As someone that does at least do the easy things (electric car, biking often for small trips, public transportation, eating mostly vegetarian, wren.co carbon offsets - the least sketchy offsets...
As someone that does at least do the easy things (electric car, biking often for small trips, public transportation, eating mostly vegetarian, wren.co carbon offsets - the least sketchy offsets I’ve seen) let me just say it’s out of my hands. In addition, those that have means to really change the trajectory will not. So get prepared for a couple hundred million people to die from famine and unlivable temperatures. Europe will have it the worst. New Zealand will have it the best. The US will be much worse off but will go on.
I do qualify for a NZ visa. I weigh the need to live there against the odds they’re about to severely lock down immigration. I think we’re still a few years out from that though and I like being close to family.
Hard agree. Been vegan for almost 2 decades, lived in apartments for over 4 decades, avoided the suburban sprawl. Now we've moved to a small house on a small piece of land in a rural community....
Hard agree. Been vegan for almost 2 decades, lived in apartments for over 4 decades, avoided the suburban sprawl. Now we've moved to a small house on a small piece of land in a rural community. Still minutes from stores and necessities but we have stepped back from all of the crazy.
We just went through the warmest winter I've ever experienced. That was after the odd summer we had, and all of the chamging seasons years before. I am hoping we've made the right move to the right area to mitigate some of the coming climate changes.
To add to it all, we used to try to be mindful of how we purchased most things, but damn if everything isn't packaged in 10 layers of plastic and nonsense. I've given up. I can't afford the brands that are trying to be green (retired, limited income). We will still do our best, but unless the rest of the globe wakes up, I don't hold out much hope.
Maybe someone here can a put positive spin on the future. I'm a realist though, it's going to take something big for the world to wake up. Like I tell my daughter, the planet will be fine, the humans are the ones who will bear the brunt of climate collapse.
So much this. It is expensive to live green. I went to that website in @teaearlgraycold's comment above and calculated my carbon footprint: I am at 2.8 tons per year which is already at 0.6 times...
To add to it all, we used to try to be mindful of how we purchased most things, but damn if everything isn't packaged in 10 layers of plastic and nonsense. I've given up. I can't afford the brands that are trying to be green (retired, limited income).
So much this. It is expensive to live green.
I went to that website in @teaearlgraycold's comment above and calculated my carbon footprint: I am at 2.8 tons per year which is already at 0.6 times the world average - but it is honestly just from being poor. I can't afford to go anywhere, nor can I afford a car, or a bigger apartment (the calculator had "small apartment" as 35 sqm and mine is 25 lol), and I also can't afford to consume a whole lot of things.
About brands of produce though - I can't afford to buy the "good" eggs. I try to simply never buy eggs because I don't want to support chicken farms with horrid animal welfare. But one of those eggs are about $0.35 while an egg from a farm with free roaming chickens etc. is almost twice that. I don't actually know which is better for the environment in terms of pollution though the point remains I hope.
Maybe someone here can a put positive spin on the future.
No positive spins here, but I did see a kinda nice sentiment the other day: Being overly negative is just as delusional as being overly positive.
Re: good eggs You might have to drive to places where folks keep backyard chickens and ask. By the way Facebook won't allow people to post "I have eggs to sell" - so looking online may not be the...
Re: good eggs
You might have to drive to places where folks keep backyard chickens and ask. By the way Facebook won't allow people to post "I have eggs to sell" - so looking online may not be the best way.
(Source: i have way too many free ranged happily roaming bird eggs I can't get rid of because every third person here has their own backyard chickens. I'm giving them away for free at this point)
Eggs was just the an example that popped into my head 😊 But like even if I had a license and could afford a car, wouldn't eventual savings just cancel out from fuel costs?
Eggs was just the an example that popped into my head 😊
But like even if I had a license and could afford a car, wouldn't eventual savings just cancel out from fuel costs?
Not to mention environmental damage from the extra miles driven. We don't seem to have any choices that are impact free or even impact neutral.... All we can do is choose paths of lesser harm :p...
Not to mention environmental damage from the extra miles driven. We don't seem to have any choices that are impact free or even impact neutral.... All we can do is choose paths of lesser harm :p
On the other hand, take the example of you and three friends driving to a rural farmers market on Saturday: the other fruits, veg, meat, eggs dairy would have travelled far fewer miles to get to each of your homes. Cost-wise, speaking as a Canadian paying ridiculous prices for produce and dairy, I would still come out on top. So it could really vary, I think.
Haha it'll be tough :) I assume there's a reason why big sites don't allow animals and food products. And local rural people don't pick up tech quickly (everybody still using Facebook which super...
Haha it'll be tough :) I assume there's a reason why big sites don't allow animals and food products. And local rural people don't pick up tech quickly (everybody still using Facebook which super sucks) so it'll be an uncomfortable middle gap between no one knows about it and just big enough for FB to take action against it due to animal/food regulations.
Honestly at this scale it's probably better for me to sit at the side of the main road on weekends and sell eggs. It's how people seem to pick up fresh seafood and roadside beef and girl guide cookies here: literal side of the road
Here to commiserate (though, I'm not near retirement age, so on a shorter timescale). 20s/early 30s lived in small apartments or shared homes. Drove rarely for out of city trips, otherwise...
Here to commiserate (though, I'm not near retirement age, so on a shorter timescale). 20s/early 30s lived in small apartments or shared homes. Drove rarely for out of city trips, otherwise walked/biked/transited daily. Was once a vegetarian (developed dietary issues), and still lean heavily plant-based. I try to buy quality and repair before throwing out.
But, it feels like an uphill battle vs. the choices ive been economically incentived toward, and Ive caved on some of them. Cost of housing became way too expensive, so I moved and now drive much, much more. Cost of everything has increased, so "greener" options are often a luxury. I also have less time to research or pursue more sustainable options, as I've felt compelled to work harder the last couple years to earn a more stable income.
I own up to these choices as mine. They havent always aligned to my ideals, but until the accessible options shift it's hard to feel like I'm the bad guy here. It's demoralizing, though.
You've nailed it on the head. Now that we have more time, we plan to cook more from scratch which will cost less and avoid some plastic. Don't beat yourself up, the system is set up for failure...
You've nailed it on the head. Now that we have more time, we plan to cook more from scratch which will cost less and avoid some plastic.
Don't beat yourself up, the system is set up for failure when trying to be ethical in your choices. Pick what's most important to you, stand by your morals and just do the best for the rest. You have to make money to put a roof over your head, eat and support you and yours. Otherwise you could drive yourself insane trying to be "perfect". Looks like you've already made some of those choices.
Until the governments, corporations and all the other powers that be enable a better way, this is what we have.
I live in NZ, and I don't think we'll be spared. There'll be massive refugees crises from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea which Australia will bear the brunt of. Australia itself will fare rather...
I live in NZ, and I don't think we'll be spared. There'll be massive refugees crises from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea which Australia will bear the brunt of. Australia itself will fare rather poorly as well. We'd be next.
In the worst case scenario, the only hope (if you can call it that) is that countries start collapsing faster than they can mount invasions, and people just forget about us in the chaos. But our biodiversity is collapsing, we're extremely dependent on exports, and our military isn't world-class.
More realistically, as the US hyperfocuses on itself and retreats into its own collapsing society, we'd probably fall into China's bubble without that counterweight. If China is still able to project force and isn't bogged down by its own famines and droughts.
I dunno. New Zealand isn't far away enough from the rest of the world, as far as I'm concerned.
China imports ~1/3 of its food IIRC, to the point that to avoid the US crippliing them by blockading the Strait of Malacca they have poured billions of dollars into their Belt And Road project to...
More realistically, as the US hyperfocuses on itself and retreats into its own collapsing society, we'd probably fall into China's bubble without that counterweight. If China is still able to project force and isn't bogged down by its own famines and droughts.
China imports ~1/3 of its food IIRC, to the point that to avoid the US crippliing them by blockading the Strait of Malacca they have poured billions of dollars into their Belt And Road project to set up a land-based alternative (also, Taiwan would be useful in breaking a US blockade, I'm sure they haven't forgotten that).
China also imports a ton of coal and oil and gas, which would also rapidly disappear alongside food exports since the Arab gulf nations aren't exactly known for their thriving agriculture. If China is still relying on that coal/oil/gas to run their AC units then they'll be massacred by the first heatwave.
In contrast, the USA exports legendary amounts of food and has some of the best energy resources on the planet. There is absolutely zero chance that a global export collapse will wreck the US's economy but not China's.
There'll be massive refugees crises from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea which Australia will bear the brunt of. Australia itself will fare rather poorly as well.
Oh absolutely, their economy and nation will be wrecked, which is exactly what I'm worried about. Will their nation collapse faster than they become extremely desperate and have access to...
Oh absolutely, their economy and nation will be wrecked, which is exactly what I'm worried about. Will their nation collapse faster than they become extremely desperate and have access to warships? I don't fucking know. I don't want to be near any densely populated country as things get worse and worse.
Fuck em, I wish we banned rich foreigners that just want to come here to survive the apocalypse. They should spend their billions on preventing the destruction of the planet, and not in buying...
Fuck em, I wish we banned rich foreigners that just want to come here to survive the apocalypse. They should spend their billions on preventing the destruction of the planet, and not in buying Twitter or whatever.
Nice (not nice) to see that that part of The Locked Tomb series - "save the world" startups in NZ - is accurate. I suppose it could go worse than the destruction of the entire planet by a necromancer.
Nice (not nice) to see that that part of The Locked Tomb series - "save the world" startups in NZ - is accurate. I suppose it could go worse than the destruction of the entire planet by a necromancer.
I honestly have no idea. I'd have to assume that far enough from Auckland, Wellington and Chch that the masses don't eat them alive if everything goes tits up. I also don't know if they have any...
I honestly have no idea. I'd have to assume that far enough from Auckland, Wellington and Chch that the masses don't eat them alive if everything goes tits up. I also don't know if they have any agreements with the local iwi either.
I almost wish for the collapse so that Musk and I are reduced to farmhands and maybe I get to shove him occasionally.
If the masses don't beat them up, the local iwi sure would. As for shoving Musk, please take a shot at Zuck for me too when he paddles over from his Hawaiian compound for a visit.
If the masses don't beat them up, the local iwi sure would. As for shoving Musk, please take a shot at Zuck for me too when he paddles over from his Hawaiian compound for a visit.
For you and @kingofsnake, I recommend the book The Future by Naomi Alderman. It's probably the most interesting book I've read in over a year, real thinkers SF, and deals directly with the bunker...
For you and @kingofsnake, I recommend the book The Future by Naomi Alderman. It's probably the most interesting book I've read in over a year, real thinkers SF, and deals directly with the bunker thing in interesting ways. The audiobook is excellently produced as well.
Very cool - thanks for the recommendation. At present, I'm just assuming that all bunker scenarios end with crazed John Goodman. I'm open to new ideas.
Very cool - thanks for the recommendation. At present, I'm just assuming that all bunker scenarios end with crazed John Goodman. I'm open to new ideas.
China isn't even really able to project power now, why would they be able to do so better in the future with all the impending demographic and economic crises?
China isn't even really able to project power now, why would they be able to do so better in the future with all the impending demographic and economic crises?
There’s still hundreds of millions of Chinese who are poor and could be useful in the economy/fighting wars. Plus, the advent of networked warfare means one PLA soldier can project power far more...
There’s still hundreds of millions of Chinese who are poor and could be useful in the economy/fighting wars. Plus, the advent of networked warfare means one PLA soldier can project power far more than one in 1949.
But they have a billion troops and we have 22. It doesn't matter how high quality our troops are, the Chinese have warships, nukes, aircraft carriers. They could outfit every soldier with a knife...
But they have a billion troops and we have 22. It doesn't matter how high quality our troops are, the Chinese have warships, nukes, aircraft carriers. They could outfit every soldier with a knife and they'd still take over if they really wanted to.
Our security situation is dependent on the US not being a failed state.
China does not have a blue water navy. Their best ships to project power all the way to NZ are their fishing boats. The rest of their Navy is really only built to reach Taiwan or maybe the...
China does not have a blue water navy. Their best ships to project power all the way to NZ are their fishing boats. The rest of their Navy is really only built to reach Taiwan or maybe the Philippines.
Sadly, mostly agree. The vast majority of the ability to change course lies with the richest and with the governments (largely run by the richest). Most of the rich have little incentive to change...
Sadly, mostly agree. The vast majority of the ability to change course lies with the richest and with the governments (largely run by the richest). Most of the rich have little incentive to change how they operate so...
No disagree with any of your statements or sentiment other than Equatorial countries are likely to catch the brunt of it. Their fisheries are likely to head towards the poles. Their weather...
Europe will have it the worst. New Zealand will have it the best. The US will be much worse off but will go on.
No disagree with any of your statements or sentiment other than Equatorial countries are likely to catch the brunt of it. Their fisheries are likely to head towards the poles. Their weather systems are likely to see the most radical shifts. And resources wise, they often have the fewest resources to deal with the large impacts and will likely have great casualties because of it.
Agreed. I was just thinking, from my wealthy perspective, where I might go given the shifts we’ll see. Europe (and perhaps China?) will have it the worst of the regions I listed because of the...
Agreed. I was just thinking, from my wealthy perspective, where I might go given the shifts we’ll see. Europe (and perhaps China?) will have it the worst of the regions I listed because of the land connecting them to the tropics.
If you don't mind me asking, what made wren.co better than competitors in your research? I'm not exactly in a financial / life position to be concerned about carbon offsets (I'm still a university...
If you don't mind me asking, what made wren.co better than competitors in your research? I'm not exactly in a financial / life position to be concerned about carbon offsets (I'm still a university student), but it's something I'd definitely want to consider when I'm more established.
They’re a B corp. One of their employees is a Tildes member. Some of the money from their standard portfolio goes to direct carbon capture and they offer a much more expensive 100% direct carbon...
They’re a B corp. One of their employees is a Tildes member. Some of the money from their standard portfolio goes to direct carbon capture and they offer a much more expensive 100% direct carbon capture portfolio.
The standard portfolio is not just tree based. Yes if you’re planting new trees, making sure they grow to adult size and plant them in a location where they will still be there in 100 years they’re a good option. But wren also uses on alternatives that are way less finicky. They destroy refrigerants that would have ended up in the atmosphere. Refrigerants are chemicals designed for maximum heat capacity, which makes them thousands of times worse than CO2.
Slight nitpick on refrigerants. They are thousands of times worse, but I am pretty sure that has nothing to do with heat capacity. They just happen to be really bad. If heat capacity was a...
Slight nitpick on refrigerants. They are thousands of times worse, but I am pretty sure that has nothing to do with heat capacity. They just happen to be really bad. If heat capacity was a problem, water has one of the highest heat capacities, and there is a good bit of water in our atmosphere.
Water vapor is actually a strong greenhouse gas, but it’s also very reflective (clouds) and thus prevents light from hitting land/water. Water also tends to fall out of the sky quickly enough....
Water vapor is actually a strong greenhouse gas, but it’s also very reflective (clouds) and thus prevents light from hitting land/water. Water also tends to fall out of the sky quickly enough. We’re also not creating much new water so it kind of “is what it is”. We are however making relatively large increases in the amount of refrigerants and carbon dioxide.
But you’re right I don’t know the chemistry well and there are way more properties at play.
Aren't we creating new water every time we burn a hydrocarbon? I don't remember much chemistry either but I thought the products of simple combustion were CO2 and water vapor.
Aren't we creating new water every time we burn a hydrocarbon? I don't remember much chemistry either but I thought the products of simple combustion were CO2 and water vapor.
I haven’t done the math. But I considered how much water there is in the world (oceans, lakes and clouds) vs. CO2 and I’m very sure the relative increase from water is minuscule in comparison.
I haven’t done the math. But I considered how much water there is in the world (oceans, lakes and clouds) vs. CO2 and I’m very sure the relative increase from water is minuscule in comparison.
My position and (personal) policy in recent years has been, "screw the timelines; we need to quit using fossil fuels, right now, today, 100%". Yes, I know that is, practically speaking,...
My position and (personal) policy in recent years has been, "screw the timelines; we need to quit using fossil fuels, right now, today, 100%".
Yes, I know that is, practically speaking, impossible. People own cars, there's the entire global airline industry, global shipping is still 99% fossil fuel powered, etc, etc.
However, I have watched for 40+ years now as we--as a species/culture--have repeatedly said, "okay, here is the minimum that we have to do to avoid the really bad effects", and then for the next decade, half-ass those absolute bare-minimum requirements.
Human nature or capitalism or what, IDK, I don't care ... we do not have the ability (political will or whatever you want to call it), to do slow, steady, gradual decreases and transitions over time.
So, that's where we need to start ... 100% end to fossil fuels, immediately, right now. And then let people, politicians, industries try to argue their way into deserving exceptions, why they might be special enough to risk killing off our species.
Of course, that's just me, sitting here, armchair-quarterbacking after 4 decades of frustration and disbelief at my species. But I also no longer believe there is ever going to be a top-down political solution. We need literal riots.
How many people are you ok with starving to death due to this decision, because that's 100% going to happen if we somehow just stopped 100% tomorrow. You'll also have people freezing to death in...
How many people are you ok with starving to death due to this decision, because that's 100% going to happen if we somehow just stopped 100% tomorrow.
You'll also have people freezing to death in some areas, and I suspect a bunch more of unforeseen circumstances as entire sections of countries lose power.
So you can have literal riots if you want, but it's really easy to say that when you're not focusing on what supply line brought you your food.
You're right. The situation is bad enough that we're basically in triage mode for the biosphere. Or should be anyway. Sea level rise is on the path to put major populated costal areas across the...
You're right.
The situation is bad enough that we're basically in triage mode for the biosphere. Or should be anyway.
Sea level rise is on the path to put major populated costal areas across the globe below sea level. Hurricanes and other weather events are getting more energetic and frequent. Water supplies are being stretched because instead of snowpack that lasts most of the year, we're getting rain that only lasts a few months and aquifer's are being depleted.
If the oceans become acidic enough that plankton die, everything is fucked on not just a generational timescale, but a geologic one.
There aren't a lot of good options, and they're getting fewer. People rioted because they were asked to wear masks for a pandemic. Being told their house is worthless because it's under water isn't going to go over well.
I don't know about immediately ending core infrastructure, but would like more solar geoengineering, weather engineering, net-zero carbon cycle infrastructure, better batteries, and better energy...
I don't know about immediately ending core infrastructure, but would like more solar geoengineering, weather engineering, net-zero carbon cycle infrastructure, better batteries, and better energy transport infra.
It's unfortunate but we currently rely on oil for places that aren't colocated with renewable infra that can handle flexible demand and curtail over-generation risk. This is why we've seen countries that headlined renewable pushes slowly tapping into more oil reserves in the background over the last year.
The other issue is, we don't know what the 2nd or 3rd order effect of immediate cut offs can be. Oceans got warmer after we regulated out polluting sulfur fuel from cargo ships, because the sulfates in the air were reflecting the sun light and keeping the water cool. It turns out atmospheric SO2 is extremely effective at increasing albedo, which reduces surface and sea temperatures! https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
Riots need to be accomplished by crowds in cities: in rural places it's much harder to gather, and much easier to handle a couple of people. Riots also push leaders which also push top down...
Riots need to be accomplished by crowds in cities: in rural places it's much harder to gather, and much easier to handle a couple of people. Riots also push leaders which also push top down political solutions even if they work. And it's a big if, they have unlimited weaponry.
What we need is for fossil fuel and carbon emitting industries and infrastructure to completely be broken down
What's the word for a clog getting thrown into a machine?
Lots of interesting comments, as usual, but I have s simple one. I can't believe that in 2024, nobody has yet figured out that if they start saying the plain truth is will have more effect on the...
Lots of interesting comments, as usual, but I have s simple one.
I can't believe that in 2024, nobody has yet figured out that if they start saying the plain truth is will have more effect on the masses.
The planet isn't dying.
We are. Because we are making it inhabitable for ourselves. The fact that we are bringing to the grave plenty other creatures with us, is not relevant to the majority of people.
But if you start saying "you will probably die of air/water pollution 20 years from now. The next generation will have an average lifespan of 30 years" and other things like that. You'll get much more response. Even if I made up these numbers.
Deniers make up bullshit every other day. It's time we simply do the same but for the greater good.
I know, it sucks. But when you have to reason with dumb, you have to speak dumb.
Which would be scary if it were anywhere near true. In Canada, where I live, life expectancy is on a very steep upward climb and has been for 100 years. So if we're dying, there sure isn't any...
In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn was 32 years. By 2021 this had more than doubled to 71 years. On that measurement, we are doing fantastic.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Past performance does not guarantee future results?" Looking into the past and saying that the future is going to be just like it is definitely a thing that lots of...
Have you ever heard the phrase "Past performance does not guarantee future results?" Looking into the past and saying that the future is going to be just like it is definitely a thing that lots of people do, but it's predicated on the future having the same fundamental characteristics as the past, and that's already not the case. Also, your data stops in 2011, which matters.
It only fell because of covid, not because worldwide we are experiencing a lower quality of life. And yes, Im aware of past performance not dictating future results, but Im comparing actual data...
It only fell because of covid, not because worldwide we are experiencing a lower quality of life.
And yes, Im aware of past performance not dictating future results, but Im comparing actual data with predictions and given the one I trust the most, Im going with actual data. There are MANY things Ive already lived through that were predicted that didnt come true. Which means that although the climate may be changing, very gradually, I think the prediction that millions will die is highly exaggerated. Just like the oceans rising and taking out cities - as if humans aren't smart enough to move their homes, or build them in advanced ways that mitigate the risk. All of the crying wolf is not effective in changing people's minds, but it IS effective in numbing them to the hue and cry - until the data and the costs prove otherwise. And we're not there yet.
But your post was really about making up things that arent true to convince people - which would eliminate all credibility and motivation altogether.
To be clear, I'm not the OP, I just don't like people making claims with data that I think the data doesn't support. But yeah, COVID was a thing. You cutting off the data before it doesn't make it...
To be clear, I'm not the OP, I just don't like people making claims with data that I think the data doesn't support.
But yeah, COVID was a thing. You cutting off the data before it doesn't make it less of a thing, and we already know that shifting climates can lead to greater cross-species transfer of disease due to new pools of disease coming into contact.
And we're already seeing coastal cities like Miami and San Francisco have clear skies coastal flooding. You're right that the costs aren't significant enough yet to make people change, but do you really think that saying that everything is fine and that historical life expectancy gains show that the future will be fine?
Thanks for clarifying, I did think you were OP. Will the future change? Yes. Will it be fine? Really hard to know that for sure, but I do have a great deal of faith that when mankind is faced with...
Thanks for clarifying, I did think you were OP.
Will the future change? Yes. Will it be fine? Really hard to know that for sure, but I do have a great deal of faith that when mankind is faced with an existential threat, we actually respond. And the reason the response to climate change is tepid, is that, in all reality, not enough people actually believe its an existential threat to make substantial changes.
Ive also given up on worrying about it. I live in a country that emits 1.8% of worlds GHG's. I am 1/44,000,000 of the population. I drive an EV. I no longer fly anywhere. I heat my home without nat. gas most of the time. (whoopee) That's it. Im done. Even if I died tomorrow, the climate would absolutely not notice one tiny bit if I was here or not. If my entire country were to disappear, the climate would barely even take note. Our emissions are a rounding error in the great global computer model of climate change.
It's totally sensible to not worry about it. I'm in a similar place, where I'm doing my best with what I actually have power over, but that's not very much. But I'm not going to tell the people...
It's totally sensible to not worry about it. I'm in a similar place, where I'm doing my best with what I actually have power over, but that's not very much. But I'm not going to tell the people who are worried or who might make bigger changes that it's not worth worrying about. It absolutely is, it's just so big, and you've got to know your personal limits.
I'd disagree with this. I think that even if people don't know the exact details of what's happening in the world, they can pick up on the vibe when other people are reaching too hard or...
I'd disagree with this. I think that even if people don't know the exact details of what's happening in the world, they can pick up on the vibe when other people are reaching too hard or exaggerating things too much.
As a result, a lot of times people will talk about things they think are important, I will lose interest because I don't trust them. All it takes is one line that feels like they're a little too overconfident, and suddenly I will be suspicious that this person is actually giving me bad or misleading information.
Because I know that some people are willing to lie for what they decide is the greater good, I dont feel like I can take anyone at their word. That last line you wrote is pretty insulting, no? The thought that some stranger is going to come up to me and start trying to proselytize to me with the attitude of "this dummy is too stupid to make decisions on his own, so I'll have to lie to him for his own good" makes me not want to collaborate with others on making the world a better place.
The global-average temperature for the past twelve months (April 2023 – March 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.70°C above the 1991-2020 average and 1.58°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial...
The global-average temperature for the past twelve months (April 2023 – March 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.70°C above the 1991-2020 average and 1.58°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average.
We don't have two years. This article came out in 2004 with a report from the Pentagon saying we have 20 years before major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged...
We don't have two years.
This article came out in 2004 with a report from the Pentagon saying we have 20 years before major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate.
That is this year. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Which is why they shouldn't be treated as anything more than gossip. A HUGE image issue surrounding the entire conversation is the fact that once global warming became politically trendy, it was...
Which is why they shouldn't be treated as anything more than gossip.
A HUGE image issue surrounding the entire conversation is the fact that once global warming became politically trendy, it was all about sensationalism not reality. Things are getting worse. Things are bad. But every time someone like Gore makes a average citizen verifiable claim like say, Mt Kilimanjaro won't have snow on it in 10 years, and it still does 15 years later, you DESTROY your credibility.
It is insanely frustrating to see mostly reasonable people making stupid claims that years later other mostly reasonable people now have to be told "well yeah I know they said that, but it was wrong, and we knew it was wrong then, and yes this is still a problem".
Edit-
And this isn't even going to go into the people who think there's nothing that can be done because this is the 3rd time I can think of i've seen a similar headline with a "we're doomed" date already passed. We might be, but it sure as hell doesn't help if we aren't.
Yeah, and also that those who seem acutely aware don't seem to be going into prepper mode. NYT has been posting climate change articles for decades now, but remain headquartered mere blocks from...
Yeah, and also that those who seem acutely aware don't seem to be going into prepper mode.
NYT has been posting climate change articles for decades now, but remain headquartered mere blocks from the water’s edge, which is supposed to be rising (this is why billionaires buying oceanfront homes get mocked so much online.) Surely the New York Times, a public company, would disclose their moving and climate mitigation plans to shareholders at some point.
I have a friend that lives in Louisiana, not on the coast but within 50 miles or so. Their home insurance has more than doubled in the past 2 years alone. I also have family in Florida and their...
I have a friend that lives in Louisiana, not on the coast but within 50 miles or so. Their home insurance has more than doubled in the past 2 years alone.
I also have family in Florida and their insurance companies will no longer insure a home with a shingle roof that is more than 10 years old. The roofing materials are required to be metal now. (Funnily enough they blame Biden for this, not the private insurance companies and their state government, but that's a whole other thing.)
Maybe it would help if people zoomed in more and thought about local impacts? What's really going to happen in your community? At 4mm per year, you do get plenty of advance notice about sea level...
Maybe it would help if people zoomed in more and thought about local impacts? What's really going to happen in your community?
At 4mm per year, you do get plenty of advance notice about sea level rise. What you don't see coming is a really bad storm now and then. But New York City will build walls.
In Cape Cod, there's a lot of erosion. Some people raise their houses. It will be different, but it's a gradual change. Maybe sudden, after a storm?
Florida gets lots of storms, flooding in some places, and insurance is a major issue.
Poor and low-lying countries are the ones in big trouble.
In this case, I don't think the speech was about announcing a scientific prediction? It's essentially a speech with a clickbait title. Who was the audience? What he was trying to accomplish by...
In this case, I don't think the speech was about announcing a scientific prediction?
It's essentially a speech with a clickbait title. Who was the audience? What he was trying to accomplish by giving this speech?
We don't know. The contents of the speech are ignored and people just talk about whoever semi-related stuff the headline brings to mind.
This may be the most 2024 idea I have all year, but it's time for a gritty live-action reboot of Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Make it a big-budget HBO series. Replace the "mother earth" Gaia...
This may be the most 2024 idea I have all year, but it's time for a gritty live-action reboot of Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Make it a big-budget HBO series. Replace the "mother earth" Gaia character with some sort of digital platform that amplifies the voice of the people... maybe keep Gaia as the AI personification of our collective will. Captain Planet himself is not a superhero, but an ecoterrorist vigilante whose whole thing is identifying the (actual) responsible parties who have the power to fix things, and making it personal for them. Lots of closeups of bloodied billionaires cowering in corners, swearing they'll do right thing so they won't get visited by the Captain again.
I'm half joking, but we've been waiting for the polluters to stop, or be stopped, for decades. Recycling and driving EVs aren't going to fix anything on the global scale. The problem is in the hands of a few, people who possess the power to improve things but refuse to use it on meaningful change. Who will hold them accountable? If only there was some way to crowdfund a resistance movement, since governments and corporations are failing us. I'd prefer if that weren't ecoterrorism or some kind of extra-legal action, but what else is there? At least a big TV show would get a new kind of conversation started.
Now I’m imagining a horror reboot a la Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey, where a bunch of terrified executives get picked off one-by-one by a man with a knife and tiny red pants.
Now I’m imagining a horror reboot a la Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey, where a bunch of terrified executives get picked off one-by-one by a man with a knife and tiny red pants.
I don't think it is what you are asking for, but the live-action "not a superhero" part reminds me of the series of Don Cheadle Is Captain Planet skits.
I don't think it is what you are asking for, but the live-action "not a superhero" part reminds me of the series of Don Cheadle Is Captain Planet skits.
In my opinion the current problems we are facing are entirely due to misalignment of localized(both spatially and temporally) incentives and global needs. In our current cultural, economical...
In my opinion the current problems we are facing are entirely due to misalignment of localized(both spatially and temporally) incentives and global needs.
In our current cultural, economical environment it simply makes sense to make decisions that will have disproportionate negative effects down the line, even on the maker.
On low impact decision level most people simply will not consider their broader impact and will conform to current trends no matter the trends. Only people with the mindset compatible with current atmosphere will even get to high impact decision level.
On individual level the impact either way will always be small in absolutes and most people simply will not make even the minimal possible effort to reduce it and they should. Cultural shift could have been accomplished that way and that shift could have impacted high level decisions.
Human evolution hardwired our ancestors for survival in an unpredictable world. Immediate threats and opportunities took precedence over distant, uncertain futures. This evolutionary legacy has...
Human evolution hardwired our ancestors for survival in an unpredictable world. Immediate threats and opportunities took precedence over distant, uncertain futures. This evolutionary legacy has bequeathed us a psychological "present bias," where the urgency of now overshadows the needs of tomorrow. In the context of climate change, this bias manifests in a global inertia, particularly pronounced in developed nations, where the immediacy of economic growth, political gain, and social comfort often trumps the looming environmental catastrophe.
The social fabric of humanity is woven with threads of in-group favoritism, an evolutionary trait that ensured the survival of our forebears by fostering group cohesion and cooperation. Today, this manifests in a preference for national interests and the welfare of immediate communities over the global collective. Developed nations, with their historical emissions and current consumption patterns, face a moral imperative to lead the charge against climate change. But our in-group bias creates a reluctance to act unless there is perceived equitable effort from all, leading to a deadlock in international climate policy. Worse still, we are more concerned with how are efforts will affect ourselves and our in-groups, not how it will affect others.
Theoretically, governments are institutions that are supposed to overcome our irrational individual preferences in order to promote the general welfare of everyone. But our governments only care about their own citizenry when they are focused on the general welfare of people at all. At the end of the day, with global capitalism being what it is, the focus of the governments of wealthy nations is predominantly upon the wealthiest people within their borders. A senator from Kentucky is not going to win any elections worrying about and passing legislation to mitigate climate change, particularly if it's going to help the people of the future living in the global south.
It's hard to be optimistic about our ability to overcome these challenges.
I completely agree. As long as companies, both private and publicly traded, and by extension governments (through their bonds and debt ceilings), are not allowed to exist without the assumption of...
In our current cultural, economical environment it simply makes sense to make decisions that will have disproportionate negative effects down the line, even on the maker.
I completely agree. As long as companies, both private and publicly traded, and by extension governments (through their bonds and debt ceilings), are not allowed to exist without the assumption of eternal growth underlying their “price” evaluation (e.g. market capitalization), things, at large, cannot change.
Which is really unfortunate and tremendously unfair to the people who are the most likely to be unable to alter the status quo, yet disproportionately affected by these drastic outcomes. I really like your phrasing of (spatially, temporally) “localized incentives, global needs”, by the way.
As someone that does at least do the easy things (electric car, biking often for small trips, public transportation, eating mostly vegetarian, wren.co carbon offsets - the least sketchy offsets I’ve seen) let me just say it’s out of my hands. In addition, those that have means to really change the trajectory will not. So get prepared for a couple hundred million people to die from famine and unlivable temperatures. Europe will have it the worst. New Zealand will have it the best. The US will be much worse off but will go on.
I do qualify for a NZ visa. I weigh the need to live there against the odds they’re about to severely lock down immigration. I think we’re still a few years out from that though and I like being close to family.
Hard agree. Been vegan for almost 2 decades, lived in apartments for over 4 decades, avoided the suburban sprawl. Now we've moved to a small house on a small piece of land in a rural community. Still minutes from stores and necessities but we have stepped back from all of the crazy.
We just went through the warmest winter I've ever experienced. That was after the odd summer we had, and all of the chamging seasons years before. I am hoping we've made the right move to the right area to mitigate some of the coming climate changes.
To add to it all, we used to try to be mindful of how we purchased most things, but damn if everything isn't packaged in 10 layers of plastic and nonsense. I've given up. I can't afford the brands that are trying to be green (retired, limited income). We will still do our best, but unless the rest of the globe wakes up, I don't hold out much hope.
Maybe someone here can a put positive spin on the future. I'm a realist though, it's going to take something big for the world to wake up. Like I tell my daughter, the planet will be fine, the humans are the ones who will bear the brunt of climate collapse.
So much this. It is expensive to live green.
I went to that website in @teaearlgraycold's comment above and calculated my carbon footprint: I am at 2.8 tons per year which is already at 0.6 times the world average - but it is honestly just from being poor. I can't afford to go anywhere, nor can I afford a car, or a bigger apartment (the calculator had "small apartment" as 35 sqm and mine is 25 lol), and I also can't afford to consume a whole lot of things.
About brands of produce though - I can't afford to buy the "good" eggs. I try to simply never buy eggs because I don't want to support chicken farms with horrid animal welfare. But one of those eggs are about $0.35 while an egg from a farm with free roaming chickens etc. is almost twice that. I don't actually know which is better for the environment in terms of pollution though the point remains I hope.
No positive spins here, but I did see a kinda nice sentiment the other day: Being overly negative is just as delusional as being overly positive.
Re: good eggs
You might have to drive to places where folks keep backyard chickens and ask. By the way Facebook won't allow people to post "I have eggs to sell" - so looking online may not be the best way.
(Source: i have way too many free ranged happily roaming bird eggs I can't get rid of because every third person here has their own backyard chickens. I'm giving them away for free at this point)
Eggs was just the an example that popped into my head 😊
But like even if I had a license and could afford a car, wouldn't eventual savings just cancel out from fuel costs?
Not to mention environmental damage from the extra miles driven. We don't seem to have any choices that are impact free or even impact neutral.... All we can do is choose paths of lesser harm :p
On the other hand, take the example of you and three friends driving to a rural farmers market on Saturday: the other fruits, veg, meat, eggs dairy would have travelled far fewer miles to get to each of your homes. Cost-wise, speaking as a Canadian paying ridiculous prices for produce and dairy, I would still come out on top. So it could really vary, I think.
Absolutely. Thankfully, the impact of shipping is starting to be focused on a lot more. Should always buy locally if we can
It seems like an opportunity for a specialized website?
Haha it'll be tough :) I assume there's a reason why big sites don't allow animals and food products. And local rural people don't pick up tech quickly (everybody still using Facebook which super sucks) so it'll be an uncomfortable middle gap between no one knows about it and just big enough for FB to take action against it due to animal/food regulations.
Honestly at this scale it's probably better for me to sit at the side of the main road on weekends and sell eggs. It's how people seem to pick up fresh seafood and roadside beef and girl guide cookies here: literal side of the road
Looks like roadfood.com is taken, so I guess it would have to be a more creative name :)
Here to commiserate (though, I'm not near retirement age, so on a shorter timescale). 20s/early 30s lived in small apartments or shared homes. Drove rarely for out of city trips, otherwise walked/biked/transited daily. Was once a vegetarian (developed dietary issues), and still lean heavily plant-based. I try to buy quality and repair before throwing out.
But, it feels like an uphill battle vs. the choices ive been economically incentived toward, and Ive caved on some of them. Cost of housing became way too expensive, so I moved and now drive much, much more. Cost of everything has increased, so "greener" options are often a luxury. I also have less time to research or pursue more sustainable options, as I've felt compelled to work harder the last couple years to earn a more stable income.
I own up to these choices as mine. They havent always aligned to my ideals, but until the accessible options shift it's hard to feel like I'm the bad guy here. It's demoralizing, though.
You've nailed it on the head. Now that we have more time, we plan to cook more from scratch which will cost less and avoid some plastic.
Don't beat yourself up, the system is set up for failure when trying to be ethical in your choices. Pick what's most important to you, stand by your morals and just do the best for the rest. You have to make money to put a roof over your head, eat and support you and yours. Otherwise you could drive yourself insane trying to be "perfect". Looks like you've already made some of those choices.
Until the governments, corporations and all the other powers that be enable a better way, this is what we have.
I live in NZ, and I don't think we'll be spared. There'll be massive refugees crises from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea which Australia will bear the brunt of. Australia itself will fare rather poorly as well. We'd be next.
In the worst case scenario, the only hope (if you can call it that) is that countries start collapsing faster than they can mount invasions, and people just forget about us in the chaos. But our biodiversity is collapsing, we're extremely dependent on exports, and our military isn't world-class.
More realistically, as the US hyperfocuses on itself and retreats into its own collapsing society, we'd probably fall into China's bubble without that counterweight. If China is still able to project force and isn't bogged down by its own famines and droughts.
I dunno. New Zealand isn't far away enough from the rest of the world, as far as I'm concerned.
China imports ~1/3 of its food IIRC, to the point that to avoid the US crippliing them by blockading the Strait of Malacca they have poured billions of dollars into their Belt And Road project to set up a land-based alternative (also, Taiwan would be useful in breaking a US blockade, I'm sure they haven't forgotten that).
China also imports a ton of coal and oil and gas, which would also rapidly disappear alongside food exports since the Arab gulf nations aren't exactly known for their thriving agriculture. If China is still relying on that coal/oil/gas to run their AC units then they'll be massacred by the first heatwave.
In contrast, the USA exports legendary amounts of food and has some of the best energy resources on the planet. There is absolutely zero chance that a global export collapse will wreck the US's economy but not China's.
Oh bugger.
Oh absolutely, their economy and nation will be wrecked, which is exactly what I'm worried about. Will their nation collapse faster than they become extremely desperate and have access to warships? I don't fucking know. I don't want to be near any densely populated country as things get worse and worse.
Don't tell the tech bros that -- they're counting on NZ for their bunkers!
Fuck em, I wish we banned rich foreigners that just want to come here to survive the apocalypse. They should spend their billions on preventing the destruction of the planet, and not in buying Twitter or whatever.
Nice (not nice) to see that that part of The Locked Tomb series - "save the world" startups in NZ - is accurate. I suppose it could go worse than the destruction of the entire planet by a necromancer.
Any idea where they're building them primarily? My bet is that you could really get lost in the Takaka area.
I honestly have no idea. I'd have to assume that far enough from Auckland, Wellington and Chch that the masses don't eat them alive if everything goes tits up. I also don't know if they have any agreements with the local iwi either.
I almost wish for the collapse so that Musk and I are reduced to farmhands and maybe I get to shove him occasionally.
If the masses don't beat them up, the local iwi sure would. As for shoving Musk, please take a shot at Zuck for me too when he paddles over from his Hawaiian compound for a visit.
For you and @kingofsnake, I recommend the book The Future by Naomi Alderman. It's probably the most interesting book I've read in over a year, real thinkers SF, and deals directly with the bunker thing in interesting ways. The audiobook is excellently produced as well.
Very cool - thanks for the recommendation. At present, I'm just assuming that all bunker scenarios end with crazed John Goodman. I'm open to new ideas.
I don't want to spoil it for you, but this one is ... better.
China isn't even really able to project power now, why would they be able to do so better in the future with all the impending demographic and economic crises?
There’s still hundreds of millions of Chinese who are poor and could be useful in the economy/fighting wars. Plus, the advent of networked warfare means one PLA soldier can project power far more than one in 1949.
There are, but that leads to them having a very low quality of troops. Quantity is great, but quality wins every time.
But they have a billion troops and we have 22. It doesn't matter how high quality our troops are, the Chinese have warships, nukes, aircraft carriers. They could outfit every soldier with a knife and they'd still take over if they really wanted to.
Our security situation is dependent on the US not being a failed state.
China does not have a blue water navy. Their best ships to project power all the way to NZ are their fishing boats. The rest of their Navy is really only built to reach Taiwan or maybe the Philippines.
And hopefully it stays that way.
Sadly, mostly agree. The vast majority of the ability to change course lies with the richest and with the governments (largely run by the richest). Most of the rich have little incentive to change how they operate so...
No disagree with any of your statements or sentiment other than Equatorial countries are likely to catch the brunt of it. Their fisheries are likely to head towards the poles. Their weather systems are likely to see the most radical shifts. And resources wise, they often have the fewest resources to deal with the large impacts and will likely have great casualties because of it.
Agreed. I was just thinking, from my wealthy perspective, where I might go given the shifts we’ll see. Europe (and perhaps China?) will have it the worst of the regions I listed because of the land connecting them to the tropics.
My mind wanders that way too. I started comparing sea level projections to coastal areas I like in Scotland. I think that would be my choice.
If you don't mind me asking, what made wren.co better than competitors in your research? I'm not exactly in a financial / life position to be concerned about carbon offsets (I'm still a university student), but it's something I'd definitely want to consider when I'm more established.
They’re a B corp. One of their employees is a Tildes member. Some of the money from their standard portfolio goes to direct carbon capture and they offer a much more expensive 100% direct carbon capture portfolio.
The standard portfolio is not just tree based. Yes if you’re planting new trees, making sure they grow to adult size and plant them in a location where they will still be there in 100 years they’re a good option. But wren also uses on alternatives that are way less finicky. They destroy refrigerants that would have ended up in the atmosphere. Refrigerants are chemicals designed for maximum heat capacity, which makes them thousands of times worse than CO2.
Slight nitpick on refrigerants. They are thousands of times worse, but I am pretty sure that has nothing to do with heat capacity. They just happen to be really bad. If heat capacity was a problem, water has one of the highest heat capacities, and there is a good bit of water in our atmosphere.
Water vapor is actually a strong greenhouse gas, but it’s also very reflective (clouds) and thus prevents light from hitting land/water. Water also tends to fall out of the sky quickly enough. We’re also not creating much new water so it kind of “is what it is”. We are however making relatively large increases in the amount of refrigerants and carbon dioxide.
But you’re right I don’t know the chemistry well and there are way more properties at play.
Huh today I learned!
So we just need to increase global temperatures even more to boil off the oceans and reflect all the sun away? 🙃
Aren't we creating new water every time we burn a hydrocarbon? I don't remember much chemistry either but I thought the products of simple combustion were CO2 and water vapor.
I haven’t done the math. But I considered how much water there is in the world (oceans, lakes and clouds) vs. CO2 and I’m very sure the relative increase from water is minuscule in comparison.
My position and (personal) policy in recent years has been, "screw the timelines; we need to quit using fossil fuels, right now, today, 100%".
Yes, I know that is, practically speaking, impossible. People own cars, there's the entire global airline industry, global shipping is still 99% fossil fuel powered, etc, etc.
However, I have watched for 40+ years now as we--as a species/culture--have repeatedly said, "okay, here is the minimum that we have to do to avoid the really bad effects", and then for the next decade, half-ass those absolute bare-minimum requirements.
Human nature or capitalism or what, IDK, I don't care ... we do not have the ability (political will or whatever you want to call it), to do slow, steady, gradual decreases and transitions over time.
So, that's where we need to start ... 100% end to fossil fuels, immediately, right now. And then let people, politicians, industries try to argue their way into deserving exceptions, why they might be special enough to risk killing off our species.
Of course, that's just me, sitting here, armchair-quarterbacking after 4 decades of frustration and disbelief at my species. But I also no longer believe there is ever going to be a top-down political solution. We need literal riots.
How many people are you ok with starving to death due to this decision, because that's 100% going to happen if we somehow just stopped 100% tomorrow.
You'll also have people freezing to death in some areas, and I suspect a bunch more of unforeseen circumstances as entire sections of countries lose power.
So you can have literal riots if you want, but it's really easy to say that when you're not focusing on what supply line brought you your food.
You're right.
The situation is bad enough that we're basically in triage mode for the biosphere. Or should be anyway.
Sea level rise is on the path to put major populated costal areas across the globe below sea level. Hurricanes and other weather events are getting more energetic and frequent. Water supplies are being stretched because instead of snowpack that lasts most of the year, we're getting rain that only lasts a few months and aquifer's are being depleted.
If the oceans become acidic enough that plankton die, everything is fucked on not just a generational timescale, but a geologic one.
There aren't a lot of good options, and they're getting fewer. People rioted because they were asked to wear masks for a pandemic. Being told their house is worthless because it's under water isn't going to go over well.
I don't know about immediately ending core infrastructure, but would like more solar geoengineering, weather engineering, net-zero carbon cycle infrastructure, better batteries, and better energy transport infra.
It's unfortunate but we currently rely on oil for places that aren't colocated with renewable infra that can handle flexible demand and curtail over-generation risk. This is why we've seen countries that headlined renewable pushes slowly tapping into more oil reserves in the background over the last year.
The other issue is, we don't know what the 2nd or 3rd order effect of immediate cut offs can be. Oceans got warmer after we regulated out polluting sulfur fuel from cargo ships, because the sulfates in the air were reflecting the sun light and keeping the water cool. It turns out atmospheric SO2 is extremely effective at increasing albedo, which reduces surface and sea temperatures!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
I wonder if there is a non–water–soluble gas that would perform similarly without causing acid rain.
Salt is being explore as something they can add to the fuel to bring down the water temps as well as sulfur did.
Riots need to be accomplished by crowds in cities: in rural places it's much harder to gather, and much easier to handle a couple of people. Riots also push leaders which also push top down political solutions even if they work. And it's a big if, they have unlimited weaponry.
What we need is for fossil fuel and carbon emitting industries and infrastructure to completely be broken down
What's the word for a clog getting thrown into a machine?
Lots of interesting comments, as usual, but I have s simple one.
I can't believe that in 2024, nobody has yet figured out that if they start saying the plain truth is will have more effect on the masses.
The planet isn't dying.
We are. Because we are making it inhabitable for ourselves. The fact that we are bringing to the grave plenty other creatures with us, is not relevant to the majority of people.
But if you start saying "you will probably die of air/water pollution 20 years from now. The next generation will have an average lifespan of 30 years" and other things like that. You'll get much more response. Even if I made up these numbers.
Deniers make up bullshit every other day. It's time we simply do the same but for the greater good.
I know, it sucks. But when you have to reason with dumb, you have to speak dumb.
Which would be scary if it were anywhere near true. In Canada, where I live, life expectancy is on a very steep upward climb and has been for 100 years. So if we're dying, there sure isn't any proof of it: https://i.cbc.ca/1.3994995.1487804403!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/change-in-life-expectancy-at-birth-in-canada.jpg
Also true worldwide except for a slight dip in the covid years, but the trend is still massively upward: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn was 32 years. By 2021 this had more than doubled to 71 years. On that measurement, we are doing fantastic.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Past performance does not guarantee future results?" Looking into the past and saying that the future is going to be just like it is definitely a thing that lots of people do, but it's predicated on the future having the same fundamental characteristics as the past, and that's already not the case. Also, your data stops in 2011, which matters.
It only fell because of covid, not because worldwide we are experiencing a lower quality of life.
And yes, Im aware of past performance not dictating future results, but Im comparing actual data with predictions and given the one I trust the most, Im going with actual data. There are MANY things Ive already lived through that were predicted that didnt come true. Which means that although the climate may be changing, very gradually, I think the prediction that millions will die is highly exaggerated. Just like the oceans rising and taking out cities - as if humans aren't smart enough to move their homes, or build them in advanced ways that mitigate the risk. All of the crying wolf is not effective in changing people's minds, but it IS effective in numbing them to the hue and cry - until the data and the costs prove otherwise. And we're not there yet.
But your post was really about making up things that arent true to convince people - which would eliminate all credibility and motivation altogether.
To be clear, I'm not the OP, I just don't like people making claims with data that I think the data doesn't support.
But yeah, COVID was a thing. You cutting off the data before it doesn't make it less of a thing, and we already know that shifting climates can lead to greater cross-species transfer of disease due to new pools of disease coming into contact.
And we're already seeing coastal cities like Miami and San Francisco have clear skies coastal flooding. You're right that the costs aren't significant enough yet to make people change, but do you really think that saying that everything is fine and that historical life expectancy gains show that the future will be fine?
Thanks for clarifying, I did think you were OP.
Will the future change? Yes. Will it be fine? Really hard to know that for sure, but I do have a great deal of faith that when mankind is faced with an existential threat, we actually respond. And the reason the response to climate change is tepid, is that, in all reality, not enough people actually believe its an existential threat to make substantial changes.
Ive also given up on worrying about it. I live in a country that emits 1.8% of worlds GHG's. I am 1/44,000,000 of the population. I drive an EV. I no longer fly anywhere. I heat my home without nat. gas most of the time. (whoopee) That's it. Im done. Even if I died tomorrow, the climate would absolutely not notice one tiny bit if I was here or not. If my entire country were to disappear, the climate would barely even take note. Our emissions are a rounding error in the great global computer model of climate change.
It's totally sensible to not worry about it. I'm in a similar place, where I'm doing my best with what I actually have power over, but that's not very much. But I'm not going to tell the people who are worried or who might make bigger changes that it's not worth worrying about. It absolutely is, it's just so big, and you've got to know your personal limits.
Making it uninhabitable for ourselves? Yes.
I'd disagree with this. I think that even if people don't know the exact details of what's happening in the world, they can pick up on the vibe when other people are reaching too hard or exaggerating things too much.
As a result, a lot of times people will talk about things they think are important, I will lose interest because I don't trust them. All it takes is one line that feels like they're a little too overconfident, and suddenly I will be suspicious that this person is actually giving me bad or misleading information.
Because I know that some people are willing to lie for what they decide is the greater good, I dont feel like I can take anyone at their word. That last line you wrote is pretty insulting, no? The thought that some stranger is going to come up to me and start trying to proselytize to me with the attitude of "this dummy is too stupid to make decisions on his own, so I'll have to lie to him for his own good" makes me not want to collaborate with others on making the world a better place.
The global-average temperature for the past twelve months (April 2023 – March 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.70°C above the 1991-2020 average and 1.58°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average.
We don't have two years.
This article came out in 2004 with a report from the Pentagon saying we have 20 years before major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate.
That is this year.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
Which is why they shouldn't be treated as anything more than gossip.
A HUGE image issue surrounding the entire conversation is the fact that once global warming became politically trendy, it was all about sensationalism not reality. Things are getting worse. Things are bad. But every time someone like Gore makes a average citizen verifiable claim like say, Mt Kilimanjaro won't have snow on it in 10 years, and it still does 15 years later, you DESTROY your credibility.
It is insanely frustrating to see mostly reasonable people making stupid claims that years later other mostly reasonable people now have to be told "well yeah I know they said that, but it was wrong, and we knew it was wrong then, and yes this is still a problem".
Edit-
And this isn't even going to go into the people who think there's nothing that can be done because this is the 3rd time I can think of i've seen a similar headline with a "we're doomed" date already passed. We might be, but it sure as hell doesn't help if we aren't.
Yeah, and also that those who seem acutely aware don't seem to be going into prepper mode.
NYT has been posting climate change articles for decades now, but remain headquartered mere blocks from the water’s edge, which is supposed to be rising (this is why billionaires buying oceanfront homes get mocked so much online.) Surely the New York Times, a public company, would disclose their moving and climate mitigation plans to shareholders at some point.
You know who is? Insurance companies.
I have a friend that lives in Louisiana, not on the coast but within 50 miles or so. Their home insurance has more than doubled in the past 2 years alone.
I also have family in Florida and their insurance companies will no longer insure a home with a shingle roof that is more than 10 years old. The roofing materials are required to be metal now. (Funnily enough they blame Biden for this, not the private insurance companies and their state government, but that's a whole other thing.)
Anecdotal evidence, but it is happening now.
Maybe it would help if people zoomed in more and thought about local impacts? What's really going to happen in your community?
At 4mm per year, you do get plenty of advance notice about sea level rise. What you don't see coming is a really bad storm now and then. But New York City will build walls.
In Cape Cod, there's a lot of erosion. Some people raise their houses. It will be different, but it's a gradual change. Maybe sudden, after a storm?
Florida gets lots of storms, flooding in some places, and insurance is a major issue.
Poor and low-lying countries are the ones in big trouble.
Now that would be an interesting thing to buy a share and go on a shareholder's call to ask about. Someone could definitely milk that for some news.
Yup. The only way to predict the future is to create it.
We were once at risk of not having ice in the north pole by 2008:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13779-north-pole-could-be-ice-free-in-2008/
and then again by 2016:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
but we ended up seeing extent ice by 2018, along with the most extensive snow cover over North America since 1966:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/
In this case, I don't think the speech was about announcing a scientific prediction?
It's essentially a speech with a clickbait title. Who was the audience? What he was trying to accomplish by giving this speech?
We don't know. The contents of the speech are ignored and people just talk about whoever semi-related stuff the headline brings to mind.
We do know much more now than we knew back then.
This may be the most 2024 idea I have all year, but it's time for a gritty live-action reboot of Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Make it a big-budget HBO series. Replace the "mother earth" Gaia character with some sort of digital platform that amplifies the voice of the people... maybe keep Gaia as the AI personification of our collective will. Captain Planet himself is not a superhero, but an ecoterrorist vigilante whose whole thing is identifying the (actual) responsible parties who have the power to fix things, and making it personal for them. Lots of closeups of bloodied billionaires cowering in corners, swearing they'll do right thing so they won't get visited by the Captain again.
I'm half joking, but we've been waiting for the polluters to stop, or be stopped, for decades. Recycling and driving EVs aren't going to fix anything on the global scale. The problem is in the hands of a few, people who possess the power to improve things but refuse to use it on meaningful change. Who will hold them accountable? If only there was some way to crowdfund a resistance movement, since governments and corporations are failing us. I'd prefer if that weren't ecoterrorism or some kind of extra-legal action, but what else is there? At least a big TV show would get a new kind of conversation started.
Now I’m imagining a horror reboot a la Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey, where a bunch of terrified executives get picked off one-by-one by a man with a knife and tiny red pants.
And then the second act where he trains his team of multicultural teenagers: "The power is yours!"
I'd watch that.
I don't think it is what you are asking for, but the live-action "not a superhero" part reminds me of the series of Don Cheadle Is Captain Planet skits.
In my opinion the current problems we are facing are entirely due to misalignment of localized(both spatially and temporally) incentives and global needs.
In our current cultural, economical environment it simply makes sense to make decisions that will have disproportionate negative effects down the line, even on the maker.
On low impact decision level most people simply will not consider their broader impact and will conform to current trends no matter the trends. Only people with the mindset compatible with current atmosphere will even get to high impact decision level.
On individual level the impact either way will always be small in absolutes and most people simply will not make even the minimal possible effort to reduce it and they should. Cultural shift could have been accomplished that way and that shift could have impacted high level decisions.
Human evolution hardwired our ancestors for survival in an unpredictable world. Immediate threats and opportunities took precedence over distant, uncertain futures. This evolutionary legacy has bequeathed us a psychological "present bias," where the urgency of now overshadows the needs of tomorrow. In the context of climate change, this bias manifests in a global inertia, particularly pronounced in developed nations, where the immediacy of economic growth, political gain, and social comfort often trumps the looming environmental catastrophe.
The social fabric of humanity is woven with threads of in-group favoritism, an evolutionary trait that ensured the survival of our forebears by fostering group cohesion and cooperation. Today, this manifests in a preference for national interests and the welfare of immediate communities over the global collective. Developed nations, with their historical emissions and current consumption patterns, face a moral imperative to lead the charge against climate change. But our in-group bias creates a reluctance to act unless there is perceived equitable effort from all, leading to a deadlock in international climate policy. Worse still, we are more concerned with how are efforts will affect ourselves and our in-groups, not how it will affect others.
Theoretically, governments are institutions that are supposed to overcome our irrational individual preferences in order to promote the general welfare of everyone. But our governments only care about their own citizenry when they are focused on the general welfare of people at all. At the end of the day, with global capitalism being what it is, the focus of the governments of wealthy nations is predominantly upon the wealthiest people within their borders. A senator from Kentucky is not going to win any elections worrying about and passing legislation to mitigate climate change, particularly if it's going to help the people of the future living in the global south.
It's hard to be optimistic about our ability to overcome these challenges.
I completely agree. As long as companies, both private and publicly traded, and by extension governments (through their bonds and debt ceilings), are not allowed to exist without the assumption of eternal growth underlying their “price” evaluation (e.g. market capitalization), things, at large, cannot change.
Which is really unfortunate and tremendously unfair to the people who are the most likely to be unable to alter the status quo, yet disproportionately affected by these drastic outcomes. I really like your phrasing of (spatially, temporally) “localized incentives, global needs”, by the way.
Here’s a transcript of the speech:
Two Years to Save the World: Simon Stiell at Chatham House