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

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The dismaying reality is that it is driven by the wealthy. I got rid of my car, I shop local, and everything in the home is low emissions. No reduction in my personal life can ever offset the way they live.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      The truth of the matter is that it’s impossible to stop climate change in the short and mid term without degrowth in energy consumption. World leaders gathered and celebrated when they agreed to trade responsibilities for CO2 emissions, when a market-oriented world economy was always going to provoke this result unless there were explicit limits to the production of contaminant energy sources.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Driven by the wealthy and enabled by the stupid.

      If this topic ceased to be a partisan issue, we might actually see real change and limits enforced.

      A world where pollution producers would need to price cleanup and management into their production (which would in turn incentivize cleaner alternatives).

      Where corporations might be held liable for damages from their climate or eco negligence.

      But as long as this remains an issue that the masses are going to be divided over, the world is going to burn as stupid people insist 3rd degree burns on asphalt is just part of the circle of life.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not driven by the wealthy, because there are far fewer wealthy people than everyone else.

      Individual shopping habits are a band-aid until we can fully replace how some of those habits work.

      Carbon taxes would be infinitely preferable to voluntary changes, but we can’t pass carbon taxes because people will go absolutely insane if asked to pay the true cost of their goods.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, over the years I’ve heavily reduced my meat intake, am super conscientious about transportation (haven’t flown in a decade, keep my revs low when I drive, and try to get all my errands done in efficient ways as to minimize gas usage), turn off lights, ration my hot water usage, don’t eat out at wasteful restaurants, buy “ugly” produce from the grocery store, promote renewable energy solutions whenever possible, compost, recycle, and create extremely little garbage. Yet, at my work, several of our AC generators that we use to power the facility use more oil in one day than my car does in its entire lifetime. Several handfuls of billionaires and their families emit the same amount of carbon as the poorest 66% of humanity. Seems to me, if we want to solve climate change, we have to get rid of the biggest polluters first, then transition to clean energy.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if I’ll be alive for the moment everyone goes from “This is bullshit and I’m going to ignore it” to “Oh no who could have seen this coming?”

    • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some people will never admit anything is happening. They’ll just blame everything on something else.

      We are already seeing the effects of climate change. If they were going to admit it, they would have done so already.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

  • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    This will disproportionately effect the poor and developing countries, so the thinking of elites and super rich is that there’s still plenty of time to rectify the situation.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

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

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

  • thorbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s China generating all the pollution. Their ‘reported’ emissions are 13.7 billion metric tons versus the US’s 5.9 billion. And 90% of China’s fuel consumers are private, one-off shuttles that don’t even report their emissions. US is contributing a tiny fraction of global emissions and it’s falling. Yes, US industrialized earlier and has contributed more in total, but we can’t time travel, we have to look at who is emitting NOW. China’s emissions are rising and nobody there cares to put a cap on it. You want to stop the world from cooking? Talk to China.

    Edit: it’s odd how many tankies are on lemmy. Obviously we should take steps ourselves to stop emissions too but China is the world’s true problem when it comes to emissions. US has been steadily falling while China is rising rapidly and that’s only what’s actually reported

    • Xeminis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a big fan of China, but that’s just dishonest. Yes, China emits more than twice the co2 US emits. But that means that its per capita emissions are still way below those of the US, even after western countries outsourced a lot of their own pollution to China. Yes, you NEED to talk to China if you’re going to solve it, but pretending that it is more on them than on the west is ridiculous.

      • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Earth doesn’t care. As long as the western countries keep blaming China only and China not even talking about it, as far as I know from the western media I’m exposed to solely, it will simply get rid of us.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think China is producing that’s creating all that pollution? I’ll give you a hint. IT’S EVERYTHING WESTERNERS ARE BUYING.

      • achance4cheese@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s all so complex. They also produce a major chunk of renewable energy tech as I understand. Which I wouldn’t be surprised was made cheaply without longevity in mind. I’d be surprised if some of that tech lasts more than 5 years, especially for what they sold to Europe and the US. And the kicker, they continue to build coal power plants to run their production of western demanded products. The whole current status quo is a giant mess!

      • thorbot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Do some research on Chinas main fuel consumers and get back to me. It’s mainly smaller entities who are using personal vehicles or private industry and not reporting their usage at all. Scream all you want but China is not reporting their usage anywhere near accurately because there is only systems in place for the larger corporations that are fuel consumers, and even those are largely corrupt and under reporting so they can continue doing business unabated

        Edit: I see your research was “downvote and move on”

        Brilliant

  • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Being vegan is the most impactful change that individuals can make.

    But we won’t change.

    It is totally hopeless.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Hoping everyone collectively changes their behaviour isn’t a solution unfortunately.

      We have all the tools and technology to make a huge dent in this problem right now if not outright solve it. The most impactful thing you can do is spread awareness and do what you can to make this a voting issue if you live in a democracy. It could even be as simple is making it a non negotiable for how you choose to vote.

      Lack of climate action needs to be a death sentence for the careers of the political class or it will become a death sentence for the the rest of us.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not having children is the most impactful individual change one can make, well over going vegan.

      • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Becoming a vegan anti-natalist is the most impact a person can make.

        I am uncertain of the numbers regarding both individually. You might be right.

        Personally, I think both are important.

        • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No it is not. Eugenics is an attempt to improve the genetic quality of a human population.

          We are talking about an attempt to stop climate change. We are not trying to “improve” the genetics of human population.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            that’s a narrow definition that doesn’t really encompass all the ways in which eugenics has been practiced. frequently, as i have done here, it is used synonymously with genocide. stop practicing genocide.

            • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No. Genocide is murdering people. Genocide is violence against people. Forcing people, against their will to stop existing.

              Asking people to reproduce less is asking people (not forcing them) to exercise their own will.

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Braindead take. We don’t need more children to be born into a world of suffering.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are talking about an attempt to stop climate change

            those are the trappings, but the method is bare eugenics

            • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No it is not. Eugenics is a pseudo-science about improvement of genetics. Period.

              Trying to avoid climate catastrophe is not about improving genetics.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Eugenics is a pseudo-science about improvement of genetics. Period

                no, it’s not, even the wikipedia article we both love disputes this claim plainly.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Trying to avoid climate catastrophe is not about improving genetics.

                if the method by which you try to avoid it is eugenicist, then it is.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            i suggest we figure out a way to maintain the habitability of the planet without eugenics.

            • dangblingus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right, but from a “carbon footprint” perspective, making new humans is the worst thing a human could do for their footprint. What we need to get away from is the argument that our individual carbon footprints are too high. I mean, they are, but the ruling class is a lot more egregious.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being vegan is the most impactful change that individuals can make.

      being vegan has no impact at all.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What makes you think major nations will forego their cheapest source of energy if other nations are using it?