• Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    2 months ago

    For better or worse (definitely worse), we’re going to stroll right into the horrors that global warming is going to give us. We won’t start making necessary changes until it’s way way past any tipping points.

    The people that care have no power. The people in power are driven by capitalist profit motives.

    If you’re a sci-fi nerd like me we can hope aliens or a true AGI will take over and save us lol. Short of that I have no confidence, mad max dystopia by 2100 or sooner.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      2 months ago

      It doesn’t take aliens or a true AGI; it takes stopping fossil fuel use, ending deforestation, and phasing out a few trace chemicals. Do that, and we end the rising temperatures

      Making that happen is a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

      • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh I totally agree with you, but

        a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

        This is the problem. To say this wouldn’t be easy is a huge, gargantuan understatement.

        The power and control is so far reaching and deep into the foundation of our society, I can’t help being cynical. By using politics and propaganda techniques huge portions of the population have been convinced that global warming either isn’t real, isn’t important, or is actually a good thing. And this is only one hurdle to overcome along with many others.

        The question is how do we seize power back.

        • zqwzzle@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

          • nlgranger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m a bit dubious that revolutions can be effective nowadays against a well organised oppressive state with present tools (propaganda, police, surveillance, corruption). All revolutions have failed over the last few decades (Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Tunisia then Arab Spring, etc.).

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The answer varies a lot between countries. In ones where elections determine who holds power, they’re a viable path to achieving change.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well yeah but…

        Even if tomorrow we start really working on getting the CO2 levels down (protip: we won’t), humanity will be spending half their world energy budget for the next 50-100 years at least to get CO2 levels back to what they should be (pre industrialized levels). Even if we go for something more semi reasonable, say pre 1980 levels, we’ll still be spending half our entire world energy budget on this for like a decade. This ain’t an easy problem

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No not easy. It’s way cheaper to avoid making it worse than it is to try and put things back the way they were.

          • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The next generations after us are facing shit storms. This all boils down to thermodynamics. We took energy at the cost of generating CO2. Taking that CO2 back, aggregating, filtering, converting, storing… Add in losses (be generous and take 50% conversion rates), we will need multiple times all the energy we took over the last two centuries to take all that CO2 out.

            When I said decades of spending half our energy budget, I was very VERY generous. Reality is that we might have to be doing that for centuries, maybe.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Most studies say it’s already too late to stop a lot of it. There’s tons and tons of studies and models that say if we magically cut off all sources of climate forcing we’d still see an increase from the damage already done for centuries. We can obviously make things a LOT better for ourselves by stopping or limiting ourselves right now but a lot of damage is already done. Plus any significant changes will most likely take a decade plus to really get momentum and actually take place anyway.

      That’s why now you’re starting to see a lot more research into mitigation rather than prevention cause we’re starting to move into the “well how are we going to fix this” phase rather than the “we need to stop this from happening phase”

      The biggest indicators are the oceans. Just take a gander at oceanic temperatures over the last like 25 years. since they absorb something like 95% of our thermal extremes we’re seeing some bonkers changes out there…

      • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        we need both to cut emissions and to heavily invest into carbon sinks. It’s doable. But would require coordinated effort where some of the money spent on mindless consumption and cars will have to go towards climate. And ain’t nobody cares enough for that!

        • Final Remix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’d gladly vote to send my tax money to infrastructure, Medicare, education, and climate. I don’t want to subsidize other shittier states anymore, and I sure as shit don’t think the militaries need more money.

    • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Exactly. Does anyone care? It’s more like I’m done caring.

      If nobody gives a damn, me doing so will only harm myself.

      Might as well enjoy commercial aviation in its prime while it lasts. And when in 10 years we will shut it down cuz the world is falling apart, I’ll be happily not traveling anywhere, knowing it’s for the common good.

      • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Right on. I hate being cynical and pessimistic but why struggle hard when the majority are either working against a positive goal or don’t care at all.

        I’m gonna enjoy the little things while I can.

        But, if a time ever comes… I personally volunteer for the job of guillotine operator…lol. Although at some point this position might be very competitive.

      • django@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I prefer enjoying rail travel and bicycles. I am not going to participate in this madness, just because the others do.

    • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      by capitalist profit motives.

      I wouldn’t say it is about profits anymore, I think it’s more about their own security. Looks like we’re in the start of WWIII, so cutting down carbon dioxide sources by the US/EU would mean that China/Russia will have great advantage because they won’t cut their sources and because people in the US/EU will not be happy with that decision en masse.

    • Final Remix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re just so big and safe!*

      *not for the other drivers, or the pedestrians who get nailed by a rolling wall of a frontend.

      • laverabe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        or in the case of parents buying SUVs to make their own children safe, children are 8 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV versus a passenger car. (ie: in their own driveway) And that’s not even factoring the added risk of blindspots for children too small to be seen from the driver seat!

        children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to those struck by a passenger car

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        They also have significantly higher rollover risk which is why the best deaths per million kilometer stats belong to big sedans and wagon not SUVs.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well, technically we’ll reduce out emissions. Just, it’ll likely be after a mass extinction event.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Will the rotting corpses cause a spike in carbon emissions or would it immediately drop?

      • Final Remix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Rotting corpses can’t order scop from Temu that ships on old bunker fuel ships, oddly in private jets that account for hundreds of cars worth of emissions per flight.

      • Contravariant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think humans are mostly carbon-neutral, but decomposition might release gasses that are worse than just CO2. Burning them directly would probably be better.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      As in “We haven’t cut emissions to zero yet.” We can, and will. It’s a question of whether we do it quickly enough to preserve a civilization-supporting climate.

      • Einar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Likely not. The next years will be hell. Then, after 10 years or so - maybe sooner -, 2024 will be remembered as one of the more pleasant years with still bearable temperatures and comparably few catastrophes. We even still had affordable coffee and olive oil.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        We should probably start with reducing the rate of increase first. Then talk about reducing emissions per year. As for zero emissions, I fail to see how we have a civilization of any sort without some emissions. Maybe that’s the point. Was “Net Zero” a hidden word for collapse all along?

          • hobovision@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s a really hopeful reading of that chart. What I see in that chart is that even a year or two of falling emissions could quickly be wiped away. Just look at 2022.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s a bit more than that; there are policies in place which make Chinese emissions likely to slowly drop from here on out

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes. But it makes the second sentence make more sense.

        And for the answer, the Jurassic Park “see, nobody cares” meme would fit in well.

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Like I understand what they are trying to say, but yeah really ticks me off when people say “ever” when they mean “yet”

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      We’re at the point where we’ve stepped into a minefield, where each step forward risks losing major ecosystems. We need to take immediate steps to stop walking further into it.

  • JPSound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Jokes on you tho. I’ve been desperately sick and stuck inside with air conditioning and cats🫅 battling that deadly virus that shut the world down a few years ago which scientists expect may happen more and more often bc climate change (pfff… whatever nerds). It was nice and cool in here, so I don’t know what the crying is all about. Just burry your head as deep as possible and the most dense and tightly packed sand you can get ahold of and, voilá, problem solved once and for all!

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ll note that moving into the boreal forest is also a high-risk decision; those are all burning, burning more intensely, and burning more often.

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Don’t you need a permit to cut a single one down? Having property where those grow always seemed like a nightmare.

          • curiousaur@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why would I cut them down? I bought the property because of them. 200 ft tall trees, some in rings around the mother stump. It’s beautiful and fun.