Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

[neverdie]

they need to use their military budget to enlist engineers from the army to start building mass renewable energy centres in the old industrial heartlands. those ghost cities that used to produce cars or whatever else can be retrofitted to serve as clean energy centres. massive amounts of abandoned industrially zoned land just being wasted and falling into disrepair. on top of that, consider irrigation canals in the west and mass solar projects in the south. if they move fast enough they can double their renewable capacity within a few years. china demonstrates that. america is the world's largest source of emissions per capita and only produces 14% of its electricity through renewable. china produces 25%, india 18%, canada 65%, germany 50%, and the uk 33%. of all the major economies only south korea has a worse record at 2%. even russia produces 17% from renewable. and america is the world's most advanced technological economy so that figure is a joke. they could and should be at 40-50% production by renewable by now but the corporate takeover of the state and the government's general lack of will or capacity to do anything has hampered them. biden's new bill is the first promising sign. china will be at about 70% before america is at 50% imo, they already represent more than half of all global renewable spending. plus america has favourable geography. could do mass windfarms across the coastal areas, geothermal in the central areas, solar in the southern, and hyrdogen basically everywhere.

 

[calodo2003]

They need to science the shit out of this to find a solution. My suggestion to get the ball rolling would be to stop using fecking dinosaur units like Fahrenheit. Baby steps.

We like precision, not that broad, silly ass Celsius shit.

 

[neverdie]

A great upheaval is coming. Climate-driven movement of people is adding to a massive migration already under way to the world’s cities. The number of migrants has doubled globally over the past decade, and the issue of what to do about rapidly increasing populations of displaced people will only become greater and more urgent. To survive climate breakdown will require a planned and deliberate migration of a kind humanity has never before undertaken.

The world already sees twice as many days where temperatures exceed 50C than 30 years ago – this level of heat is deadly for humans, and also hugely problematic for buildings, roads and power stations. It makes an area unliveable. This explosive planetary drama demands a dynamic human response. We need to help people to move from danger and poverty to safety and comfort – to build a more resilient global society for everyone’s benefit.

Large populations will need to migrate, and not simply to the nearest city, but also across continents. Those living in regions with more tolerable conditions, especially nations in northern latitudes, will need to accommodate millions of migrants while themselves adapting to the demands of the climate crisis. We will need to create entirely new cities near the planet’s cooler poles, in land that is rapidly becoming ice-free. Parts of Siberia, for example, are already experiencing temperatures of 30C for months at a time.

Get the Guardian’s award-winning long reads sent direct to you every Saturday morning

Arctic forests are burning, with mega-blazes devouring Siberia, Greenland and Alaska. Even in January, peat fires were burning in the Siberian cryosphere, despite temperatures below –50C. These zombie fires smoulder year round in the peat below ground, in and around the Arctic Circle, only to burst into huge blazes that rage across the boreal forests of Siberia, Greenland, Alaska and Canada.

In 2019, colossal fires destroyed more than 4m hectares of Siberian taiga forest, blazing for more than three months, and producing a cloud of soot and ash as large as the countries that make up the entire European Union. Models predict that fires in the boreal forests and Arctic tundra will increase by up to four times by 2100.

Wherever you live now, migration will affect you and the lives of your children. It is predictable that Bangladesh, a country where one-third of the population lives along a sinking, low-lying coast, is becoming uninhabitable. (More than 13 million Bangladeshis – nearly 10% of the population – are expected to have left the country by 2050.) But in the coming decades wealthy nations will be severely affected, too.

This upheaval occurs not only at a time of unprecedented climate change but also of human demographic change. Global population will continue to rise in the coming decades, peaking at perhaps 10 billion in the 2060s. Most of this increase will be in the tropical regions that are worst hit by climate catastrophe, causing people there to flee northwards. The global north faces the opposite problem – a “top-heavy” demographic crisis, in which a large elderly population is supported by a too-small workforce. North America and Europe have 300 million people above the traditional retirement age (65+), and by 2050, the economic old-age dependency ratio there is projected to be at 43 elderly persons per 100 working persons aged 20–64. Cities from Munich to Buffalo will begin competing with each other to attract migrants.


An aerial view of Fairbourne village in Gwynedd, north Wales, expected to be abandoned by 2045. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
The coming migration will involve the world’s poorest fleeing deadly heatwaves and failed crops. It will also include the educated, the middle class, people who can no longer live where they planned because it’s impossible to get a mortgage or property insurance; because employment has moved elsewhere. The climate crisis has already uprooted millions in the US – in 2018, 1.2 million were displaced by extreme conditions, fire, storms and flooding; by 2020, the annual toll had risen to 1.7 million people. The US now averages a $1bn disaster every 18 days.

More than half of the western US is facing extreme drought conditions, and farmers in Oregon’s Klamath Basin talk about illegally using force to open dam gates for irrigation. At the other extreme, fatal floods have stranded thousands of people from Death Valley to Kentucky. By 2050, half a million existing US homes will be on land that floods at least once a year, according to data from Climate Central, a partnership of scientists and journalists. Louisiana’s Isle de Jean Charles has already been allocated $48m of federal tax dollars to move the entire community due to coastal erosion and rising sea levels; in Britain, the Welsh villagers of Fairbourne have been told their homes should be abandoned to the encroaching sea as the entire village is to be “decommissioned” in 2045. Larger coastal cities are at risk, too. Consider that the Welsh capital, Cardiff, is projected to be two-thirds underwater by 2050.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...sis-migration-why-we-need-plan-great-upheaval

if they invest properly they can avoid the doomsday scenarios and keep the level between 1.5-2. if it moves to 2, it'll take decades of zero carbon output, maybe a couple of generations or more, for it to decline again. but that is a better scenario than doing nothing now because if it moves beyond 2 or >2.5 then we may as well all just kill each other now to save time.

it's mental to think that every government has the full knowledge that this is happening and will kill them as well as their children but aren't acting quick enough. it needs wartime economic urgency. the world has to be in a different position regarding its energy input and output by 2030 or there won't be much to look at in 2050. and it's doable but you have to start now. this should be dominating the agenda globally. it makes everything else seem pointless in comparison.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has called on global leaders to tackle climate change with the same determination that previous generations applied to warfare.

Stiglitz described climate change as “an attack on our on our world as we know it”. And he told Euronews that mobilising resources to confront the problem is now an urgent necessity.

“When we went into World War Two did anyone say, can we afford it?” argues Stiglitz. “You know, I don't remember anybody saying, oh, let's surrender to the Germans because it'll cost us too much to fight. Well, we're fighting a war which is at the heart of our existence, of our standard of living. You know, in the United States, we've been losing close to 2 percent of GDP every year. You know, the fires, the floods, the hurricanes, the freezing episodes.”

A new social contract is needed
In his new book “A Bit of Everything: Power, People, Profits and Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent”, Professor Stiglitz argues that capitalism needs to be transformed if it is to meet the challenge of creating a more equal society.

Capitalism will be part of the story, but it can't be the kind of capitalism that we've had for the last 40 years.

Joseph Stiglitz
Nobel Prize-winning economist
“We need a new social contract between the market, the state and civil society,” he says. “Capitalism will be part of the story, but it can't be the kind of capitalism that we've had for the last 40 years. It can't be the kind of selfish, unfettered capitalism where firms just maximize shareholder value regardless of the social consequences. When you do that, you end up with what's happened in the United States, not only inequality, but you have the opioid crisis. Life expectancy is on decline. You had the food crises, childhood diabetes. The food companies are exploiting our young people. You have companies like Exxon denying that there's climate change. You have the cigarette companies denying that there is evidence, compelling evidence that cigarettes are bad for your health. You know, there's instance after instance of what could only be called reprehensible, immoral behaviour.”

A return to the political fray?
A Democrat, Stiglitz was chair of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. And he says he is ready to accept a return to the political fray, if he is invited.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/18...ation-says-nobel-winning-economist-joseph-sti

that was 3 years ago. this is more serious than covid yet less urgency.

 

[Buster15]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...sis-migration-why-we-need-plan-great-upheaval

if they invest properly they can avoid the doomsday scenarios and keep the level between 1.5-2. if it moves to 2, it'll take decades of zero carbon output, maybe a couple of generations or more, for it to decline again. but that is a better scenario than doing nothing now because if it moves beyond 2 or >2.5 then we may as well all just kill each other now to save time.

it's mental to think that every government has the full knowledge that this is happening and will kill them as well as their children but aren't acting quick enough. it needs wartime economic urgency. the world has to be in a different position regarding its energy input and output by 2030 or there won't be much to look at in 2050. and it's doable but you have to start now. this should be dominating the agenda globally. it makes everything else seem pointless in comparison.



https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/18...ation-says-nobel-winning-economist-joseph-sti

that was 3 years ago. this is more serious than covid yet less urgency.

It is not as if the global leaders don't know what to do.
There is a huge and growing database of how almost anything affects the amount of CO2 either emitted into or is taken from the atmosphere.

Pledges have been made. But pledges alone are worse than meaningless.
And it appears that there is always something more urgent than reducing the impacts of man made climate change.

But despite covid, despite the war in Ukraine, despite the cost of living crisis, there is a far far more urgent crisis than all of these put together.
Humanity is trashing our only home like never before.

And not tomorrow. We can all see what is happening now.
And all the time, the global leaders pretend to be doing something.
And make pretend promises. Only then to turn away from reality and invent excuses and hope that man made climate change will just go away so they can carry on as normal....

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

PHEW!

Just in time to do nothing for the next few decades.

 

[neverdie]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

PHEW!

Just in time to do nothing for the next few decades.

this rises to the level of holocaust denial.

 

[neverdie]

It is not as if the global leaders don't know what to do.

it seems to me as if they really don't know what to do. if they knew what to do, it would be happening. you would see industrial zones being altered to produce turbines and batteries and other renewable sources. the climate bill that biden passed took almost two years for a signature. and by the time it was signed it was a fraction of what was needed but still better than nothing.

during the second world war, industries altered their production capacity to produce for the wartime economy. ford, general motors, and all the others. instead of cars you had planes and tanks. that's what's required. all the jobs that aren't essential need to be axed to free up requisite labour for the production of renewable sources. it's a shortterm national government scenario with a sunset clause. we already know what is and isn't essential because the pandemic had the effect of a dry run. the world didn't fall apart because mass amounts of people didn't do their jobs. in the end it was revealed that a tiny fraction of the jobs in the western economy are required for life to actually continue. it ran up an enormous bill, through public funding, but that's unavoidable. in this scenario you would incentivize people to enter the new economy on mass scale. insofar as that is not being done, right now, then the global leaders really do not know what they're doing.

this kind of thing is apolitical if it's done right. what do the right in america want? the 1960s and 70s which is pre-post-industrialization. that's what a green new deal offers if you take out the "green" part which is ideologically primed to offend people for no reason except propaganda. the left is already broadly on board. private industries receive stimulus, and everyone gets a little of what they want but all of what they need.

what's happening now is like game of thrones. that part at the end where everyone realizes their petty little squabbles are fairly insignificant but one group of cnuts decide to go against the common good anyway.

 

[Buster15]

it seems to me as if they really don't know what to do. if they knew what to do, it would be happening. you would see industrial zones being altered to produce turbines and batteries and other renewable sources. the climate bill that biden passed took almost two years for a signature. and by the time it was signed it was a fraction of what was needed but still better than nothing.

during the second world war, industries altered their production capacity to produce for the wartime economy. ford, general motors, and all the others. instead of cars you had planes and tanks. that's what's required. all the jobs that aren't essential need to be axed to free up requisite labour for the production of renewable sources. it's a shortterm national government scenario with a sunset clause. we already know what is and isn't essential because the pandemic had the effect of a dry run. the world didn't fall apart because mass amounts of people didn't do their jobs. in the end it was revealed that a tiny fraction of the jobs in the western economy are required for life to actually continue. it ran up an enormous bill, through public funding, but that's unavoidable. in this scenario you would incentivize people to enter the new economy on mass scale. insofar as that is not being done, right now, then the global leaders really do not know what they're doing.

this kind of thing is apolitical if it's done right. what do the right in america want? the 1960s and 70s which is pre-post-industrialization. that's what a green new deal offers if you take out the "green" part which is ideologically primed to offend people for no reason except propaganda. the left is already broadly on board. private industries receive stimulus, and everyone gets a little of what they want but all of what they need.

what's happening now is like game of thrones. that part at the end where everyone realizes their petty little squabbles are fairly insignificant but one group of cnuts decide to go against the common good anyway.

That is my point.
Climate change is and should be number one on not only every global leaders agenda, which it is most certainly not, but on every agenda of every business, which it clearly is not.
And in the minds of all of us in order to drive change.
Yes science and technology should help.
But the changes that we all need to make and all of the pledges made in Glasgow should be starting to happen now. Not in 2050!

 

[neverdie]

That is my point.
Climate change is and should be number one on not only every global leaders agenda, which it is most certainly not, but on every agenda of every business, which it clearly is not.
And in the minds of all of us in order to drive change.
Yes science and technology should help.
But the changes that we all need to make and all of the pledges made in Glasgow should be starting to happen now. Not in 2050!

those changes require top down implementation. that has to come through government and industry because the free market will let the earth fry and take bets on how hot it gets. their motive is profit to the point where if they neglect it they are seen to be acting criminally. profit is defined by roi and maximizing shareholder value. what they're doing is absolutely criminal because long-term roi is "-" if they continue along this course. but this is the same kind of economic logic whereby people hedge on both war and peace. businesspeople would have sold weapons to hitler instead of manufacture them for fdr if they had a choice. they literally did do that on a small scale before the us got into the war. the free market has always been an illusion because it has never been free from public cooperation and various interventions. not in any modern sense of the term. anyway, most aren't calling for a socialist utopia, they're calling for a reformation of disaster capital. a rational public body which says, finally, "you need to now put your efforts into this or we will nationalize your holdings".

The deeply flawed economic theory that drives this disaster ignores or denies three foundational truths:

1. Money has no intrinsic value. It will buy only that which is for sale. It will be useless on a dead Earth.
2. Science now confirms what thoughtful humans have long recognized: Life exists only in communities of living beings that self-organize to create and maintain the conditions on which life depends. The Indigenous peoples of South Africa call it ubuntu: “I am because you are.”
3. While we know from daily experience that there are demented souls among us who gain pleasure from harming other people, most people derive their greatest pleasure from caring for and sharing with others.

corporations are being given the chance of a lifetime. to profit from the new economy despite having been largely responsible for the destruction of the old. if they aren't willing to take that then they must be forced, as must any government which is unwilling to make the statement. there isn't time for this bullshit any more.

 

[calodo2003]

this rises to the level of holocaust denial.

Yep.

 

[Cheimoon]

it seems to me as if they really don't know what to do. if they knew what to do, it would be happening. you would see industrial zones being altered to produce turbines and batteries and other renewable sources. the climate bill that biden passed took almost two years for a signature. and by the time it was signed it was a fraction of what was needed but still better than nothing.

To me, it's simply short-termism. The same reason why transport infrastructure is generally not maintained and updated in time: it's very expensive stuff that doesn't really lead to noticeable improvements to people and hence doesn't win votes - while the continuous electoral cycle means that you constantly have to be pleasing people.

Plus there's of course the general capitalistic principle that no-one wants to start doing something that's competitively costly before the competition does it.

As obvious as many of the solutions are, our world isn't designed to deal with a problem like climate change. (But designed perfectly to create it!)

 

[neverdie]

Yo me, it's simply short-term ISM. The same reason why transport infrastructure is generally not maintained and updated in time: it's very expensive stuff that doesn't really lead to noticeable improvements to people and hence doesn't win votes - while the continuous electoral cycle means that you constantly have to be pleasing people.

Plus there's of course the general capitalistic principle that no-one wants to start doing something that's competitively costly before the competition does it.

As obvious as many of the solutions are, our world isn't designed to deal with a problem like climate change. (But designed perfectly to create it!)

it is shorttermism and it does have to do with people not wanting to switch if they don't have to, but we're now at the point where much renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel. that was before the price hike. renewable is the new economy. the old economy needs an induced heart attack to let the new one take over. which just means an accelerated transition over the next six years, or by 2030. 2050 targets need to be 2035 targets.

biden is considering executive orders on climate issues. i think he has to do that with respect to the epa. but more generally he has to do with with respect to the entire project. if corporations drag their heels, he'll have to declare an emergency to release additional funding and make certain executive powers available. he won't want to do that if he doesn't have to because it would be politically divisive but that's where every country should be in terms of decision making. the eu has done well despite its own problems. many countries are in the 30-60% range already. if they can phase out personal transport emissions and fully power industry as well as accomplish certain other things, the eu might well be the first bloc to go carbon neutral. china is in rapid transformation mode. the us is catching up. or has only just turned its ship around. these three "blocs", if they can get their shit together, and meet targets by 2035, will suffice to avert catastrophe for the world in general because along with south korea, japan, india and one or two others, we're talking >70% of all global emissions concentrated in these economies.

i like the idea of incentivizing the new mode. it's the carrot approach. but if it doesn't work then you'll have to use the stick.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Stack]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Massive Spanner]

In case it wasn't already obvious that those climate donations when you book flights are a load of bollox.

 

[Bosnian_fan]

I have lived in Sarajevo my whole life, and I have witnessed changes gradually taking place.

We have a river here, Miljacka, which we polluted way before pollution even became word, and right now, it's like giant sewer flowing through the city. While climate change hasn't polluted it, it has changed it in a way that right now we have standard colonies of seagulls living in Sarajevo for whole year. City is on average elevated 500 metres over sea level, completely surrounded by mountains, and is well over 200 kilometres away from the sea.

It's also not something that happened before, this is a recent phenomena, dating back 10, maybe 15 years. It is also not a rare sight anymore to spot herons in the river, along with other bird species who never inhabited this zone, and was unimaginable just couple of years ago.

I've always been fascinated by nature and biodiversity, so I was always more than willing to discuss these things with people around me, but I've always caught myself hitting brick wall with my head, because people just don't care. They just don't notice these thing, I have a feeling that if lions started walking around our streets, people would consider it normal in five days or so.

I have a cousin though, he's some sort of biologist, not sure what exactly he does because we are not that close, but his facebook is full of posts about species that have made their way to the country over past couple of years. And while he tries to put some positive spin on it as he is generally optimist, there's not much good he can say. Mostly it's different bug sorts that usually were not able to survive in our climate, but now they can and they endanger crops.

Adriatic sea is already experiencing major changes, there is lot less fish than before and new species are gradually finding their place there, coming from the hotter seas. New algae sorts are also developing, not overly friendly to the existing ecosystems, which could result in catastrophic consequences.

I was at first not giving it that much thought, but with time and through reading, I've gotten to the stage where I'm pretty angered by the level of disinterest with something so epochal. It's getting more and more difficult to accept that people will just push on and on with their everyday life not acknowledging just how bleak future will be for all of us.

Now, I'm not blaming them and it's also difficult to blame my country as we are a drop in the ocean, small and incapable od doing significant damage, but I do feel more and more that people are so selfish that even if they were in position to be catalyst for change, they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice anything.

 

[neverdie]

I was at first not giving it that much thought, but with time and through reading, I've gotten to the stage where I'm pretty angered by the level of disinterest with something so epochal. It's getting more and more difficult to accept that people will just push on and on with their everyday life not acknowledging just how bleak future will be for all of us.

it's a death cult. most people in death cults aren't aware that it's a death cult. for the most part they just want to get on with life not realizing, or it being too depressing to attempt to realize, that getting on with life without pressing for enormous change will lead to the death of the species as we know it, plus many more besides.

over the next few years there are only a couple of things that can realistically happen. we will either bring the new mode of economy into being through transformative change across the spectrum. that's one path. or we'll get on with life and we'll all die or be dead in about 100 years, as species. that's the other path.

some might expect violence because gas and oil and other things are too expensive. a reasonable expectation. but it will pale in comparison to the kind of violence we will see if comprehensive anti-warming measures are not put in place and not done immediately. it's not that we're running out of time, it's that we're out of time. these changes have to begin, on mass scale, now. if, in a few years, nothing has been done to alter the course, then i would expect to see revolution and war sweep the planet. not the good kind of revolution, either, but the hitler kind.

 

[maximus419]

Without doubt we are witnessing the end of capitalism and greed and it's all because they've ignored the warnings for decades of what is happening to our climate and damage it's doing to the eco system.

Once there is little food and water available and energy is scarce demand for everything will drop to levels never seen before. That will be the moment that everything will come to a standstill as the human race realises they've been doing all this for nothing. When money can't solve the issue, it ceases to be of use.

I think we will see the collapse of most societies over the next 2 years in truth. I think the climate is completely broken and no moving away from fossil fuels will do anything to reverse the damage which it seems is permanent.

What we are witnessing with record temperature and droughts was not expected for decades and yet here it is, now.
I expect these droughts to continue, the idea that the autumn and winter will bring normal rainfall is literally just living in hope. Climate has changed, so have our seasons.
Most people are simply living in denial or oblivious to what is coming.

 

[neverdie]

Most people are simply living in denial or oblivious to what is coming.

denialists, when the thing they've denied or been led to deny comes to fruition, have a solid record of blaming the people who told them not to worry about it. that is, it won't be the left wing types calling for heads on blocks. it'll be the right wing and the liberal right doing all of that.

but i don't agree that it's beyond repair. it requires immediate and large scale action. do that and you can keep the rise to a minimum and it can very easily move back down over a couple of generations, as climate scientists say, even the ones preaching gloomy scenarios. don't do that and it'll be hard to have any sympathy when streets turn to rivers of blood, which will happen. it's only bleak if action isn't taken. and in that scenario, as i said in an earlier post, we may as well cut to the chase and start killing each other now because it isn't a future you want to live in.

 

[Zehner]

While I agree that most people live in denial, I'm still sure that they'll adopt their consumption behaviour and it'll have a huge impact. Not because they actively want to protect the climate but because, in this case, supply and demand will take care of it. We're already witnessing it with increased energy prices - people have less money at their disposal and when energy is that expensive, especially poorer families which account for the majority will try to save power where possible. Crops are already down 8-9% in Europe and this number will likely increase which means food prices will rise and the price of meat will do so exponentially. In Germany, we've already reached the point when meat alternatives are cheaper than actual meat for the first time in history. And it will be far less profitable to ship goods over large distances because fuel will only become more expensive and trade routes suffer from the climate (see river shipping, for example). Same goes for flights of all kinds.

And that's leaving aside the fact that many more people will actively change their consumption behaviour because they finally start feeling short term impacts of the whole crisis. Until now you could easily ignore it, that's getting more difficult every year. The flood catastrophe last year in West Germany, the heat wave and empty rivers now.

So I don't believe all is lost. It's dumb that most people put far too much focus on the short term but the flipside of this is that they'll also act once short term consequences are already there.

 

[neverdie]

While I agree that most people live in denial, I'm still sure that they'll adopt their consumption behaviour and it'll have a huge impact. Not because they actively want to protect the climate but because, in this case, supply and demand will take care of it. We're already witnessing it with increased energy prices - people have less money at their disposal and when energy is that expensive, especially poorer families which account for the majority will try to save power where possible. Crops are already down 8-9% in Europe and this number will likely increase which means food prices will rise and the price of meat will do so exponentially. In Germany, we've already reached the point when meat alternatives are cheaper than actual meat for the first time in history. And it will be far less profitable to ship goods over large distances because fuel will only become more expensive and trade routes suffer from the climate (see river shipping, for example). Same goes for flights of all kinds.

And that's leaving aside the fact that many more people will actively change their consumption behaviour because they finally start feeling short term impacts of the whole crisis. Until now you could easily ignore it, that's getting more difficult every year. The flood catastrophe last year in West Germany, the heat wave and empty rivers now.

So I don't believe all is lost. It's dumb that most people put far too much focus on the short term but the flipside of this is that they'll also act once short term consequences are already there.

i don't disagree with what you're saying here, as most of it is demonstrably true, i just don't think they've handled the transition from one order to another with any kind of skill. it's been a clusterfeck. in fact, i don't think there's any "handling" going on at all. the market is just doing what the market does with one exception, and that's obvious regulation regarding targets and then tariffs imposed on carbon-heavy items. but that has been the extent of government action so far and it's nowhere near enough. typical that they'd try to outsource the problem to business and assume the market will take care of it. in a hybrid approach, that's not a bad idea. in and of itself, it's suicide.

it's being sold as "generations worth of poverty and suffering" and the real causes of that are being obfuscated and deliberately lied about. one event after another used to push people in a certain direction which is good but also a terrible way to go about it. basically, every event now has two sides. one is whatever it is in and of itself, like russia and ukraine, then the other is the climate side. it should be a message of "rebuild the economy for generations of prosperity and environmentally friendly living". that's what the green new deal is. and it needs accelerated implementation.

the wsj noted yesterday that biden's 400bn plan cuts emissions by 7% because coal was being phased out in favour of gas anyway which means if the bill hadn't passed, we'd be looking at a 7% difference over a few decades. that's the kind of nonsense that we're getting instead of comprehensive government action. businesses are getting rich, too, as you'd expect, including the oil and general fossil fuel companies.

 

[Zehner]

i don't disagree with what you're saying here, as most of it is demonstrably true, i just don't think they've handled the transition from one order to another with any kind of skill. it's been a clusterfeck. in fact, i don't think there's any "handling" going on at all. the market is just doing what the market does with one exception, and that's obvious regulation regarding targets and then tariffs imposed on carbon-heavy items. but that has been the extent of government action so far and it's nowhere near enough. typical that they'd try to outsource the problem to business and assume the market will take care of it. in a hybrid approach, that's not a bad idea. in and of itself, it's suicide.

it's being sold as "generations worth of poverty and suffering" and the real causes of that are being obfuscated and deliberately lied about. one event after another used to push people in a certain direction which is good but also a terrible way to go about it. basically, every event now has two sides. one is whatever it is in and of itself, like russia and ukraine, then the other is the climate side. it should be a message of "rebuild the economy for generations of prosperity and environmentally friendly living". that's what the green new deal is. and it needs accelerated implementation.

the wsj noted yesterday that biden's 400bn plan cuts emissions by 7% because coal was being phased out in favour of gas anyway which means if the bill hadn't passed, we'd be looking at a 7% difference over a few decades. that's the kind of nonsense that we're getting instead of comprehensive government action. businesses are getting rich, too, as you'd expect, including the oil and general fossil fuel companies.

Don't get me wrong, governments should absolutely do more and I wished that people would've understood earlier how serious the situation is and acted accordingly. I was just pointing out how there will be a natural reduction of climate damaging practices because much of it is born out of decadence and this decadence is likely to decrease when climate change really begins to hit. Luckily for us, most of the climate friendly stuff (plant based nutrition, eating locally produced food, travelling by public transport, etc) is cheaper so many people will be naturally incentivized to change their ways.

Also, one reason why it takes us so long to tackle the problem is that in the countries contributing the most, the political agenda is dictated by public opinion and that tends to be very short term oriented. Especially when politicians think in legislative periods and not in longer time frames. So wgen the public really starts getting aware what is at stake, chances are that the political leadership will follow and initiate more serious initiatives than the one you were citing. I for one find it VERY hard to imagine that there will be a German government without participation of the Green party in the short and midterm.

 

[neverdie]

Also, one reason why it takes us so long to tackle the problem is that in the countries contributing the most, the political agenda is dictated by public opinion and that tends to be very short term oriented. Especially when politicians think in legislative periods and not in longer time frames. So wgen the public really starts getting aware what is at stake, chances are that the political leadership will follow and initiate more serious initiatives than the one you were citing. I for one find it VERY hard to imagine that there will be a German government without participation of the Green party in the short and midterm.

by the time public opinion is sufficient, and i do see some movements to prepare the public on behalf of various states, even including the ultra-right wing in america, there's a solid chance it will be too late. targets announced for 2050 need to be reached by 2035 in the most advanced nations. and that is absolutely possible. one climate scientist said something to the effect of it's all possible in theory but unlikely, not because it isn't possible but because there are corporate roadblocks placed in the way and political obstructions. the new political order is the one which grabs hold of the new economic order and the new economic order is basic green new deal policy, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Fearless]

by the time public opinion is sufficient, and i do see some movements to prepare the public on behalf of various states, even including the ultra-right wing in america, there's a solid chance it will be too late. targets announced for 2050 need to be reached by 2035 in the most advanced nations. and that is absolutely possible. one climate scientist said something to the effect of it's all possible in theory but unlikely, not because it isn't possible but because there are corporate roadblocks placed in the way and political obstructions. the new political order is the one which grabs hold of the new economic order and the new economic order is basic green new deal policy, whatever you want to call it.

Public opinion is too busy worrying about the energy crisis due to the climate ideologues like you putting all our collective testicles in Putin's tightening fist.

Well done.

 

[2ndTouch]

Public opinion is too busy worrying about the energy crisis due to the climate ideologues like you putting all our collective testicles in Putin's tightening fist.

Well done.

What's a climate ideologue?

 

[neverdie]

Public opinion is too busy worrying about the energy crisis due to the climate ideologues like you putting all our collective testicles in Putin's tightening fist.

Well done.

i have to assume that you've entered this conversation with about as much knowledge and general good faith as you tend to enter every other conversation. you mean that what by the putin metaphor? that the cost of energy has risen because of the russian war? i'm in favour of letting gas move through nord stream 2 and importing it from russia without sanction to ease the transition period. so no idea what you mean.

What's a climate ideologue?

presumably someone who doesn't want the planet to burn to death. or in his case, anyone he thinks isn't being pragmatic.

 

[Zehner]

by the time public opinion is sufficient, and i do see some movements to prepare the public on behalf of various states, even including the ultra-right wing in america, there's a solid chance it will be too late. targets announced for 2050 need to be reached by 2035 in the most advanced nations. and that is absolutely possible. one climate scientist said something to the effect of it's all possible in theory but unlikely, not because it isn't possible but because there are corporate roadblocks placed in the way and political obstructions. the new political order is the one which grabs hold of the new economic order and the new economic order is basic green new deal policy, whatever you want to call it.

I get where you're coming from but I think one can't just assume that it continues like it does. There will be natural decelerations since the process is continuous, not sudden. Cynically speaking, covid was not only the biggest worldwide crises but it also had the most positive impact on climate change in decades. And when climate change will really starts to unfold it's devastating effects, taking billions of life, covid will look pretty harmless against it. But it will also immediately decrease the carbon footprint of humanity on a dramatic scale, comparable to the effect the pox had on European population, just on a global scale. But until it gets so far, there will be lots of smaller catastrophes that become more severe with every iteration.

Moreover, I find it very hard to predict how politics and economy will act. Even if you see companies as cynical and only interested in profit and growth, most of the customers of consumer companies will have significantly less money to spend. The droughts are already taking their toll on our economy and this is only a small foretaste of what is to come. This is in nobody's interest. Even in the short term, the negative impact of destroying the climate is finally starting to outweigh the "positive" ones from the perspective of a cynical business. And even corrupt politicians will have to abide to that. It is one thing to smarm over the oil or automative industry for example when the economy is doing well, it is a completely different thing to do it when the rest of the economy is suffering from it drastically and much more jobs are at risk. Plus, even in those companies, their very own employees begin to see the consequences with their own eyes, similarly to how people saw the comet in Don't Look Up.

 

[neverdie]

And when climate change will really starts to unfold it's devastating effects, taking billions of life, covid will look pretty harmless against it. But it will also immediately decrease the carbon footprint of humanity on a dramatic scale, comparable to the effect the pox had on European population, just on a global scale. But until it gets so far, there will be lots of smaller catastrophes that become more severe with every iteration.

here's the problem with that. look at asia. particularly china, india, pakistan, north korea, and russia. five nuclear armed states and at least four of them are in severe danger of "climate war". if we get to the point you describe, it's highly likely we see nuclear missiles starting to fly as border wars become too enormous to suppress. india, china, and pakistan alone represent a real danger area with states around them, like bangladesh, being potential mass centres of migration.

Moreover, I find it very hard to predict how politics and economy will act. Even if you see companies as cynical and only interested in profit and growth, most of the customers of consumer companies will have significantly less money to spend. The droughts are already taking their toll on our economy and this is only a small foretaste of what is to come. This is in nobody's interest. Even in the short term, the negative impact of destroying the climate is finally starting to outweigh the "positive" ones from the perspective of a cynical business. And even corrupt politicians will have to abide to that. It is one thing to smarm over the oil or automative industry for example when the economy is doing well, it is a completely different thing to do it when the rest of the economy is suffering from it drastically and much more jobs are at risk. Plus, even in those companies, their very own employees begin to see the consequences with their own eyes, similarly to how people saw the comet in Don't Look Up.

i think a general picture is easy enough. there is one road that leads to renewable energy which generates the vast majority of industrial capacity. there is another which leads to extinction. the economy and the political superstructure will act according to whichever path is taken.

 

[Zehner]

here's the problem with that. look at asia. particularly china, india, pakistan, north korea, and russia. five nuclear armed states and at least four of them are in severe danger of "climate war". if we get to the point you describe, it's highly likely we see nuclear missiles starting to fly as border wars become too enormous to suppress. india, china, and pakistan alone represent a real danger area with states around them, like bangladesh, being potential mass centres of migration.

I don't think that is "highly likely" by any means. Hitting the red button is practically collective suicide. And I highly doubt the countries you named would do that when some of them are the biggest food producers in the world. In scenarios like this, I believe it is much more likely that they keep what they produce for them and forcing the Western world to finally ditch its meat excess. Not saying there won't be more conflicts, especially over water supplies for instance. But I don't think there'll be nuclear war.

i think a general picture is easy enough. there is one road that leads to renewable energy which generates the vast majority of industrial capacity. there is another which leads to extinction. the economy and the political superstructure will act according to whichever path is taken.

Of course, I'm rather arguing that many things will push people in the right direction, citizens, companies and politicians alike, and that there are natural decelerators to the consumption behaviours we're currently displaying. I think the first trigger will be tighter budgets that will naturally limit the excessive lifestyle we in Europe and the US live by. I'm positive that we will see a drastic decrease in meat consumption in Europe this year for instance, simply because the prices are so high. And the further it escalates, the more stuff like this will happen and push society towards the right direction.

 

[neverdie]

Of course, I'm rather arguing that many things will push people in the right direction, citizens, companies and politicians alike, and that there are natural decelerators to the consumption behaviours we're currently displaying. I think the first trigger will be tighter budgets that will naturally limit the excessive lifestyle we in Europe and the US live by. I'm positive that we will see a drastic decrease in meat consumption in Europe this year for instance, simply because the prices are so high. And the further it escalates, the more stuff like this will happen and push society towards the right direction.

right, but that is the wrong approach. it's the right idea but people who feel they've been lied to tend to react badly when it turns out to be true. the various tariffs on goods and rationing devices which are around the corner are all in the name of climate and all equate to massive reduction in life quality for many of the poorest people. no one has told them about this. there's been no mass information campaign outlining why and how it needs to happen. instead it's all put down to market forces independent of regulation. and obviously the market will force change but it only does so because of regulation. that has been a kind of white lie from the off. it's indicative of how not to go about engineering positive social change. it needs to be tied to a mass movement of work schemes and public concessions, like health and housing and education and the rest.

when the prices skyrocket, and it's around the corner, do you think people will have a positive attitude toward climate change initiatives or a negative one? it will be the latter. much of what has been done, and it has been little, is counterproductive in the long run. "you're too poor to consume as you once did, get used to it" is not going to fly. "if you alter your consumption according to a mass jobs program which transforms the energy sector and gives tangible returns in the form of social utility, you will see positive economic outcomes" is how you get it done. any government in history that has tried to sell mass poverty has been ousted or clung to power through despotism. the british are conservative but the times are changing. the economic base will decide just how conservative a country really is when all is said and done.

 

[Zehner]

right, but that is the wrong approach. it's the right idea but people who feel they've been lied to tend to react badly when it turns out to be true. the various tariffs on goods and rationing devices which are around the corner are all in the name of climate and all equate to massive reduction in life quality for many of the poorest people. no one has told them about this. there's been no mass information campaign outlining why and how it needs to happen. instead it's all put down to market forces independent of regulation. and obviously the market will force change but it only does so because of regulation. that has been a kind of white lie from the off. it's indicative of how not to go about engineering positive social change. it needs to be tied to a mass movement of work schemes and public concessions, like health and housing and education and the rest.

Are you sure people react that way? Because as recent events suggest, people stand together in crises and are much more willing to accept deprivations than expected. Also, everybody can see climate change with their own eyes. People are frightened that rivers run so low on water, they are frightened by the incredible heat. Plus few people are actual climate deniers. By far the majority sees it as real, they were just too comfortable.

I agree with the rest of that - fighting climate change has many dimensions and tackling poverty is one of them. It would be nice, but seeing what the current situation - which is basically just a foretaste of what is going to come - already moves in terms of public perception, I think that lots and lots of people will a) buy into it and b) have to change their consumption patterns, whether they like it or not.

when the prices skyrocket, and it's around the corner, do you think people will have a positive attitude toward climate change initiatives or a negative one? it will be the latter. much of what has been done, and it has been little, is counterproductive in the long run. "you're too poor to consume as you once did, get used to it" is not going to fly. "if you alter your consumption according to a mass jobs program which transforms the energy sector and gives tangible returns in the form of social utility, you will see positive economic outcomes" is how you get it done. any government in history that has tried to sell mass poverty has been ousted or clung to power through despotism. the british are conservative but the times are changing. the economic base will decide just how conservative a country really is when all is said and done.

Well, first of all, it doesn't matter if they have a positive attitude to it or not because even those who still deny it will have to comply because that's the new reality. Look, I'm all for what you suggest and I really hope renewable energy will create lots of jobs and that the governments around the world learn to sell it that way to their citizens but even if they don't, people have eyes, most of them will see and understand what is happening and which consequences this could mean for them. You can't deny that a river is running low on water, you can't deny that food prices are rising. Even those who still refuse to believe it won't be able to retain their consumption patterns because they won't be able to afford it. And even if they protest, riot or whatever, when the machinery that produces so much CO2 does no longer work, it does no longer work.

 

[macheda14]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

PHEW!

Just in time to do nothing for the next few decades.

You go into the signatories and it's full of IT Consultants, retired teachers, Managing directors of wine shops, Lawyers, members of parliament, business owners, doctors, engineers, chemists, foresters etc. i.e. not too many relevant scientists, but you just know that anyone reaching for this as some kind of proof wont dig that deep.

 

[neverdie]

Are you sure people react that way? Because as recent events suggest, people stand together in crises and are much more willing to accept deprivations than expected. Also, everybody can see climate change with their own eyes. People are frightened that rivers run so low on water, they are frightened by the incredible heat. Plus few people are actual climate deniers. By far the majority sees it as real, they were just too comfortable.

not if some people live in castles and others live in tents. solve that and you might have a chance but that would require the political mass movement i've been talking about. so long as the divisions remain, there will be no solidarity. there will, i think, be an immense counter movement instead. and the political and capitalist class are entirely to blame for that. both sanders and corbyn ran on such platforms and each was targetted by their respective parties and their respective states.

have to comply because that's the new reality.

did the american right comply with mask mandates? they already think this is a wef conspiracy, on which point they're not actually incorrect but as usual they get key points twisted. you're talking about millions of people, with guns, who thrive on not being told what to do. good luck with the current approach. i think it's doomed.

 

[maximus419]

Take the current levels of water in reservoirs in the UK, already there seems a real media agenda to attack the water companies and the leaks rather than the fact we've had one of the dryest periods on record.

This is climate denial and what the media who are basically in the pockets of the govt and cynically doing, is saying when you've got no water, it's the water companies who didn't fix the pipes, nothing to do with the drought we've experienced.

That gives you a taste of what the media agenda will be around anything that our changing climate is causing. The media drive everything, people are so easily manipulated. This is why I don't hold out any hope on solutions because the only people who matter are those with money, everyone else is collateral damage.

 

[neverdie]

This is climate denial and what the media who are basically in the pockets of the govt and cynically doing, is saying when you've got no water, it's the water companies who didn't fix the pipes, nothing to do with the drought we've experienced.

which the government sold off.

English water companies have handed more than £2bn a year on average to shareholders since they were privatised three decades ago, according to analysis for the Guardian.

The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and 2019 amount to £57bn – nearly half the sum they spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants in that period.


Critics say while continuing to pay huge dividends they have failed to carry out significant national infrastructure works to improve the water and sewerage system.

When Margaret Thatcher sold off the water industry in 1989, the government wrote off all debts. But according to the analysis by David Hall and Karol Yearwood of the public services international research unit of Greenwich University, the nine privatised companies in England have amassed debts of £48bn over the past three decades – almost as much as the sum paid out to shareholders. The debt cost them £1.3bn in interest last year.

When Margaret Thatcher sold off the water industry in 1989, the government wrote off all debts. Photograph: Tom Stoddart Archive/Getty Images

Hall concludes the companies have borrowed to pay dividends, rather than to invest in infrastructure projects. The £123bn of capital expenditure spent by the companies has all been financed by customer bills, the analysis states.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders

billions in surplus value which could have gone to updating infrastructure instead paid in dividends to wealthy shareholders. but nationalizing key industries is not in starmer's plan nor in the tories' despite the majority of voters from each party supporting it.

this is a feature of capitalism on steroids, not a bug.

 

[maximus419]

Don't get me wrong, the privatisation of water is another typical Tory mistake that we are paying for now. However it's the agenda around the drought that gets me.

In a typical year of average rainfall, leaking pipes would barely get the slightest murmur in the media. It's not causing us any problems so they will ignore it. Suddenly though, especially in those blue wall seats down south, who are suffering one of the worst droughts on record, those pipes leaking now need urgently fixing.

They won't of course, and as soon as we have a decent spell of rain and they aren't inconvenienced with a hosepipe ban, this won't be mentioned again, until the next drought, probably in another year or two.

 

[neverdie]

mistake

they don't see it as a mistake. it went perfectly in their eyes.

agree on the rest.

 

[P-Nut]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...sis-migration-why-we-need-plan-great-upheaval

if they invest properly they can avoid the doomsday scenarios and keep the level between 1.5-2. if it moves to 2, it'll take decades of zero carbon output, maybe a couple of generations or more, for it to decline again. but that is a better scenario than doing nothing now because if it moves beyond 2 or >2.5 then we may as well all just kill each other now to save time.

it's mental to think that every government has the full knowledge that this is happening and will kill them as well as their children but aren't acting quick enough. it needs wartime economic urgency. the world has to be in a different position regarding its energy input and output by 2030 or there won't be much to look at in 2050. and it's doable but you have to start now. this should be dominating the agenda globally. it makes everything else seem pointless in comparison.



https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/18...ation-says-nobel-winning-economist-joseph-sti

that was 3 years ago. this is more serious than covid yet less urgency.

Wanted to share that first link with friends, but it seems the link is broken

 

[neverdie]

Wanted to share that first link with friends, but it seems the link is broken

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...sis-migration-why-we-need-plan-great-upheaval

still functional for me. maybe the above works?