- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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.
China is the world’s biggest polluter in absolute terms
All includes China I’d think
They would never accept those terms
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.
That’s great, I’m here in Beijing and the air quality is terrible. They are burning so much coal for electricity
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.
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
Not really, because we’d transition to EVs and solar quickly enough that we wouldn’t increase the global temperature
Would we, though? Have you met us?
Yes, the Western countries have been reducing their emissions. Have you actually checked?
Even if we stopped everything today, the temperatures would continue to rise for years.
It’s easy to point the finger at China when so many products the western world consumes is manufactured there.
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
Thanks for clarifying. Totally agree.
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.
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?
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.
Absolutely not. If we look back since the Industrial Revolution the US are, closely followed by Europe and then China.
We can’t change the industrial revolution emissions
Clearly, but the burden doesn’t lie on China alone. They became the factory of the world because we needed cheap shit for everyone.
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.
yeah and for sure that pollution china is making is all for domestic uses so its all on them /s
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.
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.
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?
Yeah just throw money at the carbon dioxide to make it go away
You say this sarcastically like it’s not really an option
Where can i buy a carbon dioxide remover
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
Havent tree charities been planting billions or something? Is co2 reducing yet?
Get me a link to buy one of these machines
You’re a bad and boring troll
“these machines actually exist”
“show me”
“wow what a troll”
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
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.
It’s not trolling it’s arguing. Big difference. The word “troll” is not a get-out-of-debate-free card.
See my other comment. Or don’t, actually, I don’t care.
https://climeworks.com/
There you go. You got cash, they build the plant for you.
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.
Theres no such thing as clean fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide is intrinsic to combustion energy.
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
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.
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.
Oh, those werent in the link you provided, or in what i found looking at current carbon capture technology.
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
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.