- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
Action needed to avoid disastrous overshoot of climate targets, according to organisation’s environment body
The world needs to cut carbon emissions by nearly a fifth in the next four years, and by close to half within a decade, to avoid overshooting climate targets by a disastrous margin.
Although the “window has closed” on holding temperature rises to 1.5C, in line with scientific advice, limiting the “overshoot” of that target is still possible, according to the UN Environment Programme (Unep).
But countries are failing to translate their long-term targets on reducing emissions into short-term actions, a report on the “emissions gap” between climate goals and policies has found.
You must log in or register to comment.
Nobody takes the UN seriously anymore anyway. Russia, Israel and the US have ruined its credibility
At the height of global lockdowns in early April 2020, daily global fossil CO₂ emissions fell by 17% to 19% compared to 2019 levels.
Main Contributors to the Drop:
- Surface transport (cars and trucks): ~43% of the total reduction
- Industry and power generation: ~43% combined
- Aviation: ~10% to 12%
tldr;
We’re
Nonsense. We just cut off 20% of the global supply of Petroleum with the Iran War.
That, plus Ukraine and Russia obliterating their fossil fuel production capacity is going a long way towards tightening emissions.
eh, we’re looking at a grim future either way at this point.
Only way I can picture the world cutting by that amount, is if there’s a massive collapse of western civilization / the wealthy get purged, and technology goes backwards. We won’t do that willingly, so the world will instead continue its trajectory, with the worst of climate change impact hitting poor people – and rich people / wealthy people using their assets to eek out a mediocre lifestyle in the future. I doubt we’d totally die off, barring something truly cataclysmic.
I doubt Rosa Luxemburg was referring to climate collapse when she talked about the choice between socialism or barbarism, but here we are.
Maybe. I’m not so sure socialism would really change anything though, on the aggregate in terms of climate collapses.
Socialism isn’t by default Eco-friendly / Eco-conscientious. Capitalism tends to have all the benefits from climate destroying stuff go to a capitalist class – socialism could easily take the form of still pushing climate destroying stuff, but distributing the benefits to the masses. Depending on the scale of the change (which is likely to be massive), diversifying the benefits could result in no human surviving, rather than just a subset of the wealthy.
For a random example to explain the thought, really ‘loose’ example admittedly. Under socialism, theoretically you’d have a fairer distribution of wealth so that housing would be more equitable – most people would get a simple starter-type home to live in. Rich person doomsday bunker type homes would be almost unheard of, as no individual would amass so much wealth that they could build em. In the socialist approach, each individual home has a smaller climate footprint, but the volume of homes built could have a similar net impact on the environment in the aggregate. So if it gets so bad that you need a bunker, humanity all dies together, equitably?
I mean I’m not out to darken everyone’s day. But this isn’t happening.
Spoiler alert, we won’t…
Best we can hope for is hyperscale data centres to create big brother and skynet.
Skynets solution to global warming, kill all humans…
Agi will fix this /s
AI bust and oil wars started by idiots making renewable preferable will go a long way.
Duh it’s not anthropogenic, obviously nothing will work. The ‘urgency’ will get worse and worse and all they’ll come up with is carbon tax, carbon allowance, restrictions for everyone except epstein class. Instead of prepping. Its so fucking obvious, I’m dumb as fuck and I can see it. Embarrassing.
I’m dumb as fuck
Yes.
Embarrassing
Yes.
It’s blatantly obvious climate change is anthropogenic there’s tons of evidence and overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community globally.
Overwhelming consensus in ignoring space weather and the fact that climate has done nothing else other than change since eons.
deleted by creator
Enough with these “by X years” projections, it keeps giving governments that there’s still time to kick the can. Just publish “this is how much we are over the emissions budget TODAY” and make it clear that as long as it’s above 0 that means we are truly, really fucking ourselves and future generations.
I envision a rocket flying directly into the sun and the two pilots discussing when they should start turning.
Meanwhile the most sold car in north America is a huge pickup truck.
An F150 can get as much as 25mpg while my wife’s Volvo S60 gets 30mpg.
Or you can get 50 mpg out of a 20 year old diesel 5 series wagon with way more cargo space than that S60, but y’all Americans decided NOx is far more important than CO2 or fuel economy, so there’s a limited selection of diesel engines in cars available.
LOL, now is not the time to bring up diesel engines in America.
And a 2012 Camry hybrid does 40mpg, what’s you point?
That new trucks aren’t necessarily gas guzzlers, they’re clearly worse, but only the monster powertrains with monster price tags are stupid awful. No one bags on me for my 2004 F150 because it’s neither huge nor a pavement princess, but it gets half the mileage of a new one.
I left out hybrids so as to compare apples to apples. If we want to go there, there are hybrid versions of my wife’s car.
I’m comparing cars with cars. The vast majority of pickup owners don’t need a truck. The average owners uses the bed of the truck twice a year. Just look at how shinny and clean all the pickup on the roads are.
How do you know that? I used to bitch about “pavement princesses” with the rest of y’all, until I worked at Lowe’s and saw those same trucks hauling monster trailers of lumber and rock. MAGA neighbor I hate has one. You would say he doesn’t need it if you saw him on the highway. But I see all the shit he hauls.
As to my POS F150, I’ll never do without a truck again. We take my wife’s car everywhere and my truck mainly sits until needed.
You don’t need a truck if it sit still most of the time. At best you need a friend with a truck and maybe a station wagon. I know it because it’s all around me.
The only reason people think they need a truck is because the car industry decided thats what they want to sell to people. The plain reason for that is that it gives them the highest profit margin . In the early 2000 they wanted you to have an SUV for the same reason. There’s good video on the subject that you can easily find, where they explain how selling cars that falls in the “light truck” category (like the truck you own) is more profitable since around 15 years now.
The F150 is our only other vehicle. Shall I sit at home when my wife is in the office 3-days a week? I do anyway, but sometimes have to leave. We also pick crap off the side of the road to sell at the flea market or FB Marketplace. And it was very nice to go to my camp in the boonies and haul home emergency gear before Hurricane Isaias. Four of my neighbors were damned happy I could run a genny out the back and keep their fridges on and phones charges for 5-days.
Which kinda speaks to my point of judging truck drivers without knowing their story. Sure, there’s lots of assholes out there that don’t truly need a truck, but when I need it, I need it. In the last year we’ve replaced the dishwasher, clothes washer and fridge from FB. How was I to get those home? (Bad luck that year, but those are the nicest we’ve ever had! 😁)
As to the profit margins, oh boy do I know. I got schooled on that during my brief stint as a Chevy salesman in '93. We could charge shitloads more for a full-sized truck vs a smaller one. Same engineering, labor and safety costs, all that and more, for just a little more steel.
Assuming I get a decent job again, and assuming they work out, I’m holding out for a Slate truck. I’d kill for a small truck, all electric, no bullshit, not even a radio.
Best I can do is a 25% increase
Line. Must. Go. Up! 💹
Well China opened like 50 coal power plants in 2025 alone, they have roughly 2,000 in operation. Second is India with like 230, and the US is third with about 213.
So let’s guess where a good place to start is. Might fix the AQI so it isn’t pegged at 999, for reference New York City is typically 12-22.
Well China opened like 50 coal power plants in 2025 alone, they have roughly 2,000 in operation. Second is India with like 230, and the US is third with about 213.
So let’s guess where a good place to start is
Not ordering cheap Chinese crap off Amazaliexprtemu?
Reserve plants are counted by how much they’re used which hasn’t been that high so far, not the total amount they could burn if used 100%. They are going all in on solar with coal backup.
