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

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1281 year ago

    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.

    • @SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      451 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.

    • @kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 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.

    • @sic_1@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      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.

          • @interceder270@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            Don’t kill the wealthy. Redistribute their wealth and make them part of the working class.

            It’s a fate worse than death in their eyes.

            • uphillbothways
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Unfortunately, they’d probably call in the military in the case of a general strike. At least try to assassinate the leadership.
              Guillotines might result in less and more well directed bloodshed. Though, I don’t disagree entirely. That kind of violence, any kind of mass violence, ends up at least somewhat with spillover and misdirection.

              Hard to say.

              • Brave Little Hitachi Wand
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                We are all tired and angry, and it would seem violence could provide an amount of catharsis and finality. Yet I think the situation is too dynamic to be sure of a positive outcome. Peaceful but firm methods should be tried first, at least.

        • @dangblingus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Will just result in new draconian laws being drafted and enacted. Watch how fast people lose the right to peaceful assembly if it actually affected the ruling class.

          • OurTragicUniverse
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            Don’t blame the symptom for the disease.

            Capitalism didn’t just pop up out of a vacuum to fuck humanity over, we invented it and have continuously supported it to do so.

            • @SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              Yes, we did invent it. However, that was done by a small group of people that have been in power for generations, and kept it difficult to change to a better system.

              What I’m trying to say is that I think most people probably don’t find it very fair that someone like Bezos can just be so ridiculously rich.

              Maybe we can change this.

              • OurTragicUniverse
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You really think that’s going to happen? Lmao. Yeah sure, and next we’ll have world peace and end poverty.

                Greedy, easily corruptable and prone to violent authoritarianism- describes like 85% of our species now and throughout recorded history.

                Stop nice-washing humanity and wake the fuck up. You’re not going to end capitalism, too many people benefit from it to let you.

                • @SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  If we just give up, then there is a 0% chance. If we try, then the chance of succession isn’t zero. We have to try to be optimistic. Yes, the world is fucked, but hey, giving up is just accepting that and allowing it.

          • @Nudding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Maybe when I see the magical communist revolution where humanity doesn’t destroy itself I’ll be a believer, but until then, I think humanity as a whole is a destructive force for bad.

            • @SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              61 year ago

              I don’t really think communism in the extreme version is currently a solution, but there is a simpler solution for now for the ultra-rich if you tax them for a large amount of money proportional to the income let’s say 100% after 10 million per year you quickly fix (I guess bandaid-patch) a big problem with capitalism.

    • @SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • @SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -8
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Worldwide, yes. That generally includes your average Americans, who are in the richest 1% globally.

          The largest climate contributors are the billions of “average” people worldwide though, and it isn’t close.

            • @SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              1.1% of the world’s adult population are millionaires. This adds up to about 56 million people

              I had a decimal point wrong on the Top 10% which does indeed make me look silly.

              Regardless, this holds true:

              The largest climate contributors are the billions of “average” people worldwide though, and it isn’t close.

              The idea that owning stock makes you a polluter is beyond stupid, and that entire article you’re initially referencing is dumb as fuck.

              • Funderpants
                link
                fedilink
                English
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                People are arguing with you because they don’t want to take responsibility for themselves or pay the true cost of their consumption. As long as they see someone worse, they don’t have to do anything. The top 1% make 16% of the emissions, sure. But the top 10% are responsible for 52%. That’s 34% belonging to the 1.1-10% . Much of that is due to transportation (in dumb Suv and trucks), inefficient home heating, aviation, and dirty power generation.

                We simply don’t solve this problem by focusing on the top1% alone . Which, like you said, is why carbon taxes should be effective. Especially how Canada did it, with the tax being redistributed to the bottom 90% or so. Unfortunately, bringing in an effective system of carbon taxation just gets you voted out for a science denier.

                I swear, if I was the fossil fuel industry this exact kind of class anxiety is what I would exploit to stop progress. Get people paying attention to Taylor Swifts jet so they’ll refuse the systematic changes needed avoid this actual crisis.

                https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

  • @dangblingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    431 year ago

    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.

    • PizzaMan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

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

  • metaStatic
    link
    fedilink
    381 year ago

    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.

    • @scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wealthy nations are making progress, but too little and they’re starting from a bad place.

      Poor nations are busily repeating the industrialization process that made the wealthy nations wealthy. Anyone want to tell them they don’t have the right to do so?

      I wonder if the window of opportunity on geoengineering is also closing. Because this emissions reduction thing isn’t going anywhere.

      “But there are risks with geoengineering! We don’t know what might happen!” So: let’s get testing and find out, the way we do with everything else. Doing nothing on this spells certain doom. I’ll take an unknown quantity over certain doom.

  • Alien Nathan Edward
    link
    fedilink
    English
    331 year ago

    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?”

    • PizzaMan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 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.

    • @agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There are constant cycles of ‘fuck around’ and ‘find out’ that are naturally occurring, pay too close attention and you’ll see more than you want to. Like 5g conspiracies were always fucking dumb, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t hear almost nothing serious about them after someone decided to try and bomb a city block over it.

  • @Tikiporch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251 year ago

    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.

    • TwoGems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      That time is now before they get worse killler robots than they do.

  • @naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251 year ago

    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.

    • @Magrath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

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

      • @naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        Methane leaks

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

        • @Magrath@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Oh it does for sure. At least in Canada there are government regulations requiring inspections by 3rd parties to check for leaks with some sort of thermal camera. I’m not familiar with the technology to check for leaks but I’ve had to fix the leaks before and it’s taken seriously and well documented.

  • @aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    You mean pledging to eventually tackle the problem 20-30 years down the road and doing nothing about it in the meantime hasn’t solved the problem?! I’m shocked! 🤯

    Every time I hear “carbon neutral by 2050” I’m always thinking yeah like it’ll fucking matter at that point, Honda (or whomever).

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    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

  • @QuodamoresDei@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -101 year ago

    It’s not consumer cars that’s raising the temperature, though. They want to electrify cars for control. The elites are going to use this carbon credit crap to make people submit to their will. More rules for thee but not for me.

    • @Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      According to the EPA,

      The primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector in the United States are:

      Transportation (28% of 2021 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes.

      And

      The largest sources of transportation greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 were light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (37%); medium- and heavy-duty trucks (23%); passenger cars (21%); commercial aircraft (7%); other aircraft (2%); pipelines (4%); ships and boats (3%); and rail (2%). In terms of the overall trend, from 1990 to 2021, total transportation emissions have increased due, in large part, to increased demand for travel. The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by light-duty motor vehicles (passenger cars and light-duty trucks) increased by 45% from 1990 to 2021, as a result of a confluence of factors including population growth, economic growth, urban sprawl, and periods of low fuel prices. Between 1990 and 2004, average fuel economy among new vehicles sold annually declined, as sales of light-duty trucks increased.

      In the US, cars and the car-centric sprawl it encourages is absolutely the largest single contributor to carbon emissions.

      There’s a reason that the per capita emissions of the Netherlands are literally half of what they are in the states. It’s the cars.