this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
593 points (99.8% liked)

World News

45615 readers
3928 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On Friday, the globe hit 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees) above pre-industrial levels for the first time in recorded history

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 155 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The dismaying reality is that it is driven by the wealthy. I got rid of my car, I shop local, and everything in the home is low emissions. No reduction in my personal life can ever offset the way they live.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago

The truth of the matter is that it's impossible to stop climate change in the short and mid term without degrowth in energy consumption. World leaders gathered and celebrated when they agreed to trade responsibilities for CO2 emissions, when a market-oriented world economy was always going to provoke this result unless there were explicit limits to the production of contaminant energy sources.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

Driven by the wealthy and enabled by the stupid.

If this topic ceased to be a partisan issue, we might actually see real change and limits enforced.

A world where pollution producers would need to price cleanup and management into their production (which would in turn incentivize cleaner alternatives).

Where corporations might be held liable for damages from their climate or eco negligence.

But as long as this remains an issue that the masses are going to be divided over, the world is going to burn as stupid people insist 3rd degree burns on asphalt is just part of the circle of life.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (15 children)

But I drive my car less, that should do it! /s

This is the reason we're should focus out efforts to make a ruckus and force decision makers to enforce carbon neutrality BY NEXT YEAR instead of by next century. Of course that won't happen but that would be the reasonable way.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

A general strike? Say the word

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

God, I wish.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's not driven by the wealthy, because there are far fewer wealthy people than everyone else.

Individual shopping habits are a band-aid until we can fully replace how some of those habits work.

Carbon taxes would be infinitely preferable to voluntary changes, but we can't pass carbon taxes because people will go absolutely insane if asked to pay the true cost of their goods.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The richest 1% produces more emissions than the poorest 66%

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (22 children)

No duh, because not a single country has made any real attempt to lower their citizens' emissions.

It will take sacrifice from all of us to stop warming.

Forget 1.5°C, honestly, forget 2°C as well, keeping it under 3°C is likely the best that we can hope for right now. You're needing to throw out our gas-based car infrastructure, reduce our reliance on jets as much as possible, lower not just meat consumption but also almonds/alfalfa/etc., and that is just to get started.

Really, I don't see the average voter letting that happen. What's going to happen is eventually, sometime 30-40 years from now, a heat wave is gonna thrash the Middle East, consistent 130°F days for a solid month, 100,000 people dead, and the very next year planes will be in the air, making clouds to block the sun.

We are not ready to give up the things that the developed world will have to give up to truly back away from this coming apocalypse.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, over the years I've heavily reduced my meat intake, am super conscientious about transportation (haven't flown in a decade, keep my revs low when I drive, and try to get all my errands done in efficient ways as to minimize gas usage), turn off lights, ration my hot water usage, don't eat out at wasteful restaurants, buy "ugly" produce from the grocery store, promote renewable energy solutions whenever possible, compost, recycle, and create extremely little garbage. Yet, at my work, several of our AC generators that we use to power the facility use more oil in one day than my car does in its entire lifetime. Several handfuls of billionaires and their families emit the same amount of carbon as the poorest 66% of humanity. Seems to me, if we want to solve climate change, we have to get rid of the biggest polluters first, then transition to clean energy.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

And the biggest polluters are corporations/industry, and the rich.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no one wanted to be held accountable for the triage so we let everyone bleed out, safe in the knowledge there was nothing we could have done.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I wonder if I'll be alive for the moment everyone goes from "This is bullshit and I'm going to ignore it" to "Oh no who could have seen this coming?"

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Some people will never admit anything is happening. They'll just blame everything on something else.

We are already seeing the effects of climate change. If they were going to admit it, they would have done so already.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact is that this was a conscious choice, even recently. The switch to natural gas that everyone is touting is one that is designed to cause higher short-term emissions.

Methane is really bad over a 20-year time frame and only really lets natural gas equal coal over a 100-year period (assuming typical fugitive emissions rates). The transition from coal to natural gas is accelerating the rate at which we boil ourselves alive.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Methane is burned at the point of use and produces carbon dioxide. Ideally there is no methane released in to the environment.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Methane leaks

Something like 3-10% of all methane production leaks. Methane is about 80x worse than CO2 over a 20-year period.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Being vegan is the most impactful change that individuals can make.

But we won’t change.

It is totally hopeless.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Hoping everyone collectively changes their behaviour isn't a solution unfortunately.

We have all the tools and technology to make a huge dent in this problem right now if not outright solve it. The most impactful thing you can do is spread awareness and do what you can to make this a voting issue if you live in a democracy. It could even be as simple is making it a non negotiable for how you choose to vote.

Lack of climate action needs to be a death sentence for the careers of the political class or it will become a death sentence for the the rest of us.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (19 children)

I'll do you one better: don't have kids!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe Vote for candidates who won't FORCE people, and children, to have babies.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (62 children)

Not having children is the most impactful individual change one can make, well over going vegan.

load more comments (62 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And the easiest. But even if all animal products were eliminated worldwide tomorrow, it would probably still not be enough for the emissions target. So individual changes do not make a dent in the problem.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

regrettably, God made animals taste good.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This will disproportionately effect the poor and developing countries, so the thinking of elites and super rich is that there's still plenty of time to rectify the situation.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Rectify it? No, they know they'll be gone before their life is disrupted so much that money can't fix it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Yes but they're paying for an already protected forest to be protected, so it balances out right?

Fortunately the EU is making that kinda advertisement illegal

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's China generating all the pollution. Their 'reported' emissions are 13.7 billion metric tons versus the US's 5.9 billion. And 90% of China's fuel consumers are private, one-off shuttles that don't even report their emissions. US is contributing a tiny fraction of global emissions and it's falling. Yes, US industrialized earlier and has contributed more in total, but we can't time travel, we have to look at who is emitting NOW. China's emissions are rising and nobody there cares to put a cap on it. You want to stop the world from cooking? Talk to China.

Edit: it’s odd how many tankies are on lemmy. Obviously we should take steps ourselves to stop emissions too but China is the world’s true problem when it comes to emissions. US has been steadily falling while China is rising rapidly and that’s only what’s actually reported

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not a big fan of China, but that’s just dishonest. Yes, China emits more than twice the co2 US emits. But that means that its per capita emissions are still way below those of the US, even after western countries outsourced a lot of their own pollution to China. Yes, you NEED to talk to China if you’re going to solve it, but pretending that it is more on them than on the west is ridiculous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do you think China is producing that's creating all that pollution? I'll give you a hint. IT'S EVERYTHING WESTERNERS ARE BUYING.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Eh, humanity had a good run I guess

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

didn't we pass the point of no return like 10 years ago

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been day saying this for the past two years now, humanity is fucked, and soon.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a direct result from the energy we took from burning fossil fuels. To get all that CO2 out were going to have to wait Millenia for earth to do it (that is, if it still can) or spend that same amount of energy to get the CO2 out.

To put that into something understandable: we're going to have to spend ALL the energy we produced over the last two centuries on too of the energy we need for ourselves to be able to get CO2 back to preindustrial levels. Basically, for the next two to four centuries were going to have to spend at least 50% of our world energy budget to scrubbing CO2 and NONE of that energy is allowed to generate CO2. Actually, NOTHING from humanity can generate CO2 to reach that. If we continue spewing CO2 then you can double that number.

To put that into perspective, adding all required work and infrastructure, energy -all energy- will become 3-4 times as expensive for the next few centuries

People will not understand the issue and will not want to pay more, rich people will not want to foot the bill even though they could, so we won't do anything and things will get worse and worse until we all die.

One possible alternative might be spraying sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, that might buy us a few valuable years while we fix shit but what will happen is that we'll just spray the crap out of it and call that a solution while we continue to spray CO2 into the atmosphere like there literally is no tomorrow for humanity

We're fucked

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And my cousins are having kids. 🤦

load more comments
view more: next ›