World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target ( www.theguardian.com )

Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.

Fenrisulfir ,

Sweet! If this is at all obvious to anyone paying attention and I’ve been saying I expect it to happen for years, I’m putting “One of the worlds top scientists” on my resume.

Wogi ,

I'm getting big "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." vibes here

FortuneMisteller ,

famines, conflicts and mass migration

This will happen for sure and the cause is not just climate change. The cause is overpopulation and exhaustion of the Earth resources.

bashbeerbash ,

which is why we're just gonna retreat into pockets of radicalism where we all kill each other. max profit til then.

fadingembers ,
@fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Overpopulation is a myth

FortuneMisteller ,

overpopulation is not measured by how many people you can pack into a telephone booth. Overpopulation in measured by how many people the Earth resources can support.

We began to consume more resources than what the Earth can provide decades ago, when the population was less than six billion people. Not just fossil fuels, we are consuming fresh water, arable land and forests in a non sustainable manner. The wild fish population in the sea reached an all time low and we are still overfishing. Fish farming accounts just for a small fraction of our consumption.

The alarms by the World watch and other institutes began in the '70s. Nonetheless the world population kept increasing and it is still increasing.

tal ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F)

I'm not saying that everyone bothers in comments, but I'd have thought that as a major news publication, The Guardian would bother to use the degree symbol:

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5°C (4.5°F)

androogee ,

°•°

isles ,

What's the purpose of using any particular symbol and, in this context, does the addition of the degree symbol achieve that purpose?

mathic ,

The only chance we have that I see is the rapid development of fusion into a proper, usable power source, the supplantation of effectively all carbon emitting power plants with non-emitting plants (fusion or otherwise), the effectively complete electrification of the global commercial transport system, and a massive scaling of production direct carbon capture, leveraging the various aforementioned non-carbon emitting electricity sources to make it happen.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Fusion is nuclear and nuclear is considered double plus ungood.

curiousPJ ,

might as well ban microwaves for emitting 'radiation'.

afraid_of_zombies ,

The all natural crowd isn't aware of that yet

wabafee ,
@wabafee@lemmy.world avatar

To be fair there are more options. Like reduce over consumption, restore forested lands, voting the right people in the office. Prosecute abusers, big companies/ personalities who contribute to this issue.

Naz ,

Yep.

Our experts estimate that the various societies on Earth have a 96% chance of solving the Great Filter using humanity's great superpower of technological innovation, but paradoxically only a 3 to 7.5% chance of successfully implementing the necessary societal and political changes before complete extinction.

Cybermonk_Taiji ,

How are they solving the Great Filter without knowing what it is or if it is more than a hypothetical?

FortuneMisteller ,

The only chance we have that I see is the rapid development of fusion into a proper, usable power source,

Fusion is a marketing story to distract the attention. It is so difficult to realize a practical commercial fusion technology that it will not be available this century for sure.

In any case as I explained in the other comment the root cause is overpopulation. Solving the energy problems might mitigate for a while the situation, but it will not solve the situation. Famines, conflicts and mass migration will happen anyway.

Cybermonk_Taiji ,

A cursory look at a graph of human population over time makes this abundantly clear.

We are victims of our own success and are taking all other living things down with us.

crapwittyname , (edited )

Or, alternatively, having enough energy for everyone would mean no more population problem.
Many thousands of people smarter than you and I believe that fusion power is feasible, and in our lifetime, and have dedicated their entire professional lives to that goal.
It's an insult to them to have wave it away like this.

ammonium ,

I'm getting a bit more optimistic when I read about companies like Terraform Industries and Prometheus Fuels. If they really can make efuels cheaper than fossil fuels, things can change really fast for the better.

SeaJ ,

We have already gone past that for the last couple of years. It seems like 6% of respondents are very naïve.

intensely_human ,

  • 77% of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5C above pre-industrial levels, a devastating degree of heating;

  • almost half – 42% – think it will be more than 3C;

  • only 6% think the 1.5C limit will be achieved.

This is not how science works.

SkybreakerEngineer ,

an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Nobody claiming this is science.

MakePorkGreatAgain ,

when this century? soon or in ~70 years?

Duke_Nukem_1990 ,

It's starting now.

intensely_human ,

Yup. By defintion any process that ends in the future is starting now. I think the question isn’t “are we on the curve now?” but rather “When are we expected to see this 3C stuff?”

Duke_Nukem_1990 , (edited )

By defintion any process that ends in the future is starting now.

How so? I will start baking bread on friday and it will be finished saturday. Hasn't started yet tho.

intensely_human ,

Unless you consider thinking about it to be part of the process. Or the movement of the universe toward such an event. Such boundaries between cause and effect are arbitrary and exist in the mind, not in reality.

SlopppyEngineer ,

1.5°C before 2030

2.0°C before 2050

3.0°C before 2100

That's what I get if I skim a few articles. Dates are without mitigation.

intensely_human ,

So basically we only get to check one of those predictions within the next ten years.

The 2100 date for 3C is going to take 75 years to test.

When scientists predicted mass starvation in 2000 it was only 25 years out, but by the time that prediction turned out false everyone had basically forgotten the predictions. And that’s just a 25 year gap.

What I’m saying is that there’s zero skin in the game, reputation-wise, for someone making climate predictions 75 years out.

SlopppyEngineer ,

That reasoning, if not the exact words about scientists being wrong, was also used by critics to say climate warning plateaued and no action at all should be taken. Turned out the critics were wrong.

I've seen a lot of the classics being brought up: There is no warming, warming is good, it's not human made, it's too late anyway, it's just the weather, there are no ill effects, ... So I'll follow the scientists, they got a lot more right than the critics.

kent_eh ,

It has already started.

Track_Shovel ,

This is no longer a sigpost on the way to oblivion, but a giant neon billboard in our living room. violent explosion shit! The billboard exploded and set our house on fire... Better blame some Arsonists

rayyy ,

Guess who is trying to deep-six EVs?

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

Something of a laundry list. But the short answer is the US Auto Battery Consortium (USABC).

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

I dont understand, everyone bought bigger SUV's and it didnt help

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

Unironically, that’s partly due to our emissions coding system. According to the system, a light truck with more seats gets more emissions allowance, incentivizing auto makers to lean into the larger class. That’s why there are so many extended cab pickups, yet so few two-seaters with an eight foot bed. We all know that six-seater Ram MegaCab or the Escalade that seats eight is often only driving one selfish person to work.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Its entirely due to people buying larger SUV's.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

Right, and the reason auto manufacturers are creating so many is because we incentivize emissions reduction by class, and light trucks allow for more emissions.

https://www.resources.org/common-resources/how-much-do-regulations-for-fuel-economy-and-emissions-incentivize-the-production-of-larger-vehicles/

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Its because people are buying more larger SUV's. Cars are still cheaper than SUV's but consumers are choosing to buy bigger.

Sir_Kevin ,
@Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

I don't think you're listening. Small vehicles are not sold in America anymore. When was the last time you saw a new two door car?
Americans are buying larger vehicles because that's the only option.
That's the only option because the fuel economy rules in this country are broken.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Ah no, see i specified SUVs. By a large margin most new vehicles sold are large SUVs https://www.motortrend.com/news/best-selling-cars-trucks-suvs-in-america-2023/

I know about the emissions standards exception for trucks and SUVs, its shitty. But there are still new cars being sold, cars that dont qualify for the more relaxed emissions standard, cars with a much higher mpg as a result, that cost less than the larger SUVs they are buying instead. Mitsubishi mirage or nissan versa are 2 that pop up. If consumers wanted smaller cars, that's what we would have.

tmsbrdrs2 ,

Having driven a Nissan Versa, they aren't fun on the freeway, country roads or anywhere you'd be around anything the size of a standard SUV or current truck.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

I think thats a lot of how we got here in the first place, the problem isnt the versa, its the big ass trucks and SUVs. People dont wanna get crushed by these monsters, so they get their own suburban tank. And every year the arms race of SUVs big enough to feel safe in gets worse. Thats just the American way, making life dangerous for everyone else so you can feel safe.

InEnduringGrowStrong ,
@InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works avatar

Grown-ass adults barely clear the hood of the huge trucks they sell these days.
A few years ago, a pedestrian getting hit by a truck would have a somewhat decent chance of rolling on top of the sloped frontend, which is much less deadly than taking all that momentum in the chest from a square wall of steel.

SoleInvictus ,

Keep in mind that the limited variety of smaller vehicles sold is an issue.

For example, I drive a Prius. I decided I'd like to upgrade to a nicer PHEV car, so I looked at Lexus's offerings. It's almost all SUVs, with the only PHEV being an SUV. The luxury equivalent to the Prius exists, it just isn't sold in the United States due to low demand for smaller vehicles.

We're not ready to jump to an electric vehicle yet, so I continue to drive my Prius and will drive it into the ground, despite it being pretty loud on the freeway.

InEnduringGrowStrong ,
@InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works avatar

Trying to find an AWD, non-SUV vehicle that doesn't require high octane (let alone a PHEV) was like a pipedream when I needed to replace our old Impreza.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Well, also, increased trans-oceanic shipping (lots of old ships still use bunker fuel, some of the nastiest fossil fuel on the market) and increased air travel and also plus too a bunch of wars keep happening.

I should note that we do have a solution to the first problem. But it's predicated on the rapid deployment of a very modern kind of nuclear engine.

And that means replacing tens of thousands of old ICE engines. Which means spending money. Which private industry hates.

So don't hold your breath waiting for any of this shit to change. But do hold you breath around bunker fuel, because jesus fucking christ that shit is gross.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

by "it" I was talking about the trend of larger SUV's

but on that topic, check out the breakdown of emissions by type of transportation https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58861#_idTextAnchor054

tiefling ,

You can't even get a small car if you wanted one :( Even mini coopers are just coopers now

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

We need to throw away all the old SUVs and buy new SUVs powered by AI and financed with crypto.

HurlingDurling ,
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

They need to mine bitcoin while idling on our driveway.

Delusional ,

Hmm I think we need even bigger trucks and also more religion and less gay people. That'll fix it.

FortuneMisteller , (edited )

This is what big business want. Did you have a look at what the media think about electric cars? They always show either Tesla or big electric SUV and they tell you that they are green. Big business want to sell big cars even if they require a lot more energy and materials to be manufactured, even if they consume a lot more energy when they are on the road, even if they take a lot more space on the road and in the parking lots.

DudeImMacGyver ,

My favorite part was when corporations lied their asses off to the entire world for over 50 years while simultaneously telling is this is all our fault but if we recycled and didn't use too much water, gas, or electricity we could undo the harm that we were personally responsible for.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Alright time for corporations to take responsibility and shut down all of their emissions. No more new cars, or gasoline for existing cars, or oil, or meat, a lot of the electrical grid is coming down, construction is halted, no more deliveries or shipping.

henfredemars ,

Why not try to do better even if it’s not perfect? Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

What do you wanna aim for, half? Cut all these things in half, prices skyrocket and only rich folks can afford. A quarter? There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.

GoofSchmoofer ,
@GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world avatar

There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.

This is true in the world we live in now. The powers that be like the way things are, They are mostly very old and very rich, they don't give a fuck. This makes it easy for massive corporations that have created this mess to manipulate those in power so they don't have to do anything to be apart of fixing the problems

But there is a world where we could put younger, more concerned people into power that could start to make some changes to how the world works. This won't fix the problem, we are too far along for that, but it would at least (hopefully) not make this planet completely uninhabitable to every form of life.

Sir_Kevin ,
@Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

It's not like a greedy old fucks are going to just step down. For that dream to happen if would have to be by force.

Eigerloft ,

Good ideas all around. Thanks for suggesting them. Shut it all down before we all burn to death or drown.

Nachorella ,

I'm curious what your point is. I am not trying to be rude, just not sure what you're getting at. Do you think there's no solution so we just ride the whole mess out?

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

as you can see in the comment I was replying to, discussions of emissions always get derailed by putting responsibility on corporations when faced with the prospect of changing their own lifestyle to lower emissions. But the emissions people want corporations to take responsibility for are the same emissions coming out of their own tailpipes, and I dont mean that figuratively. An oil corporation isnt just pumping emissions into the air at the drill site, or the pipeline, or the corporate office. When researchers are talking about carbon footprint of oil companies, they're literally talking about the co2 emitted from the process which is at the end point, your vehicle.

There is no world where responsibility is taken for emissions that doesnt cut off access to these high emissions products and services to people, either by corporations no longer providing it, or people no longer buying it, it doesnt matter which side you blame, you dont get to keep driving a gas vehicle, eat red meat, or use non-renewable electricity.

Nachorella ,

I kinda get where you're coming from. I believe in personal responsibility and try to limit my own impact (no car, vegan) and just in my own life it's frustrating talking to people who turn around and say 'but corporations'.

But I still think holding them accountable would be helpful, it might force people to finally address these issues, money could go toward pedestrian infrastructure and subsidies for vegan businesses and foods. In a lot of cases it's not as simple as people choosing, corporations have helped create a world where, for a lot of people, there is no choice.

tmsbrdrs2 ,

That's not such a bad thing either.

Renewable energy should be subsidized for any home owner/apartment building/business which has somewhere to put solar panels or wind turbines to augment the grid locally. Budget for battery backups and you have a solution for the majority of use cases.
Next, why not make EVs an even better proposition than they currently are? Increase the number of level DCFC stations, put level 2 charging everywhere it's feasible, including restaurants, the library, all public buildings, grocery stores. Battery size can be reduced if you can charge literally everywhere you go.
Your third point with beef. Well, doctors have been saying for decades not to eat so much red meat. Now there's a climate excuse for being able to replace all those burger chains with something healthier.

daltotron ,

the point people are generally making when they complain about corporations comprising the majority of the emissions is that they have the majority of the actual control in the situation, there's not really a real alternative that exists to a lot of these other options that's viable for people to actually partake in, short of moving out into the countryside and deciding to start homesteading, which also takes a lot of resources to start up. And then also that, because the corporations have a lot of the control, and the consumers can't realistically do jack shit, it makes more sense to put the focus on them and regulate what they do.

lots of people can't live without a car right now because they don't have access to public transit. lots of the food supply that exists right now is energy inefficient because it's profitable for the corporations to rely on publicly subsidized highway infrastructure and underpaid non-union trucking and guarantee consistent delivery times compared to huge idiot precision scheduled rail operations. some people can't switch over to a non-coal power plant without cutting out basically all electrical use from their life (not sustainable) or ponying up for solar panels on their roof (can't be done everywhere, potentially makes the grid less stable, expensive even with tax credits, can't do it if you're renting).

none of that is shit that they're really given any say on outside of occasional city council meetings which realistically affect very little about their local community, and like an election every couple years. I don't think there's an equal share of responsibility there, and I don't think the people even really have the ability to take responsibility for it. even just looking at it pragmatically, even if they had the ability to do so, they probably won't. it makes more sense to attack the head of the pyramid there, to attack the concentration of power.

AA5B ,

But even if the pollution is all yours, the corporations do share responsibility.

The entire point of capitalism is to decide in your best financial interest, but your cheapest option is the most polluting and the corps biggest profit is what they can mass produce the most of. The whole system is resistant to change unless government looks out for the interests of its constituents and shapes the market for the constituents best interest.

I recently had reason to buy a car. I chose an EV for my investment into one little corner of our future, but it was not the best choice financially. I’m a bad capitalist. Government incentives did help a lot though. I know transitioning to EVs is important, but $11k incentives made it affordable. It’s not looking for a handout, it’s government looking out for our future by helping the transition along.

But there also needs to be EVs to buy and chargers to charge at. All of which are an up front investment that is good in the long term but poor financial decision in the short term. Yes the corps need to be pushed. They been pushed for years, over a decade and just keep resisting change. Given all the backpedaling this past year, legacy car manufacturers need to be pushed harder, maybe to the point where their existence is threatened if they still don’t do the right thing. But it’s not just pushing, incentives are important to growing the market and creating a profit incentive

DudeImMacGyver ,

I'll go vegetarian and ride my bike, fuck it.

That said, these motherfuckers need to fix what they fucked up, not just stop making it worse.

Track_Shovel ,

Me too, thanks. I love a good gaslighting

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

I’m rather fond of the part where they admitted to those lies, and the US didn’t force them to pay restitutions equal to the cost of mitigating the damage they’ve caused.

MakePorkGreatAgain ,

would they even be able to?

disguy_ovahea ,

Not in a lump sum. If it were just, big oil would be turning over all profits to mitigate climate change in perpetuity.

KISSmyOSFeddit ,

You sound dangerously Communist.

disguy_ovahea ,

It’s not communism if they’re paying damages in a settlement. It’s justice.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

In 2068, I'm sure some entrepreneurial politician will run on the "Prosecute the oil companies!" platform, long after a bunch of them have gone bankrupt and all the damage has long since been irreparably done.

Until then, we just need to keep looking for the Least Bad politician (the guy who has one hand out to fossil fuel and another to privatized wind/solar) rather than the guy who insists wind farms spread COVID with 5g, and hope we don't live long enough to reap the whirlwind.

Cybermonk_Taiji ,

You think there will be elections ongoing in 2068? Check out Mr Optimistic over here.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The veneer of democracy will be around for a long, long time.

Nachorella ,

The US instead decided to let them keep doing whatever they wanted.

Zombifrog ,

But we fined them $10,000 and wagged our fingers at them, surely they won’t do it again!

intensely_human ,

What a unique take. Thanks for contributing

FortuneMisteller ,

They are telling provocative things on purpose. It is needed to create the fake debate that traps the public between two falsehood.

The heated tones and the strong arguments are meant to enrage people, drag them into the battle and push them to take one side and accept the arguments of that side without a proper deep thinking.

Letstakealook ,

Anyone who hasn't had their head up their ass has been aware of this. Life will be extremely shitty by the mid century. If you haven't made the horrible choice to reproduce, be sure that you don't. There will be no future worth living for those born today.

HubertManne ,
@HubertManne@kbin.social avatar

not sure about no future but certainly a shitier one all around. but yeah I don't know how anyone is not aware that 1.5 is a long past pipe dream at this point.

henfredemars ,

But for a brief period of history we made a few people even more disgustingly rich than ever, so it’s totally worth the climate catastrophe and of course economic ruin to come in the next few decades.

MedicPigBabySaver ,
@MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world avatar

Gonna be much quicker than 25yrs.

intensely_human ,

What exactly do you predict in terms of lifestyle changes by mid century?

SlopppyEngineer ,

You have the Great Depression and 2008 financial crisis. That's going to be the permanent state after 2050. Few jobs, high prices, that kind of misery.

intensely_human ,

Any quantifiable predictions? Words like “few”
and “high” don’t really lead to falsifiable claims.

SlopppyEngineer ,

Of course not. You're never sure if another war starts or when another COVID happens. Nobody can make quantifiable predictions. Those that do are trying to sell you something.

intensely_human ,

Are you joking? Quantifiable predictions are the basis of science. It’s called hypothesis. It’s why we use statistics: setting numerical thresholds for significance allows us to look at ambiguous data and draw conclusions we know are free from our own perceptual biases.

Who on earth told you that quantifiable predictions are for people trying to sell you something?

SlopppyEngineer ,

Economists. It's about jobs and prices after all. It's even debated if economics is a science.

Letstakealook ,

It isn't my personal predictions. It is the predictions made by climate scientists and even the military industrial complex (based on climate models). We've already begun to see the effects and they will get worse. Extreme weather events, massive migration, famine, drought, and war. This is what the future holds, even if developed countries can dampen the impacts for a time, they won't be immune. It isn't great.

intensely_human ,

Based on the scientific sources you’re referring to, are there any specific predictions in terms of certain numbers by certain dates?

Like are we talking 50% loss of farmland? Are we talking 50% increase in farmland? Are we talking by 2030, by 2050, by 2070, what?

Letstakealook ,

I don't have specifics memorized, of course. If you'd like specifics; the EU, NOAA, UN, USDOD, EPA, NASA, etc, have all released predictions along with sources you can dive into. It has been getting worse over the last 15 years, as far as predictions.

shish_mish ,
@shish_mish@lemmy.world avatar

We are so fucked unless we force "all" the big corporations to pay
for the pollution they caused while making trillions in profit over
the decades they polluted and hid the scientific knowledge showing
climate change.
And even then,if we stop polluting right now, we still might not
Make it as a civilisation.

iopq ,

China is the world's biggest polluter in absolute terms

DudeImMacGyver ,

All includes China I'd think

iopq ,

They would never accept those terms

Knoxvomica ,

Listen I'm not huge fan of China but credit where credit is due, they are kicking ass at transitioning to renewables, subway and highspeed rail and EVs.

iopq ,

That's great, I'm here in Beijing and the air quality is terrible. They are burning so much coal for electricity

Knoxvomica ,

I'm here in Alberta, Canada and we are also using enormous amounts of coal and natural gas for electricity despite having almost perfect conditions for solar and wind generation. Funny that.

Skua , (edited )

Even if China literally just never produced another gram of CO2 ever, we'd have the same problem slightly later. We really do all need to take part, especially those of us in countries that produce more carbon per person. China produces about as much per person as Europe does, but that's still way too much

iopq ,

Not really, because we'd transition to EVs and solar quickly enough that we wouldn't increase the global temperature

pacmondo ,

Would we, though? Have you met us?

iopq ,

Yes, the Western countries have been reducing their emissions. Have you actually checked?

misanthropy ,

Even if we stopped everything today, the temperatures would continue to rise for years.

CyanideShotInjection ,

It's easy to point the finger at China when so many products the western world consumes is manufactured there.

Skua ,

To be fair, China actually does emit about as much per capita as Europe when measuring by consumption nowadays. Unfortunately that just means both are way too high, and several other major economies are even worse

CyanideShotInjection ,

Thanks for clarifying. Totally agree.

BestBouclettes ,

Absolutely not. If we look back since the Industrial Revolution the US are, closely followed by Europe and then China.

iopq ,

We can't change the industrial revolution emissions

BestBouclettes ,

Clearly, but the burden doesn't lie on China alone. They became the factory of the world because we needed cheap shit for everyone.

conditional_soup ,

Somebody better tell the climate that, because so far it hasn't been respecting national borders, kinda unfair tbh. I mean, as long as we're not the literal worst by one or two statistics, we shouldn't bear any of the consequences of our actions, right? Until we can teach physics about global politics and bullshitting with statistics, though, maybe we should all focus on doing whatever we can to reduce the effects of climate change.

HubertManne ,
@HubertManne@kbin.social avatar

yeah and for sure that pollution china is making is all for domestic uses so its all on them /s

bstix ,

You're right. They are.

They're also the largest producer of clean renewable energy and ..
well everything else.
They're simply the largest on pretty much everything in absolute terms - good or bad.
That's no excuse and they need to do better in regards of pollution, but the thing is, they are also already trying.

Them doing bad in absolute terms is no excuse for any other countries with higher pollution pr.capita not to start doing better too.

This should not be a competition of how much a country can pretend to allow itself to pollute in absolute terms in comparison to others. It should be a competition of polluting as little as possible.

disguy_ovahea ,

Why do you think that is? Over 50,000 US companies manufacture in China. Paying them to do our dirty industrial work, shipping the wares halfway around the world, and then pointing your finger as if they’re the problem is absurd.

kent_eh ,

What's your point?

Just because someone else is being bad doesn't obligate us to do nothing about our own contribution to the problem.

.

Pull your weight and set a good example for others.

intensely_human ,

Actually it’s not an argument about obligation, but rather about cause and effect. If oneself isn’t the biggest polluter, then one’s own adherence to principles won’t have the effect of reversing climate change. It’s a matter of the effects caused by one’s choices, and when someone else is the biggest polluter it removes the opportunity to do anything about it, resulting in reduced value.

That obligation you speak of exists in a context of cause and effect, and those are the things being reasoned about here.

Ooops ,
@Ooops@kbin.social avatar

So... Getting better while China doesn't creates the effect of reducing emmissions by... let's say 40%.

The effect of crying about China as an excuse to not do anything yourself however is 0!

Which on will you chose?

Ooops ,
@Ooops@kbin.social avatar

It's also the leader in building up renewables instead while everyone else sits lazily on their ass crying "why should we do anything when China exists?"

How about we do better than China first and then cry about them, instead of using them as an excuse to fail even harder than them?

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah just throw money at the carbon dioxide to make it go away

Organichedgehog ,

You say this sarcastically like it's not really an option

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Where can i buy a carbon dioxide remover

Organichedgehog ,

A) at any tree nursery

B) these machines actually exist, and throwing money at them would no doubt expedite the process of making them a viable solution

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Havent tree charities been planting billions or something? Is co2 reducing yet?

Get me a link to buy one of these machines

Organichedgehog ,

You're a bad and boring troll

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

"these machines actually exist"

"show me"

"wow what a troll"

OrgunDonor ,
@OrgunDonor@lemmy.world avatar

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/innovators-trying-bring-down-sky-high-cost-direct-air-capture-2023-10-24/

Wasnt a difficult search.

And yes, more money(realistically probably a lot more) is needed to refine and improve the technology. No it isnt going to end climate change, but it is a small part of what is needed.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

“When it is saturated, we heat it to 100C, and the sponge releases the CO2 and we can suck it out of the system.”

is the catch. it's still co2 gas.

OrgunDonor ,
@OrgunDonor@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, where it can be moved and stored or potentially used in other applications.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsengineeringau.3c00049

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Organichedgehog ,

Someone else in this thread is giving you the exact answers you're looking for, and you're sidestepping. Just like you sidestepped that trees are literal carbon dioxide removing machines.

Not to mention throwing money at corporations to develop cleaner manufacturing would also answer your original question.

You're not here to debate in good faith, you're a pesky little troll. Go away

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

no I directly responded about the trees. They're nice, they're not very effective. Like I said, planting trees isnt a novel suggestion, it's actively happening, a lot of money is being spent on it and a lot of trees are being planted. It's not moving the atmospheric co2 needle at all.

cleaner manufacturing is way too vague. manufacturers arent just making waste for the hell of it, it's already in their interests to manufacture as cleanly as possible. You'd have to point out specific processes that need to be changed or removed.

Organichedgehog ,

This shit is so easy to Google, you're not here to argue in good faith.

15 billion trees are cut down per year, 5 billion are planted.

cleaner manufacturing is way too vague

Bro just stop. You think it's impossible to make global manufacturing more eco-friendly? Do I have to break down the exact step-by-step minutiae of every step to reducing CO2? are you mentally capable of inferring that there ARE solutions if you throw a fuckload of cash at it?

I mean, for fucks sake, there's a comment below involving Polyol that demolishes your argument. You've completely ignored that comment and came back here to be insanely pedantic.

intensely_human ,

It’s not trolling it’s arguing. Big difference. The word “troll” is not a get-out-of-debate-free card.

Organichedgehog ,

See my other comment. Or don't, actually, I don't care.

intensely_human ,

You mean the comment I responded to? What comment are you referring to?

Organichedgehog ,

Uhh I think you glossed over the "don't care" part

SlopppyEngineer ,

https://climeworks.com/

There you go. You got cash, they build the plant for you.

disguy_ovahea ,

Exactly. Methane too. There are countless engineering projects with potential for mitigation. VCs aren’t exactly lining up to “do good for the planet” without returns. Money caused the problem, just like money could address it.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Theres no such thing as clean fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide is intrinsic to combustion energy.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

What does that have to do with removal of CO2 and methane? There are plenty of solar, wind, wave, and salt powered removal solutions, as well as chemical.

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/exploratory-topics/direct-ocean-capture

Edit: Additional information on carbon conversion processes from further down in this thread

https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use

https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Sorry, you said methane and i assumed you were talking about carbon capture from fossile fuel plants.

None of those are current solutions, step 1 is they release the co2 from the ocean. There is no step 2.

disguy_ovahea ,

That’s simply not true. There are many models that convert it to bicarbonate or ethanol, building materials, bioplastics, or bind the carbon in solid form to be safely released back into the environment. The problem is they’re all expensive.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Oh, those werent in the link you provided, or in what i found looking at current carbon capture technology.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

Search for “captured carbon conversion” to find out more about that step. Here are a few options, but there are countless more. We have many smart scientists that create solutions often. They rarely receive funding to take the initiatives out of the laboratory.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-discover-how-to-convert-co2-into-powder-that-can-be-stored-for-decades/

https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use

https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Man they all talk about making carbon neutral fuel out of it. Taking the co2 out and putting it right back in

disguy_ovahea ,

One way to offset today’s high costs of carbon capture is to convert captured greenhouse gases – particularly CO2 and methane – into valuable chemicals, including carbon-neutral fuels, rather than sequester them. CO2 can be converted into ethanol or methanol, which can then be upgraded to gasoline and jet fuel. The combust-capture-convert cycle could be carbon-neutral or at least have very low carbon emissions. Other valuable products that could be made from captured CO2 include acetic acid, urea, plastics, construction materials, and biofuel from algae.

That’s from the Stanford link provided above.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

Man they all talk about making carbon neutral fuel out of it.

convert captured greenhouse gases – particularly CO2 and methane – into valuable chemicals, including carbon-neutral fuels, rather than sequester them.

disguy_ovahea ,

Read the rest of that paragraph.

Other valuable products that could be made from captured CO2 include acetic acid, urea, plastics, construction materials, and biofuel from algae.

The only reason they’re leaning into fuel creation is to generate a profitable product to secure funding. There are many more responsible ways to convert the carbon that would cost more money because they don’t yield a profitable product. So to bring it back to the point of my claim, more money would help.

blazera ,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

no, this is what their research does, it creates carbon neutral fuel(or low carbon considering its an energy consuming process).

you wanted to show me that co2 can be used to make plastics and construction materials, and these people want to suggest it to secure more funding, but it hasnt been done yet.

disguy_ovahea ,

The process is not new. Polyol is a plastic with more than one hydroxyl group, and most commonly made using CO2 and methanol or ethanol.

https://packagingeurope.com/news/how-can-the-plastics-industry-harness-carbon-capture-with-polymers-made-from-emissions/8432.article

The reason you don’t see it is because it would combat use of oil based plastics.

https://globalventuring.com/corporate/industrial/carbon-capture-plastics/

Again, this is all about money. The science is there.

Ooops ,
@Ooops@kbin.social avatar

Correct. There are however a lot of solutions that a) don't produce co2 and b) are more efficient and cheaper already, very much more so once they are properly scaled up.

So you could in fact throw money at the problem... And even those who refuse to follow the change will simply go bunkrupt over it because fossil fuels aren't even economically viable in comparison.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • tech
  • kbinEarth
  • testing
  • interstellar
  • wanderlust
  • All magazines
    •