Sea Levels Will Rise For Centuries Even If Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goals Are Met 280
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Weather Channel: Sea levels will continue to rise for the next three centuries even if governments meet carbon emissions pledges for 2030 set in the Paris climate agreement, a new study indicates. Greenhouse gas emissions from 2016 to 2030 alone would cause sea levels to increase nearly 8 inches (20 cm) by 2300, research led by Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research showed. And that doesn't take into account the effects of already irreversible melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, according to a news release about the study.
"Our results show that what we do today will have a huge effect in 2300. Twenty centimeters is very significant; it is basically as much sea-level rise as we've observed over the entire 20th century. To cause that with only 15 years of emissions is quite staggering," said Climate Analytics' Alexander Nauels, lead author of the study. The 8-inch increase is one-fifth of the nearly 40-inch total rise in sea levels expected by 2300, according to the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. More than half of the 8-inch increase can be attributed to emissions from the world's top five polluters: China, the United States, the European Union, India and Russia, the study found. "Only stringent near-term emission reductions" aimed at preventing global temperatures from rising more than the Paris agreement goal would provide a chance of limiting long-term sea level rise to below 40 inches, the study said. Global greenhouse gas emissions, however, have not shown a sign of peaking since the adoption of the Paris agreement and the individual countries' pledges "are inadequate to put the global community on track to meet the Paris agreement Long-term Temperature Goal by the end of the 21st century."
"Our results show that what we do today will have a huge effect in 2300. Twenty centimeters is very significant; it is basically as much sea-level rise as we've observed over the entire 20th century. To cause that with only 15 years of emissions is quite staggering," said Climate Analytics' Alexander Nauels, lead author of the study. The 8-inch increase is one-fifth of the nearly 40-inch total rise in sea levels expected by 2300, according to the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. More than half of the 8-inch increase can be attributed to emissions from the world's top five polluters: China, the United States, the European Union, India and Russia, the study found. "Only stringent near-term emission reductions" aimed at preventing global temperatures from rising more than the Paris agreement goal would provide a chance of limiting long-term sea level rise to below 40 inches, the study said. Global greenhouse gas emissions, however, have not shown a sign of peaking since the adoption of the Paris agreement and the individual countries' pledges "are inadequate to put the global community on track to meet the Paris agreement Long-term Temperature Goal by the end of the 21st century."
Poorly written article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was supposed to say: "Sea Levels Will Rise For Centuries Even If Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goals Are I"
Key part (Score:5, Insightful)
"Global greenhouse gas emissions, however, have not shown a sign of peaking since the adoption of the Paris agreement"
Exactly. Lots of people talk about it, but action is non-existent. People like their manufactured stuff and modern life. No agreement is going to change that.
Re:Key part (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. Lots of people talk about it, but action is non-existent. People like their manufactured stuff and modern life. No agreement is going to change that.
Unfortunately for all of us, the laws of physics don't give a shit about shortsighted people.
Re:Key part (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately for all of us, the laws of physics don't give a shit about shortsighted people.
True, but that goes both ways Like those people pretending to be able to predict the weather in 50-100 years when they can't even predict next week.
BZZZZZZT!
Climate confused with weather. Again.
I think you probably actually do know the difference, but you're a troll, you pretend you don't because you aren't interested in a discussion, you just want to spread confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing nothing has far more dire unintended consequences than the "solutions".
which is funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
... given that one mentally ill person thought he could build a shoe bomb and suddently we all have to take off our shoes to get on airplanes... I mean, this nation changes things radically on the slightest grounds but killing the planet at a global scale... no problem.
I mean... by 2100 Manhattan and Florida will be under water. What I'm saying is, it's not ALL bad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if this nation were to eliminate all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the emissions controlled by other nations (China, specifically) would mean we'd just delay the problem by a few decades.
Of course, making plans based on conditions 300 y
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if this nation were to eliminate all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the emissions controlled by other nations (China, specifically) would mean we'd just delay the problem by a few decades.
Yes, this is why it's a hard problem.
If it were an easy problem, we wouldn't be debating it, we'd just solve it.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... by 2100 Manhattan and Florida will be under water. What I'm saying is, it's not ALL bad.
One really good tsunami coming in the right direction will put Florida under water much sooner. Not for very long, but possibly for long enough.
Re:Key part (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore him. He's a troll.
Re: Key part (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you support the now defunct "one child policy" of the People's Republic of China? Would you like to see it forcefully imposed on the European Union, the United States, the developing world?
Re: Key part (Score:5, Informative)
The benign and proven way to reduce birth rates is widespread basic education, especially for girls.
Things are moving in the right direction globally on this count, but too slowly. Much more should be invested in this, not just as do-gooding developement stimuli but explicitly as a climate measure to save our own asses.
Re: Key part (Score:4, Insightful)
Female education is an outgrowth of capitalist development. If you can make a country's economy prosper you increase female education, reduce the liability on fossil fuels like wood and coal in favor of gas and nuclear, increase emissions per capita, reduce death etc
I don't think it's capitalist development (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not going to get into whether capitalism is good, bad or indifferent, just that it doesn't deserve the credit it gets. Doesn't help that a ton of the research being done at public universities or with tax dollars (WWI/WWII military research especially).
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure the Soviet Union was into female education in a big way before many capitalist societies. It's really a culture thing and here in the west it took a while for the culture to change to where women could become highly educated.
The other key is cheap, easily available birth control and there are cultures that are against that, whether capitalist or not.
Re: Key part (Score:4, Insightful)
The benign and proven way to reduce birth rates is widespread basic education, especially for girls.
Yes, but an educated populace won't keep electing assholes, so there's relatively little motivation for the assholes in power to promote education.
Re: Key part (Score:5, Informative)
1. Decrease in poverty. Poor people have more kids.
2. Increase in education. People with more education have fewer kids.
3. Increase in access to birth control. Independent of the other two factors, people with good access to birth control have fewer kids.
Re: Key part (Score:4, Interesting)
Nah, we just want the good ol' days. You know, when kids didn't have to go to school but could work from when they were 6. That way, they often didn't even get old enough to reproduce themselves, solving the problem the easy way.
Plus the economically much more feasible way, since you have to pay those kids less than an adult and they also are productive longer in their life cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but for some odd reason people still think that abortions are a bad thing. Make them legal and free and you'll see a sharp decline in population pretty fucking quickly.
Re:Key part (Score:4, Informative)
They are a bad thing. Just not as bad as unwanted children or children that have parents that can't support them or women getting abortions in the alley.
Best is birth control along with education including about sex with abortion as an option.
A big problem is the people who want to illegalize abortion also don't want birth control or sex education.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad point was if burning coal was so bad, and natural
Re: (Score:2)
So when are you moving to Colorado?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
irreversible melting of the Antarctic ice sheet
"Irreversible" is a very strong word. Sounds like a challenge to me.
What motivational self help book did you find that in?
Let's be honest for a moment.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Like anything has changed since 1719 (Score:3)
You mean to tell me that when Ben Franklin's parents watched ships unfurl their sails for the two-month journey to England, they weren't looking forward to the day when we'd have same-day drone delivery from Amazon?
You might have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
--Yogi Berra (attributed)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OK, lets (Score:4, Insightful)
No what it says the problem MUST be solved on the supply side. Asking individuals reduce emissions by using less energy at this point means real negative impacts to their life style. There is no more low hanging fruit. Additionally the supply side solution MUST be able to deliver current amounts of energy at about the same cost to the individual or less or its a non-starter again.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally the supply side solution MUST be able to deliver current amounts of energy at about the same cost to the individual or less or its a non-starter again.
Over the long term it's acceptable for energy costs to rise if you stop shipping inefficient crap. For example, polyisocyanurate foam insulation is about twice as insulative as fiberglass batts, and has relatively little warming effect as it is blown with pentane. (Other types of foam insulation tend to be blown with HFCs.)
Knew your lies wouldn't take long (Score:5, Informative)
The US has already reduced their emissions to below the Paris accord recommendations,
We can safely assume you are a know nothing imbecile and casually dismiss anything further you have to say as the rantings of a delusional idiot.
The rest of us can just look at the facts. [nationalgeographic.com] and see America is nowhere close to meeting it's Paris targets. (Those targets were not even close to good enough btw) But you still are failing to meet them.
deniers gonna deny (Score:3)
CO2 doesn't just disappear at the end of the year and start over...
It will be a long time before China or India catch up to America. [ourworldindata.org] Lets just pretend America isn't a 1/4 the size of either China or India. And the EU or Europe half the size.
Plus
Us and europe barely moved their CO2 output for the last 50 years.
is a lie anyway.
America went from 3.69 billion tons in 1967 to 5.27 in 2017 [ourworldindata.org]
A ~40% increase isn't barely moved.
Guess liars and deniers gotta stick up for each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's stop feeling guilty in the US and start talking about China and India.
Let's stop doing nothing and blame someone else instead!
Scale (Score:5, Funny)
Carbon sequestration (Score:5, Interesting)
The environmentalists are their own worst enemy here. The easiest, simplest, and cheapest way to do this is to stop recycling paper and wood products. Those should be throw away in the trash, so they'll end up in a landfill buried underground. Trees extract CO2 from the atmosphere, pay the energy cost (via solar power collected through photosynthesis) to strip off the oxygen, and store the carbon in the form of wood. They do all this at no cost to us. We then chop down the tree and convert it into wood products. If we throw those wood products away and bury them in landfills after a single use, we've sequestered the carbon underground, reversing the process of extracting coal and oil from underground and burning them releasing CO2.
But the environmentalists don't want us chopping down trees, so they insist that we recycle paper, needlessly wasting energy to avoid sequestering that carbon underground. Recycling is usually good, but look at the big picture here. The harm of excess CO2 in the atmosphere exceeds the harm of chopping down more trees. So sequestering carbon is more important than preserving trees. That means recycling wood products is actually bad.
To compensate for the increased rate of harvesting trees needed to create new wood products (since we're no longer recycling wood and paper), donate to the Arbor Day Foundation [arborday.org] so they can plant more trees.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Carbon sequestration (Score:5, Informative)
It depends how you do this. If you throw away the wood in the wrong way, it may end up decomposing anaerobically and release methane which is worse than Carbon Dioxide. If you have a functioning forest, incidentally, that also sequesters CO2, because the trees drop leaves, wood and eventually die. In a natural wood land with a biodiverse set of leaf litter insects, a lot of this ends up as soil which, as you say, locks away Carbon.
So, if what you say is done carefully, then yes, I think you would be right, especially if you are cutting down trees in areas prone to fire. And, of course the wood land needs to be sustainably managed.
Re: (Score:2)
How many trees do we need to plant? (Score:2)
People worry about methane being released from warming permafrost, but to me that just seems like incredibly rich soil becoming available for planting.
Re:Carbon sequestration (Score:4, Informative)
Other opinions differ.
https://recycled-papers.co.uk/... [recycled-papers.co.uk]
Reducing CO2 and Greenhouse Gases
Recycled Paper and Greenhouse Gases
When it reaches the end of its life-cycle, paper that is sent to landfill or incinerated will produce further greenhouse gases as it degrades. Greenhouse gas emissions have caused a rapid increase in the Earth’s temperature which, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has risen by over 0.7C in Europe over the last century.
That’s why it’s so important to recycle paper and give it a second life. In comparison:
Manufacturing recycled paper produces less CO2 and Greenhouse gases than virgin fibre paper.
Manufacturing one tonne of 100% recycled paper emits 38% less CO2* than paper produced from virgin fibres. The emissions saved is the equivalent to driving from Paris to Moscow in the average European car.
*based on Eural figures
Assessing our emissions
Arjowiggins Graphic has chosen to have its greenhouse gas emissions assessed by a recognised independent body; Labelia Conseil. This ensures figures presented in the Environmental Benefit Statement and in our Environmental Declarations are accurate and definite.
The inclusion of an ‘Environmental Declaration’ on every Arjowiggins Graphic product range provides the customer with clear information on the carbon footprint associated with their choice of paper.
“WWF International works with best-in-class companies in order to effect change throughout the entire sector by pushing sector leaders to take on ever more ambitious CO2 reduction targets. The Arjowiggins Graphic agreement is an opportunity to demonstrate that low carbon solutions exist even within sectors that are generally considered difficult.”
Bruce Haase, Head Climate and Business Engagement at WWF International:
“Gas Emissions Goals are Me”? (Score:5, Funny)
We really don’t need - or want - to hear about your gas emissions, BeauHD.
Only Solution is Technology (Score:2)
Advancing technology has been and will always be the only solution for sustainably maintaining a population of billions of humans.
What is needed is an efficient industrial scale way to couple CO2 sequestration directly to power generation. The good news is that there is no physical obstacle to doing so. In fact, we already have a full-working proof-of-concept in biological photosynthesis. The main issue is to supplement the existing sunlight-water-nutrient driven process with one that can utilize addition
Re: (Score:2)
By a quick back of the envelope calculation (feel free to check me) I estimate it would take about 3600 years of a single typical nuclear power plant operating to completely convert the 6 billion tones of human contributed CO2 back into coal (at an unrealistic 100% efficiency, but this is ballpark). So an extra 100 nuclear power plants could completely fix the problem in a few decades of operation -- given the existence of a fairly efficient way of converting CO2 to raw carbon.
Check your numbers. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] gives you a ballpark figure of 380 giga-tonnes of carbon (GtC), which is an estimate for the cumulative amount of carbon mankind put into the air during 1901 to 2013 (in the form of CO2, see note below). You can almost forget about years before that since it's a small number in comparison (about 12 GtC for 1751-1900 period). A good percentage of that CO2 may still be in the air.
On top of that already-released amount, we're still busy pumping CO2 into the air. Same source: at
Obviousy we will have to remove the C02 (Score:2)
Once we figure out how to do that at rates the government can reasonably make major corporations fund, the problem will go away. It will have to be done by the corporations, because it is far easier to do where they release the carbon than elsewhere.
Right now, Carbon capture is too expensive, even if done at the source. But it is not that unreasonable for us to figure out how to do carbon capture at scale cheap enough to be worth while.
Right now the best we have are "Empress Trees". They capture about 10
I'm not worried, actually (Score:3)
Look at how quickly the ozone layer is fixing itself...
Look, we have CO2 scrubbers. The tech exists, even though it is not commercially viable. Do you know what that means? We have the luxury of not wanting to pay for it. And that in turn means if we don't have the luxury anymore, we'll be VERY quick about building them. They'll pop up like fungus.
The world is ever changing. Not all of it is human made. Having to adapt does not go away just because we're living "clean".
That being said, I am all for not polluting the world if it is at all feasible.
Re:I'm not worried, actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how quickly the ozone layer is fixing itself...
Look, we have CO2 scrubbers. The tech exists, even though it is not commercially viable. Do you know what that means? We have the luxury of not wanting to pay for it. And that in turn means if we don't have the luxury anymore, we'll be VERY quick about building them. They'll pop up like fungus.
The world is ever changing. Not all of it is human made. Having to adapt does not go away just because we're living "clean".
That being said, I am all for not polluting the world if it is at all feasible.
You are on a spherical space ship hurling through space with no escape pod available. Somebody is destroying the life support system and his buddies are cheering him along. Is it 'commercially viable', or 'at all feasible', to stop them? ... or is stopping them perhaps a matter of such urgency that it warrants revising our idea of the 'commercially viable' and 'at all feasible'?
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're all not maintaining the life support system adequately. Not destroying it.
You make it sound like someone on that ship is taking a wrench to the oxygen tanks. But that is not the case. We're just letting the system get worse.
The important difference is this: While there certainly is a point where this becomes life threatening, we haven't reached that yet. This is a self-healing system too, so just leaving well enough alone might help it get better.
There'll be decades of increasing discomfort before
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. The Amazon is spontaneously combusting, coal is leaping out of the ground into furnaces, and neonicitinoids are self-assembling on large areas of cultivated and adjacent lands. No "someone" actively doing something at all.
Yep,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually nature is hostile to human life by default.
... but nothing and nobody obligates us to make that situation even worse through our own wilful ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are negatives as well, like pollution.
But they're much smaller than the benefits.
A poor person now is better off than a rich person 200 years ago.
Almost all of that is due to using fossil fuels.
But oh no, plant food (CO2) might cause a slight increase in temperature, PANIC!
I think the real issue is people who live/grow up in densely populated area's develop an instinct that their own kind is the problem.
Like the mice in this experimen
Re: (Score:2)
Inches? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weirdly, not even once are inches mentioned in the study but they are all over the summary. Why?
Because the readership of this site is primarily from the former English colonies in N-America and they prefer obsolete units of measurement.
Maybe (Score:2)
As usual, the actual scientists put in disclaimers that are m
xkcd has a solution! (Score:2)
2300? (Score:2)
As a reminder, every single person alive today will be dead by 2300.
In the year 2300, every single person alive then will be dead within 200 years after that.
Regardless of what is done about "Climate Change".
This climate religion really should recognize what its limitations are. There is no "us" that is present or relevant in 2300, the strange secular notions of some "spirit of mankind" while explicitly denying such a thing notwithstanding.
Incidentally, the same goes for the year 3000 in the space cult.
Another prediction that will go nowhere... (Score:2)
...So long as one side keeps denying that there is a problem and the other side denies that there are solutions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a prediction from "a distinguished but elderly scientist" that we will have orbital towers (beanstalks) by then (3001) so I wouldn't worry about a rise of a few metres (or even hundreds)
Re:What about the year 3000? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they were making those claims back in the 1970's and 80's and 90's that everything would be under water.
They were making the claims back in the 1970s and 80s and 90s that everything close to the coast would be under water by the 2100s or the early 2200s.
read the actual predictions, not the blogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna need to see some proof of that assertion that "they" were making those claims, and the time frame "they" were saying.
Also, the fuck do you know who is buying beach front property and what sort of climate change beliefs they have? Christ, do you even listen to your bullshit, or is it automatic at this point, requiring no thought?
Re: citation? (Score:2)
Well that's rather the point. What makes you think that THESE headlines arent compressing the timeline?
Re:It's unlikely (Score:5, Funny)
Everybody knows gas emission goals are CowboyNeal.
Re:Emissions are a non-sequiter - heat is the enem (Score:5, Insightful)
The emissions (as a general concept) was definitely the cause of everything. I mean, what else would it be, tap dancing styles? It's basically digging up stuff that was in it's own grave and making it airborne, for over a century.
Re: (Score:2)
You know it's easy to search for your questions and get good answers.
Remember that the world doesn't care about us at all, it's a system that would "accept" going to a Venus type environment and while life could potentially exist it wouldn't have anything to do with Homo Sapiens.
Re: (Score:2)
Does nothing else occur to you? What about the sun?
Lol scientists are so stupid how did they not notice the sun??? IT'S RIGHT THERE!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what is that solution? (Score:2)
> The real solution is boring and hard and requires money and investment and is very unsexy and cannot be used for sound bites. But it can be done
What, exactly, do you think the solution is?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you realize that the natural sea level changes happen very slowly, and not within 100-200 years.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems there were several thousands of years [wikipedia.org] where the sea level rise was more than 20mm per year, about 7 times what we're being warned against. And all of that was prior to human use of oil.
You mean the period from 20000 to 6000 years before present where sea levels rose by 140 meters?
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but when sea level rose quickly 15000 years ago due to melting glaciers, humanity hadn't yet built cities housing billions of people right at the edge of the now-rising sea. So it's not exact relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
A billion people didn't exist 300 years ago. I think we have time to move them...
Re: (Score:2)
Right. All this nonsense is about protecting the real estate properties of the coastal rich. "And fuck the lives" of all the worlds' poor who need more energy to increase their standard of living to even 10% of the levels of the coastal elite.
Those same members of the ruling class also killed the safe atomic power research projects, so they can go to hell as far as most people are concerned.
Re:deep shit when they (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. All this nonsense is about protecting the real estate properties of the coastal rich.
No you dumb fuck. Have you heard of Bangladesh? Country of 163 million very poor people, average elevation is something like 3-4 meters above sea level, and a good 10% of it is under 1m above sea level. Not to mention that a lot of it is built on reclaimed river delta mud, so 1m of sea level rise will likely carve out a whole lot of it.
Lots of similar situations all through SE Asia, Africa, and South America impacting hundreds of millions of people.
A harder to estimate problem is how river deltas change when sea level rises and high tides back the water up. It's quite likely that we'll see inland flooding because of this, where rivers overflow due to an inability to drain into the ocean. Wealthy developed countries will deal with this somewhat well, but there are a whole lot of poor countries with a lot of poor fishermen who have their lives tied up on the banks of rivers near the ocean.
And it's not slow change that will impact them. It's going to gradually get worse until that one fateful storm at high tide, and then a village is gone.
When the wealthy get sick of rebuilding with their insurance money they'll just relocate. It's really easy to relocate your second or third home. It's not so easy to do if you don't have the education or the internet to figure out where to go and don't have the money for a new house and can't pack up your current home and move it with you and don't have any job skills that would be useful anywhere other than fishing in the ocean.
This sort of shit is why a subset of the population is worried about climate change. Humanitarian crises forcing small armies of people to relocate cause a ripple effect through the region. Shit like this his historically caused famine, disease, wars, and war crimes. When a developed country's solution to mass immigration is to lock people up in cages, what do you think an undeveloped country's solution is going to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Eat the bugs and live in a box! (Score:2)
Bugs? I thought we just had a story about their decline...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh man does Greata Thunberg ever trigger the hell out of people. Funny that those people cast aspersions about her mental state rather than her message.
I think there's a video that might help you:
https://twitter.com/markhumphr... [twitter.com]
Re: What a shame (Score:3, Informative)
Most people do not share you enthusiasm for child abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
The stench of desperation is coming off you in waves. 16 year olds are more than capable of having opinions and acting on them. Failing to bully them into submission isn't child abuse no matter how much you hate her.
Re: What a shame (Score:2, Troll)
Not my kid, not my concern. But it's still pretty disgusting to see abuse glorified as virtue.
Anyways, keep on believing the corporate-approved Official Narrative. There's no way our evil financialist overlords would lie to you - it's UNPOSSIBLE!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, corporations are now FOR Greta?
Hell, the world changes quickly if you don't give a fuck about it...
Re: (Score:2)
Not my kid, not my concern. But it's still pretty disgusting to see abuse glorified as virtue.
Not your kid, not your concern, but here you sit running your suck about it. And yeah, it is disgusting to see environmental devastation glorified through the lens of capitalism. There is no planet B. There is no "away", when you throw things "away". Aliens are not coming to save you. A teenage girl with longer to live than you has more to lose, so I guess none of this is your concern, is it?
Re: What a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
It's her attitude that winds me up. It's like the old saw about teenagers think they discovered sex - Greata treats everyone older than about 18 as if they were ignorant assholes that she has to educate. It's pretty insulting to the people who over the last 40 or 50 years have moved us to the point where the UK can run without any coal for weeks on end and recycling is common-place.
It is always worth shaking the tree from time to time and saying "don't be complacent - we do even better". But it's just fucking annoying to be treated as if we hadn't done anything at all.
Re: What a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
It's her attitude that winds me up. It's like the old saw about teenagers think they discovered sex - Greata treats everyone older than about 18 as if they were ignorant assholes that she has to educate. It's pretty insulting to the people who over the last 40 or 50 years have moved us to the point where the UK can run without any coal for weeks on end and recycling is common-place.
It is always worth shaking the tree from time to time and saying "don't be complacent - we do even better". But it's just fucking annoying to be treated as if we hadn't done anything at all.
Unfortunately she is right. We are ignorant assholes that haven't done anything at all to meet the challenges of climate change is a meaningfull way...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the ignorant asshole here is you for thinking we didn't do anything meaningful. "Anything at all" for that matter, as you say. Holy shit.
Re: What a shame (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not even close to the changes that need to be made, and not even close to the speed at which they need to be made.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Greata treats everyone older than about 18 as if they were ignorant assholes that she has to educate.
Her intellect is greata than yours.
By their actions shall you know them.
She's smart enough to see that based on their general inaction, most people are dumbfucks. If someone were setting your house on fire you'd try to stop them, right? But here we sit with thumbs in asses waiting for someone else to save us. She's doing more than 99.99% of us just by complaining loudly. And here you are, crying about it. Triggered, snowflake? Well don't worry, soon there won't be snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Greta can't even figure out how to get home.
Re: What a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
A 16-year-old with Asperger syndrome overcomes her social phobias and inspires millions of people, mostly teens and young adults, to put pressure on politicians and other people in power to take action against anthropogenic global warming.
Default reaction: Let's speculate on and attack her mental health, and call her a puppet of the deep state!
Re: What a shame (Score:2)
Eat that corporate pablum, eat it right up!
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have a forest in a desert because there isn't enough soil. You can shrink deserts, but you have to start at the edges and work your way inwards. China has been making some effort to develop inexpensive technologies for this purpose, ranging from bundled biomass to keep the sand from blowing around, to grass-planting robots that establish gridworks of plants for the same purpose.
But what's actually effective can be seen in Australia, and it's eucalyptus trees. They're a terrible scourge when mixed
Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes India with its1.8 t per person vs Americas 16.24 t [ourworldindata.org]
is surely the problem?
Or did you mean yearly totals?
India's 2.47 Billion t vs Americas 5.27 Billion t? [ourworldindata.org]
Or maybe even cumulative emissions?
India's 48.56 Billion t vs America's 399.38? [ourworldindata.org]