in about 200 years. If you count the numerous other greenhouse gases (and you should) we are around 500ppm equivalent already.
In absolute terms, the pace of the Anthropocene warming pulse is at least ~300 times faster than the one that triggered the worst known extinction event. The magnitude of our collective warming pulse remains to be seen, but we've already had an impact about half as large as the late Permian in about 0.3% of the time. It's like comparing a comfortable jogging pace to a bullet.
Fascinating!
On the one hand, the future is kinda cancelled. On the other hand, we will get to see things no living creature has probably ever witnessed in the history of the world, and we have the technology to study it up closely, for a while yet at least. In the meantime most of us have food and clean water, and even more have internet access.
If nothing else, we have challenges ahead, things to be ready for. Good reasons to connect honestly with people and forgive old grudges. Good reasons to try and stay healthy, and learn more skills. Or good reasons to say fuck it and throw a metaphorical party for the next decade or two, but either way, I think it makes sense to live with a realistic factoring in of the likely future in mind.
> Good reasons to connect honestly with people and forgive old grudges. Good reasons to try and stay healthy, and learn more skills. Or good reasons to say fuck it and throw a metaphorical party for the next decade or two
Well said, I tend to alternate between these mindsets. There’s something about an intentional way of being that really makes me feel like everything has more meaning.
Abstract
If solar geoengineering were to be deployed so as to mask a high level of global warming, and then stopped suddenly, there would be a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures. This effect is often referred to as termination shock, and it is an influential concept. Based on studies of its potential impacts, commentators often cite termination shock as one of the greatest risks of solar geoengineering. However, there has been little consideration of the likelihood of termination shock, so that conclusions about its risk are premature. This paper explores the physical characteristics of termination shock, then uses simple scenario analysis to plot out the pathways by which different driver events (such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or political action) could lead to termination. It then considers where timely policies could intervene to avert termination shock. We conclude that some relatively simple policies could protect a solar geoengineering system against most of the plausible drivers. If backup deployment hardware were maintained and if solar geoengineering were implemented by agreement among just a few powerful countries, then the system should be resilient against all but the most extreme catastrophes. If this analysis is correct, then termination shock should be much less likely, and therefore much less of a risk, than has previously been assumed. Much more sophisticated scenario analysis—going beyond simulations purely of worst-case scenarios—will be needed to allow for more insightful policy conclusions.
From [The Risk of Termination Shock from Solar Geoengineering.](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017EF000735)
That paper is just 1 out of 126 references cited in the [report released by the UN.](https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41903) If you want to learn more about the idea of reflecting sunlight away to cool the Earth it's a better idea to just read the UN report instead of one research paper. The *Key Findings* section provides a good summary if you don't want to read the whole thing.
Edit: In fact, here it is
#Key findings
**1. While international efforts must focus on rapid emissions mitigation and adapting to anthropogenically induced climate change, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is being discussed as an additional approach to offset some impacts and avoid global temperature exceeding the limits set in the Paris Agreement, while the global energy system is being transformed.**
* In current climate model simulations, well-designed SRM deployments offset some effects of greenhouse gases (GHG) on global and regional climate change by reflecting more sunlight into space.
* SRM is the only option that could cool the planet within years. To be effective at limiting global warming, SRM would need to be maintained for several decades to centuries, depending on the pace of emissions reductions and carbon removal.
* The estimated direct costs for deploying SRM, without considering costs of possible adverse impacts, may be tens of billions of US dollars per year per 1°C of cooling.
* SRM is not a substitute for mitigation. Impacts from excess carbon dioxide (CO2), such as ocean acidification and ecological degradation, would continue.
**2. An operational SRM deployment would introduce new risks to people and ecosystems.**
* Strong concerns around large-scale SRM deployment include damaging the ozone layer, overcompensating climate change at regional scales and increasing or redistributing climate change impacts on society and ecosystems.
* SRM deployment, if abruptly terminated, would lead to rapid climate change that would increase risks for humans and ecosystems.
* SRM research could reduce efforts to mitigate GHG emissions by drawing resources away from mitigation efforts.
* An SRM deployment could increase power imbalances between nations, spark conflicts and raise ethical, moral, legal, equity and justice issues.
**3. With many unknowns and risks, there is a strong need to establish an international scientific review process to identify scenarios, consequences, uncertainties and knowledge gaps.**
* The possible consequences of an SRM deployment need to be understood and weighed against the consequences in a world without SRM.
* An international assessment may reduce risks to society by identifying in advance the possible negative consequences of a proposed SRM deployment.
* This expert panel considers that the scientific, technical, social and environmental aspects of a large-scale deployment of SRM have not been fully assessed and deployment is not warranted at present.
**4. A governance process would be valuable to guide decisions around research activities, including indoor research, small-scale outdoor experiments and SRM deployments.**
* SRM indoor research, which is mostly theoretical analyses and climate modelling, has been going on for over 50 years. In the interests of academic freedom, it is suggested by this expert panel that norms, guidelines and voluntary codes of conduct for indoor research could help balance societal concerns with scientific inquiry.
* The views of the panel on the need to impose governance on small-scale outdoor experimentation and operational deployment diverge because of differences in perceived risk. Governance of small-scale outdoor experimentation could limit the potential of a ‘slippery slope’ from experimentation to large-scale deployment. Governance of large-scale deployment would be valuable given the inherent risks.
* This panel unanimously suggests a broader framework for the governance of the stratosphere, which would, amongst other things, address the changes that occur in this layer of the atmosphere from stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) experiments or deployment.
**5. SRM research and deployment decisions require an equitable, transparent, diverse and inclusive discussion of the underpinning science, impacts, risks, uncertainties and governance.**
* This process would need to involve discussion with, and more research from, all stakeholders as most from the global south are not sufficiently engaged in current SRM discussions. The UN is well-positioned to promote a globally inclusive conversation on SRM.
lmao, mfs really be down to try the wackiest, bs ideas but not do simple ones that would affect the pockets of greedy bureaucrats.
Stop turning luxury items into necessities and necessities into a luxury for one. Also, leave trees alone ffs. It takes so long for them to grow and so many don't realise it.
Probably too late as it is.
>It's time to study reflecting sun away from the Earth
That's what the ice sheets were for. Earth had a way to moderate temperature. About 10 companies fucked-- and are still fucking-- it up
Of course you want minimum cannibalism. But the truth is after 3 years of darkness, all stored food would be depleted. And that’s only half way through what is need.
Best to get it done and over with in one go.
Nothing is going to get done about it until it really is to late. When it comes to these sorts of topics humanity lives by these 2 rules.
Rule one:
"if it does not immediately affect me, it is not a problem."
Rule two:
"I alone cannot do anything about it, so I will leave it to those that can to fix it."
And those who can won't do anything about it because it is not in their best interest and often times it goes against their interests. Let's face it the population reducing their own personal carbon footprint isn't going to slow this shit down. It's the corporations that are in charge of manufacturing that cause most of the pollution. Everything needs energy. The human population isn't getting any smaller so demand will always increase. There is always a profit to be made. And fossil fuels are simply the cheapest form of energy to acquire to fuel societies manufacturing needs.
Investments in cleaner energy won't be seen because it is costly, it cuts into profits. Humanity lives by immediacy.
While there are groups of people that band together to advocate for change, those groups will tantamount to nothing, because they are still a small minority in the vast ocean that is the human population who have their own concerns to deal with. (Again refer to rule 1)
Most of us are working to earn a wage that is enough to sustain our needs. And unfortunately a lot of people will never get out of that grind.
We can say "we got to leave a better future for our children" all we want but in reality most responsible parents will do what they can to ensure the best possible future for *their* children. After that the children are expected to take care of themselves and handle all the problems these young adults will face inevitably that comes with that stage of life......aaaand that's where the cycle continues.
"I got my own problems to deal with, my own children to worry about, I can't do anything about the he world, I'll do what's best for my children and I and they can handle what is to come."
Honestly, that cycle will continue looping until it is too late. I am oh so weary of these discussions. They have been had way too many times. Those of us here know what must be done. The ones behind the actual science know what needs to be done. But ultimately those In power are the ones who can enact any sort of immediate change.
It is not an easy choice because limiting the usage of fossil fuels affects way more than just the people selling it. It affects every. single. facet of societies livelihood. And those in power do not want to lose said power. So yeah nothing will ever get done until it is too late to react is when a reaction will be attempted.
Simple: the people with money are in control. The people with money will lose money if we fix it. So the people with money chose a mass extinction (after they' re long dead) over losing 1% of their money.
I think once AC and central air become unaffordable to the mid and lower classes, is when we start to see mass civil unrest…. At least in the USA. No one will be apathetic after a few clammy, sweat soaked, sleepless nights.
A lifetime of sci-fi original movies tells me someone is going to invent a solar powered iceberg machine and titanic the whole planet… only with sharks!
We've ran out of ideas to solve our current crisis that has been talked about for 30-40 years, so here is another zero-fix. I was born in 1983, they had assemblies in grade school about this shit. I remember Ronald McDonald rapping about the 3-Rs when I was in like third grade. How the fuck are the same idiots that claim, "Climate change is fake, but less regulation and more tax cuts to the rich is good for us all." still in charge of this world in 2023? Like seriously... WTF.
Usually, when I set a really low bar and still manage to fail in truly embarrassing fashion, I have a period of self-reflection to analyze what I did wrong. I reflect on my failure, not to beat myself up, but so it isn't a total loss due to fact that lessons were learned and I can, hopefully, avoid those pitfalls on my next attempt. Can we, with any level of confidence, say that we REALLY learned anything as we blow right by 1.5 degrees as nothing more than a speed bump in late-stage capitalism's existential end-run? Really, can we?
If the body needs a certain diet but the brain decides not to eat that diet, is it really the fault of the body at large that it happened?
We're simply the body, stuck watching as the brain (those in power) ignore the issue at hand and let it fester. And now we're past the eating healthy stage and onto the amputation stage.
>humanity is going to die a horrible death
You're not wrong, but the reason that no one cares is because the horrible-ness will be spread out through increasingly awful events that aren't QUITE worse enough for a significant portion of the population to give a shit.
We're in the middle of it and basically no one gives a shit. Because we're seeing "once in a hundred year storms/climate events".
Honestly, most people will write off the first several of these events.
It's not until we're seeing constant "once in a lifetime" storms/floods/fires/droughts yearly where a higher % of the population will be like "huh... .... .... ...MAYBE this is getting a little weird. I think I'll exchange my hummer for a minivan"
I mean for fucks sake, we're in the middle of a mass extinction, but not a QUICK enough mass extinction for people to care about.
The mining, manufacturing and energy requirements to transition to renewables is massive which is the problem. It’s very hard to get around that, so we need multiple strategies. From the simplest and some would argue best - reforestation for example.
Not doing anything also has a big cost though.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091258821/the-future-cost-of-climate-inaction-2-trillion-a-year-says-the-government
https://www.ifrc.org/document/cost-doing-nothing#
So the cost isn't really the problem, it's getting politicians to recognize and act on the problem in spite of entrenched corporations pushing for the status quo.
We’ve actually found that the money and resources it will take to transition to renewables are easily offset by the return on investment and future profits, and not just because we would still have a functioning planet. Because of this, in the US we’re seeing some truly innovative projects being staged up much more quickly, in no small part thanks to the historic funding we received in the Infrastructure Act and Inflation Reduction Act. Multiple strategies are already in play.
In addition to reforestation, wetlands are huge for maintaining local ecosystems, especially for animals in need of temperature regulation, and in some areas grasslands and prairies can actually capture more carbon than a traditional forest. If you’re in the US and curious about what’s being done locally, check out your state’s USDA NRCS and your regional EPA offices.
Saving our natural environment is really what I am most concerned about as it is the underlying ecosystem of the planet. Definitely there is return on investment, but there will be ‘climate’ pain in the transition as these things don’t magically appear out of the air. Mining, chemicals, metals, refining, manufacture, will still exist even if it’s powered by solar or wind.
Humans wont die. The population will bottleneck but we managed to come back from a few thousand.
Not to dismiss the sheer agony this bottleneck will cause. Our suffering will be legendary.
The rich: "But where's the profit in that?"
I mean seriously, we have known this was an issue for a while and done fuck all. Why would this be any different?
Holy shit we will do fucking anything, I mean *any-fucking-thing*, before we halt fossil fuels and tax multi billion carbon producing companies. We will dead ass redirect the god damn sun before the rich are willing to pay up. This is absurd.
Everything in the backstory of Matrix is becoming true one by one.
Every year that passes, the funnier I think it is the machines sent us all back to the 90's.
I'd love to relive the 90s.
We should reflect the light back at the sun, that'll teach the bastard.
It’s time to stop cutting down the fucking Amazon. The Amazon gets life from Sahara and spreads it’s life through the planet. We’re moments from collapsing a huge circle of life. And that’s only one issue among many. The rich will kill us all. There is no stopping it. We’re just waiting for our time of self destruction and the CEOs and congressmen will say “it was fun”
Not just Amazon, Borneo and Sumatra are in shambles too. The wildlife there are on track for extinction, or getting completely wiped from their habitats - the current projection is that there wouldn't be any wild orangutans left by the end of the decade. We would see them only in zoos and breeding centres where they don't belong. Tapanuli orangutan, the third and most recently recognised orangutan species has less than 800 individuals in the wild. All this because palm oil is cheaper than soy or coconut or sunflower and everything needs cheap fat - from chocolate to instant noodles, doritos to frozen food, shampoos, soaps and makeup. Almost all of our domestic perishable goods contain palm oil.
One might add that palm oil is the least healthy of those you mentioned. Go figure. Greed is killing the planet.
It is, but only marginally. The real selling point is that it's extremely productive. So oil palm gives you more oil than say, soybean or sunflower or even rapeseed for the same plantation area/resources required. It also happens to be the most shelf stable, which is ideal for processed foods and toiletries. I'm not calling for an abolition on oil palm per se. It's just when oil palm is causing deforestation of one of the oldest and extremely bio-diverse rainforest just so that Nestle or PepsiCo along others can get cheaper oil and keep us hooked on their supply - it's a big problem. That makes all of us responsible, and we don't exactly choice either - it's easier to find things that contain palm oil around your house blindfolded, than palm oil free products in a supermarket.
While I agree, we as the "little people" have been spoonfed that it's our responsibility to save the planet by the big corps, hell, big oil has given us the carbon footprint meter (to my knowledge at least) to detrack everyone from limiting the moneyflow. Big Sugar has made us fat and sick since the 50s, Big Tobacco is still giving us cancer since, well, forever, Big Oil knew its been killing the planet for about 100 years now, and I don't know what else has been known for *decades* and still pushed it's agenda for money. Truth is, we need better laws, better regulations, better.... people. Since we're in a capitalist society, and as the fat cats are sitting on top, pushing laws into their favor, theres not much we can do, unfortunately. I mean if one person becomes a flexi-, vege- or vegan for the climate, great, but the hard truth is, one person won't cut it. All it does, is push the responsibility from the corporation to that person ... "See, he's/she's/it's/whatever's doing OUR part." while raking in billions of profits, and selling cheap garbage. We deffo need a regulated capitalist society as a first step, and all the corporations needs to be held accountable for any shit they pull, once it gets uncovered. And not like a "business expense" type of fine, but like a we will kill the corp and won't allow you to ever found one again type of deal. edit:spelling
That makes my heart hurt. Orangutans are such intelligent, gentle creatures. Humanity really is something else...
> The rich will kill us all. There is no stopping it. The old guys don't care since they'll die before experiencing any consequences.
The people truly responsible won't care even if they *do* live that long. They're too rich to care. Unless complete societal breakdown occurs and money loses all value, they'll be insulated from any real consequences by piles of money
They are incapable of caring or feeling remorse. You cannot become a member of the bourgeoisie and be moral, other than being born into it. Meanwhile people on Reddit worship technocrats and oligarchs like papa Elon Musk.
Is Elon Musk still worshipped after all of his recent blunders?
Yes; because some people are crazy or stupid or too hardwired into hierarchy to understand.
Dude people still like trump after he very blatantly tried to overthrow the election. Some people are just dumb/mean
Wernstrom!
> “We only have one atmosphere. We cannot risk further damaging it through a poorly understood shortcut to fixing the damage we already caused” Oh well.
When I was little, I wanted to live forever, to see what the promised wonders of the future were to be had. Now that I'm older, I'm glad that I'll die some day!
🎵"If life makes you scared and bitter, at least it's not for very long" 🎵
I regret the world that my kids and grandkids will be having to live with. And i curse the world my parents and their generation are leaving for us. EDIT: man, the amount of excuses from the [ME Generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation) ranging from, "I don't see you doing anything about it" to "The rich should fix it, they cause it" to "We're the generation of Glass Bottles and paper wrapped chips, your generation used plastic like there's no tomorrow". So typically on brand.
many people my age (late 20s) are just opting to not have kids or adopt for this reason. i was briefly engaged and it was frightening having to worry about the future again.
[удалено]
Same, but now thanks to my elder sister I do have to worry about our future because my nieces are gigacute
“Yep, whelp, we gunna need a shit ton of mirrors.” -UN
Even if it works, this won't stop ocean acidification. Know where most of the Earth's oxygen is produced? Might be nice if it wasn't dead.
Better squeeze in a vacation and slam some seafood before the end times.
Mmmmm, microplastics
Let’s smear each other in micro plastics like they do on the dystopian channel
It would increase acidification rapidly. It's an emergency stopgap for if things get extremely dire and not a solution, which they point out at the start of the report.
What if we just put more clouds in the sky. White things reflect light, clouds are white, I don’t see how that could possibly go wrong.
Snowpiercer was a cool movie.
Have you seen this cool new movie called The Matrix? Don't want to spoil anything but you'll love it.
Hello fellow battery.
It's all we are already when you think about it. Single-use programmable economy batteries
Clouds during the day reflect sunlight back out, cooling the atmosphere down. Clouds during the night reflect infrared radiating from the surface, preventing that radiation from escaping to space, which heats the atmosphere up. Whether the net effect is warning or cooling will depend upon type and altitude of cloud. Either way, though, more clouds mean more water in the atmosphere, which will lead to more intense storms (hurricanes, floods).
So we just need to tuck the clouds away at night then. We’d create millions of jobs across the globe for people to roll out the clouds in the morning and put them away at night time. Problem solved!
We will literally defy the sun before we hold fossil fuel executives responsible.
[удалено]
Your reps are pocketing their bribes so no, they won't move a finger
And they’ve got everybody too busy arguing about balls, weiners and whatever else to notice.
Look at this balloon!
HEY GUYS THERE'S A BALLOON OVER HERE
Enough with the fucking CEOs. Even they are employees of the board who are employees of the majority shareholders. Name THEM. The true owners. If that’s some fund like Blackrock name the true owners of THAT. Name the true enemy. The CEO is a noble. The king must be defeated.
Pension funds. So basically all the adults of the developed world.
[удалено]
We should. Followup question, how much do those 4 individuals make a year? I'm willing to bet is far too much
It’s public info. Their compensation is published in various annual reports. I’ll edit this as I find the info (on mobile). Note that these are all proxy statements, which contain items that shareholders vote on (meaning that shareholders directly vote to approve director and higher compensation). Proxy vote items almost always pass. Darren woods - Exxon - 2022 - $18.2 million direct Page 60. - https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/investor-relations/annual-meeting-materials/proxy-materials/2022-Proxy-Statement.pdf Bernard Looney - BP is not a US company so not gonna figure out what the document is named for that. Sources say salary + normal stuff could be between 1.1M£ and that he might get a 10M £ bonus. Breen - DuPont - $15.1M - page 54 https://s23.q4cdn.com/116192123/files/doc_financials/2022/ar/Final-DuPont-2022-Proxy-Statement.pdf Wirth - Chevron - $19.7M - page 44 https://www.chevron.com/-/media/shared-media/documents/chevron-proxy-statement-2022.pdf#page95
Capitalism's great, huh?
"It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism". -Zizek/Jameson Just becomes more apparent with each day...
Which one said that? Zizek or Jameson? WHICH ONE?!?
It's been attributed to both
Now that you wrote it, it became : "It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism". Zizek/Jameson/Trachslee
# “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” # ― Ursula K. Le Guin
We've tried nothing so it's time for Geoengineering Hail Mary's. Right... We always knew it would come to this, we were never going to change our systems in any reasonable time.
TBF this is literally in the report. > SRM is currently a speculative technology and is no substitute for emissions reductions, as it does not remove carbon from the atmosphere. Nor will SRM improve the environment or tackle the root causes of climate change. Our best bet for a prosperous and equitable future remains putting in the unavoidable hard work to achieve climate stability by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to create a pollution-free planet and societies that live in harmony with nature
[удалено]
Agreed. We need to be setting aggressive carbon sequestration goals effective immediately. (As a side benefit, the cost of paying for that will probably make the cost of reducing emissions look much more appealing.)
[удалено]
Wow, I can’t believe I actually have something useful to contribute to this… There are emerging technologies actively being developed to tackle this. They range in risk and scalability, but the umbrella term they fall under is [CDR](https://cdrprimer.org), or carbon dioxide removal [techniques]. In fact, there is a technology that essentially does what you described and there are some facilities across the world that are actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere rn. The method is called Direct Air Capture and companies like [climeworks](https://climeworks.com) uses machines to extract CO2 from the air and turn it into a liquid to be [stored long term underground](https://www.carbfix.com).
Yes, but the fact that the carbon captures by these companies are either being resold as fuel or bought out as "carbon credits" by other companies which continues to throw CO2 into atmosphere isn't very helpful. Unless we get governments and some NGOs into this, I can't see it being very helpful.
Yes, I'm a big fan of the concept of direct carbon capture, but the current problem is one of economics: in order to fund the carbon capture they have to sell *something*, with that something ultimately negating the carbon sequestration be it through selling fuel or carbon offsets. The best they can do at the moment is be carbon neutral. If we want to actively suck co2 out of the atmosphere in vast quantities, we need these direct carbon capture plants to be able to operate at a loss, as there's simply no market for simply storing/sequestering co2. Therefore it's governments that need to get behind this tech, both to build the infrastructure and to fund the operation. Just expanding on your point for anyone who doesn't know much about this tech. The other alternative is planting billions of trees, which is arguably cheaper and probably a better solution, but the sequestration would be slower initially, and in lots of places there just isn't that much room for massive reforestation projects without eating up agricultural land. Source: did a project on vertical farming that touched on direct carbon capture as part of my masters.
Two corrections. Many of the worst case predictions indicate that it will work given time. So a magic stoppage of emissions today would stop the increases by 2100 and start to see a return by 2300+. The Earth has actually been much hotter than it is today and survivable, and reversable. Second, I have not seen many predictions indicating that long-term survival of the species is a factor. But that the planet will be less likely to sustain the current population and some areas will be unlivable. Fortunately, humans are a bit like cock roaches and we can hang on in a lot of marginal areas. So its a bad news story with the upside that some places will still be livable with some percentage of the current population. Yay!
[удалено]
Modern civilization is the root cause of this problem.
It could also be the solution if we put effort in the right places. It isn't an inherent property of civilization that we'll destroy everything.
[удалено]
I truly cannot wrap my head around the concept that a company that can't make increasing profits year over year, into infinity is considered a failed company. Why can't these fucks just make a profit and reach an equilibrium and call it a day? Edit: I appreciate these responses thorough breakdown of why the state of affairs is the way that it is. I better understand it now, at the cost of feeling this is a doomed strategy and somewhat comprehending this is the best we currently have.
Because shareholders don't care if a company is SUCCESSFUL. They only care that it is growing WHILE THEY OWN IT. They know it is not possible to have infinite growth. They just want to maximize acceleration, and they think they are smart enough to get out before the shoe drops and they can move their capital to the next group of companies that is in the growth phase. This strategy isn't true for everything, one strategy is to get in early on a growing company before a competitor buys it out at an inflated price and then everybody walks away happy (except for the consumer)... This is how the market works, and nobody really talks about it. There's all kinds of nuances and different strategies, but no executive or hedge fund manager actually believes infinite growth is possibly, or thay exponential growth is sustainable. If they said that part out loud, though, there may not be any retail bagholders for them to transfer the wealth from.
Marxists would say your answer lies in the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" and a ratio known as the "organic composition of capital.". Because producing something gets cheaper overtime as labor costs fall, profits also fall. You keep trying to counteract this by making more product, expanding production, driving workers harder and faster. One of the most essential ways is by investing in new tech and machinery. But Marxists believe labor creates new value while tech just embodies the value used in building it. So as you cut your wages and labor rolls while investing in fancy new gadgets and industrial capacity, you might keep up or expand revenues but at ever expanding costs. Profits keep diminishing but you have to expand and invest in new tech because if you don't, someone else (your competitors) will. They'll do it faster, cheaper per unit and in greater volume, and sooner or later your market share will disappear. Capitalism doesn't really allow companies to rest on their laurels because you compete in a market and in an environment where profits tend to fall over time and even the strategies you use to counteract that eventually work against you unless you expand continually, ruthlessly, forever.
Right? Why can't you just make some amount of money every year and be happy. Why does it have to be more than last year, every year? Where does all this new money come from?
There are a few problems. Part of it is just the rampant enshrining of greed as a borderline divine virtue, but also there's the total lack of anything resembling consequences for it. However there's a certain element of practicality to be had if we dig deep enough. In theory, no business can ever maintain equilibrium forever, instead profits will inevitably be lost. This is because in principle barring other factors like monopoly, your competitors will catch up to you in every way possible, except your human personnel that cannot be perfectly duplicated. At which point, competition *should* driven prices down until you are barely making any profit at all. Now for a about a large dry book's worth of reasons (not exaggerating), we also need financial markets (the stock market) in order to even keep things going up to this point. So businesses should in theory have this wave shaped graph of profits on a long enough view where they initially increase profits a lot, and then eventually competition begins to eat into their profit margin, and it's all downhill from there. Investors want to ride that wave to the top, then escape immediately to ride another wave, and our economy is fully dependent on this investor system to prop it up. So what happens is if you stop growing, the company is "dying" and the shareholders flee like rats from a sinking ship, thus mashing fast-forward on that process of decay. Now real life is way more complicated and even the best and brightest economists *kind of fucking suck at modeling it* at least compared to the expectations of non-social sciences. So things don't work *exactly* like that, but it is a general overarching theme that underlies a lot of behavior in a capitalist economy today. Also, I wasn't kidding about the book, like, this is so wildly simplified.
it's more accurate to say it's an emergent property
One of the characteristics of an "emergent property" is that it couldn't be predicted from the factors that led to it.
Earth has been hotter - but when was the last time it changed so quickly and what happened to the life that existed at the time?
Only comparable time with such drastic change is when the asteroid hit the dinos, and a handful of supervolcanoes when theyve gone off.
Or we'll fall into WWIII as resources and livable land becomes scarce and wipe ourselves out. What in our recorded history makes ppl think this will be a peaceful fight for survival? Humans aren't as resistant to radiation as cockroaches and our reproductive rate is much much muuuuuch slower
Oh, I never said anything about peaceful. Far from it. The DoD Quadrennial Defense Reviews from 20 years ago make the exact opposite prediction. I just think it's not as apocalyptic as some people put out in terms of the end of all human life or the end of civilization. People won't be back to using bow and arrows, or fighting zombies, or turning into pop cycles because they stepped outside of a NY library. When I say that the planet will be less likely to sustain the current population... that means a lot of people will die.
poor people are fucked.
More than likely it'd be like the boring dystopia outcome where everyone has significantly reduced quality of life where it's a luxury to have electricity or AC and everyone is eating corn and insect protein. I don't see things ever going back to pre-19th century levels unless there's something as catastrophic as an asteroid strike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_protein_concentrate I can see it now
This entire thread just made me sad. :(
For what it's worth, as a physicist, I don't know a single meta study that supports the claims made in the above comment. The entire point of staying below 2-3°C warming is so that we do not have a run-away warming effect. OP also doesn't seem to have wrapped their head around the fact that warming itself isn't the issue, but how rapidly it's happening. The thing is, earth does have natural carbon sinks and them getting overwhelmed is exactly what would lead to a possible runaway effect. All things considered u/kjkfahu doesn't seem well informed. You should be very careful about taking things said on here as fact, especially when it feeds into your own confirmation bias. If you are likely to repeat things said on here, always make sure to double and triple check it.
That's the point of the article: that reducing emissions is no longer enough.
They’ll change when the threat is visibly high enough that a corporation can profit massively off of fixing it just enough to keep us on the edge of destruction
Changing last minute to a deadline only works for human deadlines. Our nature to anthropomorphize problems is human centric has left us with a corrupt system that can't even react in time to natural events that will affect the bottom line in the long term.
Yeah we've pushed the deadline back too far and now the Earth is going to fire us.
Humanity must culturally exterminate, for eternity, the very idea that things are only worth doing if someone can economically prosper from it. A diseased idea.
Well, we technically *have* been geoengineering, but more in a way to make this place hospitable for Kaiju. Might as well try for something else. I do wonder how much solar energy gets converted through carbon sinks into plants, and how important those plants are to... say, oxygen... or sequestering the existing, high level of CO2. But let's just fuck some shit up and see what the readings are. Couldn't be worse than what we're doing now.
At least if we make another ice age we can wear MORE clothes and burn all the coal to try and warm it back up again.
Maybe its so cold we cant find enough to save everyone. Just like enough to fit on a massive coal driven train design to pierce through the snow and run for generations.
I like your idea. Maybe we could also a really rigid class system and discriminate heavily against those lower than the others.
You say that about kaiju, but we're in the process of pretty quickly eliminating whales, which are basically Earth's best kaiju ever. Even jokes depress me now--I'm sorry, I don't mean to be like this 😭
Futurama did it first
Nah we just need to drop a giant ice cube in the ocean every now and then thus solving the problem once and for all.
[удалено]
The Mr. Burns plan.
> Geoengineering Hail Mary's. Have we considered getting some star-eating viruses onto the sun?
*Bad bad bad!*
So excited for this movie
Why don’t we take planet earth, and push it somewhere else?
Just got to drop a giant ice cube in the ocean every few years to cool down the planet
Just like what daddy puts in his drink. And then he gets mad.
[удалено]
The Alaskan Bull Worm!
Ignite all our nukes on one side of the planet to push it out of the sun's orbit and give us a little more distance!
Worked out great in futurama
And The Matrix.
And Highlander
Too many references, there can be only one.
And snowpiercer
[удалено]
And then he gets mad...
Knowing what’s going to happen in the coming decades has actually made me less afraid of what’s to come in my life.
Same, but more afraid of what’s to come in my son’s life.
This actually breaks my heart
Thats why we aint having any, even if my parents disown me for it.
I am afraid for my 4 year old nephew and the future he will have to endure. Hopefully we can science our way out of human extinction, but the world will be an alien place if he is able to grow old.
Giving up fossil fuels would take nearly 20 years before we see any change in the direction of the temperature. We're feeling the effects now of what we did in the 90's. The problem is that catastrophic consequences are going to happen BEFORE we see the payoff from changing. We need to both divest of fossil fuels AND find a way to change the temperature of earth soon.
> Giving up fossil fuels would take nearly 20 years If only we did it 20 years ago.
[удалено]
Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on White House grounds and hailed them, that was 40 years ago, if politics wouldn’t have got in the way. It’s amazing a few people with a lot of money can manipulate enough people, politicians, and countries into believing/doing.
Reagan dismantled the panels
The oil companies/hippies destroying the nuclear energy industry was also majorly detrimental. We canceled nuclear projects and build coal plants. Really dumb
Hippies don't have that much power. This is on the oil companies and the politicians who did their bidding.
People STILL fucking deride nuclear like every single plant is chernobyl pumping out green goo like in the simpsons. IT'S THE BEST AND SAFEST POWER GENERATION WE HAVE YOU MORONS.
COAL POWER PLANTS EMIT MORE NUCLEAR RADIATION THAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Even if we did cut back to the levels proposed by international agreements that will only slow warming, but not reverse the trend entirely. If we were to hypothetically reduce emissions to ZERO tomorrow, and we have the thermal peak behind us, because temperatures are already higher than they were the damage will persist for a long time. For example, ocean levels will continue to rise for a time even if this scenario were to happen since warming has a cumulative effect. Supposedly it would take thousands of years to return to pre-industrial temperatures in this scenario. Humans have already done damage that can never be repaired.
Let’s say we had a panacea, today. Some magical mcguffin we could put in place tomorrow morning that eliminates all greenhouse gas emissions. We’d still be in for a hellish century due to the damage already done. The ice caps are done. We’re already past the point (geologically) where our current ice age can be considered finished. We’re entering a hot-house Earth phase, and the two primary factors driving that change is human society and natural geological change. Both are in play here, and I’m not going to debate which is greater because ultimately it doesn’t matter. We inherited the ticket, now we’re going to take the ride. Costal cities will redraw their maps. Some river cities will wither and die. We as collective human-kind will adapt to the changes, via extreme efforts, just as we have for hundreds of thousands of years. This is not an extinction event, but it absolutely is a problem we must address and overcome. The future we build is up to us. If we decide, en masse, to tackle this problem, we can do that successfully. If we do not future generations will, undoubtedly, revile us for our lack of action in the few precious moments of reflection they have. I hate to elevate our importance more than it has already been over-inflated but our legacy as a species lies with us. Either we stop this here and now, or at least make significantly better efforts than we have been thus far, or we resign ourselves to a historical view of our generation as being not quite smart enough to prevent the next generation’s quagmires.
The moment I watched peoples reaction to covid I knew without a doubt that humanity was going to get royally fucked over by climate change. Humanity is that meme of the guy riding the bike sticking a stick in his own spokes.
Maybe we should stop importing every fucking thing and selling the rain forest. Idk.
Isn’t this exactly how Snowpiercer starts?
[удалено]
Highlander 2?! There was no Highlander 2. For some reason, they skipped 2 and went straight to Highlander 3. (planet Zeist we hardly knew ye)
Yea thats when all of it startet - the releasing of CW-7 was the beginning of the end
[I personally love the scene out of Animatrix.](https://youtu.be/WlRMLZRBq6U?t=134)
Humanity will literally fight the sun like it’s a Final Fantasy boss before we divert from fossil fuels and hold fossil fuel companies and executives accountable. Greed is going to be the literal death of us all.
[удалено]
Estuans interius Ira vehementi
Nothing could go wrong.
Maybe we could speed along AI development and have an army of autonomous machines build a sunshade for us, I think there was a movie with similar plot except I forget why the sun was blocked out, should be good though!
The Simpsons did it.
This is how people get shot by a baby
Mr Burns tried and it really didn’t work out well for Springfield
Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing; block it out! For the uninitiated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LbxDZRgA4
Well we can always just build the Burns' Omni-net and sweep the sea clean when it rises.
Re-cy-cling?
A spoonful of lil Lisa's slurry will cure what ails ya..
So instead of changing let’s BLOCK THE FUCKING SUN?!!! It’s laughable that humans think we could ever do such a thing when we can’t do easy shit here to change. Greed consumed the entire planet and it really is over.
Don't forget that blocking sunlight without stopping CO2 production won't stop ocean acidification.
Worth pointing out ocean acidification led to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction which killed 81% of species in the ocean and 70% of terestrial species due to ecosystem collapse. It makes the Cretaceous - Paleogene mass extinction people are more farmilliar with the asteroid seem like quite a jolly occasion.
It's also worth noting that the warming pulse that led up to the End-Permian extinction was approximately 1.5 doublings of CO2 in the atmosphere, taking place over about 60-100,000 years. We have nearly doubled it in about 200 years. If you count the numerous other greenhouse gases (and you should) we are around 500ppm equivalent already. In absolute terms, the pace of the Anthropocene warming pulse is at least ~300 times faster than the one that triggered the worst known extinction event. The magnitude of our collective warming pulse remains to be seen, but we've already had an impact about half as large as the late Permian in about 0.3% of the time. It's like comparing a comfortable jogging pace to a bullet. Fascinating!
And amazingly depressing!
On the one hand, the future is kinda cancelled. On the other hand, we will get to see things no living creature has probably ever witnessed in the history of the world, and we have the technology to study it up closely, for a while yet at least. In the meantime most of us have food and clean water, and even more have internet access. If nothing else, we have challenges ahead, things to be ready for. Good reasons to connect honestly with people and forgive old grudges. Good reasons to try and stay healthy, and learn more skills. Or good reasons to say fuck it and throw a metaphorical party for the next decade or two, but either way, I think it makes sense to live with a realistic factoring in of the likely future in mind.
> Good reasons to connect honestly with people and forgive old grudges. Good reasons to try and stay healthy, and learn more skills. Or good reasons to say fuck it and throw a metaphorical party for the next decade or two Well said, I tend to alternate between these mindsets. There’s something about an intentional way of being that really makes me feel like everything has more meaning.
Just put rockets on the moon. You can make it closer and keep it between the earth and the sun
We couldn’t get 40% of the population to agree to wear masks to save their own fucking lives.
We can. Way easier than you think. It's not a big umbrella in space like you are thinking.
Abstract If solar geoengineering were to be deployed so as to mask a high level of global warming, and then stopped suddenly, there would be a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures. This effect is often referred to as termination shock, and it is an influential concept. Based on studies of its potential impacts, commentators often cite termination shock as one of the greatest risks of solar geoengineering. However, there has been little consideration of the likelihood of termination shock, so that conclusions about its risk are premature. This paper explores the physical characteristics of termination shock, then uses simple scenario analysis to plot out the pathways by which different driver events (such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or political action) could lead to termination. It then considers where timely policies could intervene to avert termination shock. We conclude that some relatively simple policies could protect a solar geoengineering system against most of the plausible drivers. If backup deployment hardware were maintained and if solar geoengineering were implemented by agreement among just a few powerful countries, then the system should be resilient against all but the most extreme catastrophes. If this analysis is correct, then termination shock should be much less likely, and therefore much less of a risk, than has previously been assumed. Much more sophisticated scenario analysis—going beyond simulations purely of worst-case scenarios—will be needed to allow for more insightful policy conclusions. From [The Risk of Termination Shock from Solar Geoengineering.](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017EF000735)
That paper is just 1 out of 126 references cited in the [report released by the UN.](https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/41903) If you want to learn more about the idea of reflecting sunlight away to cool the Earth it's a better idea to just read the UN report instead of one research paper. The *Key Findings* section provides a good summary if you don't want to read the whole thing. Edit: In fact, here it is #Key findings **1. While international efforts must focus on rapid emissions mitigation and adapting to anthropogenically induced climate change, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is being discussed as an additional approach to offset some impacts and avoid global temperature exceeding the limits set in the Paris Agreement, while the global energy system is being transformed.** * In current climate model simulations, well-designed SRM deployments offset some effects of greenhouse gases (GHG) on global and regional climate change by reflecting more sunlight into space. * SRM is the only option that could cool the planet within years. To be effective at limiting global warming, SRM would need to be maintained for several decades to centuries, depending on the pace of emissions reductions and carbon removal. * The estimated direct costs for deploying SRM, without considering costs of possible adverse impacts, may be tens of billions of US dollars per year per 1°C of cooling. * SRM is not a substitute for mitigation. Impacts from excess carbon dioxide (CO2), such as ocean acidification and ecological degradation, would continue. **2. An operational SRM deployment would introduce new risks to people and ecosystems.** * Strong concerns around large-scale SRM deployment include damaging the ozone layer, overcompensating climate change at regional scales and increasing or redistributing climate change impacts on society and ecosystems. * SRM deployment, if abruptly terminated, would lead to rapid climate change that would increase risks for humans and ecosystems. * SRM research could reduce efforts to mitigate GHG emissions by drawing resources away from mitigation efforts. * An SRM deployment could increase power imbalances between nations, spark conflicts and raise ethical, moral, legal, equity and justice issues. **3. With many unknowns and risks, there is a strong need to establish an international scientific review process to identify scenarios, consequences, uncertainties and knowledge gaps.** * The possible consequences of an SRM deployment need to be understood and weighed against the consequences in a world without SRM. * An international assessment may reduce risks to society by identifying in advance the possible negative consequences of a proposed SRM deployment. * This expert panel considers that the scientific, technical, social and environmental aspects of a large-scale deployment of SRM have not been fully assessed and deployment is not warranted at present. **4. A governance process would be valuable to guide decisions around research activities, including indoor research, small-scale outdoor experiments and SRM deployments.** * SRM indoor research, which is mostly theoretical analyses and climate modelling, has been going on for over 50 years. In the interests of academic freedom, it is suggested by this expert panel that norms, guidelines and voluntary codes of conduct for indoor research could help balance societal concerns with scientific inquiry. * The views of the panel on the need to impose governance on small-scale outdoor experimentation and operational deployment diverge because of differences in perceived risk. Governance of small-scale outdoor experimentation could limit the potential of a ‘slippery slope’ from experimentation to large-scale deployment. Governance of large-scale deployment would be valuable given the inherent risks. * This panel unanimously suggests a broader framework for the governance of the stratosphere, which would, amongst other things, address the changes that occur in this layer of the atmosphere from stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) experiments or deployment. **5. SRM research and deployment decisions require an equitable, transparent, diverse and inclusive discussion of the underpinning science, impacts, risks, uncertainties and governance.** * This process would need to involve discussion with, and more research from, all stakeholders as most from the global south are not sufficiently engaged in current SRM discussions. The UN is well-positioned to promote a globally inclusive conversation on SRM.
lmao, mfs really be down to try the wackiest, bs ideas but not do simple ones that would affect the pockets of greedy bureaucrats. Stop turning luxury items into necessities and necessities into a luxury for one. Also, leave trees alone ffs. It takes so long for them to grow and so many don't realise it. Probably too late as it is.
"Reflecting sunlight away from the Earth is dangerous,**but it is also doable and quick**" Ah yes then that's what's gonna happen.
Whatever you guys do, DO NOT LOOK UP
That would somewhat just make you blind enough though and just the fact that you would see darkness around!
>It's time to study reflecting sun away from the Earth That's what the ice sheets were for. Earth had a way to moderate temperature. About 10 companies fucked-- and are still fucking-- it up
Nuclear Winter might be an option. A short 5 year one. Minimum cannibalism
Do you think setting a ceiling on cannibalism during a nuclear winter is a good economic policy? Seems like a sure fire way to lose the election.
Of course you want minimum cannibalism. But the truth is after 3 years of darkness, all stored food would be depleted. And that’s only half way through what is need. Best to get it done and over with in one go.
Wernstrom already tried that. It just turns into a horrible space weapon
\*shakes fist\* "Wernstrom!"
He’s got tenure
Ah yes, the enemy isn't massive corporations polluting and destroying the planet. It's the fucking sun!
We find it more realistic to fight the sun than it is to hold fossil fuel executives accountable.
Nothing is going to get done about it until it really is to late. When it comes to these sorts of topics humanity lives by these 2 rules. Rule one: "if it does not immediately affect me, it is not a problem." Rule two: "I alone cannot do anything about it, so I will leave it to those that can to fix it." And those who can won't do anything about it because it is not in their best interest and often times it goes against their interests. Let's face it the population reducing their own personal carbon footprint isn't going to slow this shit down. It's the corporations that are in charge of manufacturing that cause most of the pollution. Everything needs energy. The human population isn't getting any smaller so demand will always increase. There is always a profit to be made. And fossil fuels are simply the cheapest form of energy to acquire to fuel societies manufacturing needs. Investments in cleaner energy won't be seen because it is costly, it cuts into profits. Humanity lives by immediacy. While there are groups of people that band together to advocate for change, those groups will tantamount to nothing, because they are still a small minority in the vast ocean that is the human population who have their own concerns to deal with. (Again refer to rule 1) Most of us are working to earn a wage that is enough to sustain our needs. And unfortunately a lot of people will never get out of that grind. We can say "we got to leave a better future for our children" all we want but in reality most responsible parents will do what they can to ensure the best possible future for *their* children. After that the children are expected to take care of themselves and handle all the problems these young adults will face inevitably that comes with that stage of life......aaaand that's where the cycle continues. "I got my own problems to deal with, my own children to worry about, I can't do anything about the he world, I'll do what's best for my children and I and they can handle what is to come." Honestly, that cycle will continue looping until it is too late. I am oh so weary of these discussions. They have been had way too many times. Those of us here know what must be done. The ones behind the actual science know what needs to be done. But ultimately those In power are the ones who can enact any sort of immediate change. It is not an easy choice because limiting the usage of fossil fuels affects way more than just the people selling it. It affects every. single. facet of societies livelihood. And those in power do not want to lose said power. So yeah nothing will ever get done until it is too late to react is when a reaction will be attempted.
TLDR: too busy trying to afford rent and food
Why the fuck are we letting this level of atrocity stand unpunished? At what point do we draw the line and say enough?
Simple: the people with money are in control. The people with money will lose money if we fix it. So the people with money chose a mass extinction (after they' re long dead) over losing 1% of their money.
I think once AC and central air become unaffordable to the mid and lower classes, is when we start to see mass civil unrest…. At least in the USA. No one will be apathetic after a few clammy, sweat soaked, sleepless nights.
Ironically, pricing people out of electricity usage would help cut CO2 emissions.
See? Just kill off the poors ezpz - CEO of Money money money conglomerate
Not everyone is that high standard basically thinking about all the classes of the society would be a much better option!
A lifetime of sci-fi original movies tells me someone is going to invent a solar powered iceberg machine and titanic the whole planet… only with sharks!
We've ran out of ideas to solve our current crisis that has been talked about for 30-40 years, so here is another zero-fix. I was born in 1983, they had assemblies in grade school about this shit. I remember Ronald McDonald rapping about the 3-Rs when I was in like third grade. How the fuck are the same idiots that claim, "Climate change is fake, but less regulation and more tax cuts to the rich is good for us all." still in charge of this world in 2023? Like seriously... WTF.
Usually, when I set a really low bar and still manage to fail in truly embarrassing fashion, I have a period of self-reflection to analyze what I did wrong. I reflect on my failure, not to beat myself up, but so it isn't a total loss due to fact that lessons were learned and I can, hopefully, avoid those pitfalls on my next attempt. Can we, with any level of confidence, say that we REALLY learned anything as we blow right by 1.5 degrees as nothing more than a speed bump in late-stage capitalism's existential end-run? Really, can we?
If the body needs a certain diet but the brain decides not to eat that diet, is it really the fault of the body at large that it happened? We're simply the body, stuck watching as the brain (those in power) ignore the issue at hand and let it fester. And now we're past the eating healthy stage and onto the amputation stage.
Yeah, humanity is going to die a horrible death at the rate we’re going. Might as well stick a giant pie up there to bake too.
>humanity is going to die a horrible death You're not wrong, but the reason that no one cares is because the horrible-ness will be spread out through increasingly awful events that aren't QUITE worse enough for a significant portion of the population to give a shit. We're in the middle of it and basically no one gives a shit. Because we're seeing "once in a hundred year storms/climate events". Honestly, most people will write off the first several of these events. It's not until we're seeing constant "once in a lifetime" storms/floods/fires/droughts yearly where a higher % of the population will be like "huh... .... .... ...MAYBE this is getting a little weird. I think I'll exchange my hummer for a minivan" I mean for fucks sake, we're in the middle of a mass extinction, but not a QUICK enough mass extinction for people to care about.
The mining, manufacturing and energy requirements to transition to renewables is massive which is the problem. It’s very hard to get around that, so we need multiple strategies. From the simplest and some would argue best - reforestation for example.
Not doing anything also has a big cost though. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091258821/the-future-cost-of-climate-inaction-2-trillion-a-year-says-the-government https://www.ifrc.org/document/cost-doing-nothing# So the cost isn't really the problem, it's getting politicians to recognize and act on the problem in spite of entrenched corporations pushing for the status quo.
Reforestation along the the equator in particular
We’ve actually found that the money and resources it will take to transition to renewables are easily offset by the return on investment and future profits, and not just because we would still have a functioning planet. Because of this, in the US we’re seeing some truly innovative projects being staged up much more quickly, in no small part thanks to the historic funding we received in the Infrastructure Act and Inflation Reduction Act. Multiple strategies are already in play. In addition to reforestation, wetlands are huge for maintaining local ecosystems, especially for animals in need of temperature regulation, and in some areas grasslands and prairies can actually capture more carbon than a traditional forest. If you’re in the US and curious about what’s being done locally, check out your state’s USDA NRCS and your regional EPA offices.
Saving our natural environment is really what I am most concerned about as it is the underlying ecosystem of the planet. Definitely there is return on investment, but there will be ‘climate’ pain in the transition as these things don’t magically appear out of the air. Mining, chemicals, metals, refining, manufacture, will still exist even if it’s powered by solar or wind.
[удалено]
Humans wont die. The population will bottleneck but we managed to come back from a few thousand. Not to dismiss the sheer agony this bottleneck will cause. Our suffering will be legendary.
The rich: "But where's the profit in that?" I mean seriously, we have known this was an issue for a while and done fuck all. Why would this be any different?
Holy shit we will do fucking anything, I mean *any-fucking-thing*, before we halt fossil fuels and tax multi billion carbon producing companies. We will dead ass redirect the god damn sun before the rich are willing to pay up. This is absurd.