Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

A 'Liveable Future' Depends on Slashing Emissions This Decade, Major Climate Report Finds (theverge.com) 174

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The world needs to slash greenhouse gas emissions in half this decade, a landmark new United Nations report urges. To reach that goal, the globe needs to make a speedy shift to clean energy, reduce energy use, and deploy technologies that can trap some of our planet-heating carbon dioxide pollution, the report's authors say. From a report: "We are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future," Hoesung Lee, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel Panel on Climate Change, said in a press release. "We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming."

Hundreds of leading climate scientists participated in the report, which outlines what's needed to avoid all-out climate catastrophe. It boils down to one key call to action: "rapid and deep" reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors. It builds on previous research that finds that more than 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming would be devastating for people and wildlife around the world. We are alarmingly close to breaching that threshold. We could surpass it before 2030, today's new report says. But we could rewrite that grim future if big changes are made to cut emissions in half this decade. The longer-term goal is to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century in order to keep global average temperatures stable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A 'Liveable Future' Depends on Slashing Emissions This Decade, Major Climate Report Finds More

A 'Liveable Future' Depends on Slashing Emissions This Decade, Major Climate Report Finds

Comments Filter:

  • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @01:23PM (#62416452)
    "We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming."

    • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zaraday ( 6285110 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @01:35PM (#62416504)

      We don't exactly have the tools required to limit our impact on the climate while maintaining our current standard of life and level of consumption. However, we have the know-how that by reducing consumption, we can slow and possibly reverse our damage (provided we make enough sacrifices). The problem is that very few people are willing to make the necessary sacrifices, and we all expect that technology will be a magical bullet to fix all of our problems and make our lives better. That simply does not exist yet, and assuming Wirth's Law can be adapted to consumption and resources, it may never exist.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

        We don't exactly have the tools required to limit our impact on the climate while maintaining our current standard of life and level of consumption. However, we have the know-how that by reducing consumption, we can slow and possibly reverse our damage (provided we make enough sacrifices). The problem is that very few people are willing to make the necessary sacrifices...

        Bingo.

        I'm willing to help a little, but I'm not going out of my way to lower my standard of life I've always had. I'm getting closer to

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

          I have an EV, solar panels on my roof, and I WFH four days per week.

          These "sacrifices" have raised, not lowered, my standard of living.

          • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:23PM (#62416720)

            Nobody cares that you have an EV. It only becomes important when MOST people have both the inclination and wherewithal to switch to EVs.

            Massive numbers of people exist under one or more of these conditions:

            - Own ICE vehicles, and can't afford to simply switch
            - Don't have a privately owned roof
            - Can't WFH
            - Live in climates where having a detached single family home leaking energy on five sides, so who cares how much solar electricity they accumulate from the roof

            Until these conditions are mostly alleviated, we're just pissing into the wind.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hey! ( 33014 )

              Technically you're not disagreeing, you're making different points. His point is that it isn't really a sacrifice. Your point is that it is a kind of privilege.

            • Most of those are straw men tho. There is an easy solution for the first one (develop public transportation), for the second one (force landlords to put solar panel on the rooves they own), for the third one (see #1), and for the fourth one (move to energy-efficient cities).

              I guess the American way of life (car / suburbian individual house / work far away) is doomed, yes. But luckily enough not everyone on the planet lives like Americans.

              • Well, "develop public transportation" isn't easy... neither is convincing populations that have lived their whole lives with automobiles... "Force landlords..." Well... let's cut right to the chase.

                None of these are actually easy. They're crystal clear. but very, very hard.

                I agree. The American way of life is doomed. And so is mine, which is not American, but is sufficiently American-like that the impact is substantial.

              • I guess the American way of life (car / suburbian individual house / work far away) is doomed

                Err...I don't see that happening any time soon.

                Discounting the fact that public transport just isn't a reality for most of the US (aside from heavily urban cities)...people in the US like their individual freedom to travel when and where door-to-door that they please.

                I think once sufficient electric charging infrastructure is in place, and EV prices become more in line with what common ICE vehicles are, that EV w

            • Also, there are many areas where one doesn't have an overnight plug for their BEV. Apartment complexes, condos, townhomes, etc. If one has their own home, an EV makes sense -- just plug in overnight. However, fighting for chargers is just not feasible.

              • Also, there are many areas where one doesn't have an overnight plug for their BEV.

                And there are many areas where you can

                Just because there are places that it's not a good fit, doesn't mean that there aren't places where it is.

            • Oh, so basically everyone needs to buy an EV all at the same time, or nobody should? And we should all have underground cave dwellings before we worry about solar power?

              That's the transition plan entitled "we never do anything."

              The ~1M EVs that Tesla is now putting on the road every year moves the needle a little more, every year. And if a home has enough solar to heat and cool it without drawing any grid electricity, what the fuck difference does it make if it's not as insulated as it otherwise could be?

          • How cute it is that you think that is "enough". So long as you own things and have power over your own life, you will not be doing "enough". Give them control now, kulak, or suffer the consequences.

          • I have an EV

            It would be interesting to see what real world no-nonsense objective energy savings looks like for EV over ICE with absolutely EVERYTHING considered. Full material and production cost, full lifecycle maintenance, on going self discharge and battery charge/discharge loss, battery conditioning, transmission, ACDC DCAC conversion losses. Even projected savings to supporting infrastructure (less repair shops?) to support assumed lower maintenance over ICE. My understanding is EVs burn several KWs/day just si

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by shmlco ( 594907 )

              "It would be interesting to see what real world no-nonsense objective energy savings looks like for EV over ICE with absolutely EVERYTHING considered."

              It would, especially if we could get the same for the ICE. Full material and production costs for body, engines, transmissions, batteries, and other parts. Full lifecycle maintenance, costs of oil changes, brakes, pumps, etc., over the entire lifetime of the vehicle. Full consideration and breakdown of costs of oil discovery, drilling, shipping & pipeline

        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:18PM (#62416702)

          I'm getting closer to the end of my life than the beginning, and I don't intend my slide out of earth living to be one of major sacrifice and "pain".

          I'm 55. I do intend to sacrifice because unlike most of Slashdot, I have children (aged 11 and 13) and I'm gravely concerned about the world they're going to grow up in.

          • Go ahead and do your sacrifices. It won't change anything, as more cryptocurrency mining operations come online to add more strain to the power grid and add more dirty coal to the air.

            Instead, you don't need to live in a cave. Instead, get these ecological abominations regulated, or banned. This is actual progress, and will do more for the environment than almost anything else.

          • Having children was already the most irresponsible thing you could have possibly done for the climate. Their lifetime emissions through consumption will pale any of the sacrifices those of us who were smart enough to not have children have made. If there’s anything you could do, it would be to convince others to make smarter choices than you have and not selfishly reproduce as you have done.

            • Having children is a biological instinct. We've EVOLVED to want to have children. Heck not even biologically, but culturally: both those individuals who can and want to breed pass on their genes but also the cultures that encourage it will produce more people and dominate the landscape.

              If you're expecting people to not have offspring to solve the problem, you've basically introduced the Chinese finger trap to the equation: those that try to solve the problem your way only produce more people who won't.

              Hon

        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tempo36 ( 2382592 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:35PM (#62416770)

          'I'm willing to help a little, but I'm not going out of my way to lower my standard of life I've always had. I'm getting closer to the end of my life than the beginning, and I don't intend my slide out of earth living to be one of major sacrifice and "pain".'

          I believe the phrase you're looking for is "F*** you, I got mine."

        • Absolutely! Why change a thing when the consequences are even really going to manifest until after I'm gone? I mean, sure...it might end up doing irreparable damage to the whole climate but let's be real here...
          Nobody cares about the future unless it makes their lives easier or provides IMMEDIATE benefit, right? I mean geeze, who wants to go out of their way just to save the planet for some future generation? Fuck those guys! I WANT MINE NOW!

          You know, the more I'm around the more I realize HOW we got into t

        • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @03:02PM (#62416896)

          And if everyone takes that attitude, then there's not much hope for future generations.

          - consume less. If you're older, you don't need that SUV to commute with.
          - breed less. Really, population growth isn't good.
          - be smart. Recycle, keep products for longer.

          I don't understand the attitude. WWII and rationing was on, everyone participated, it was considered highly patriotic. Fast forward and we're told to live life as normal even when there's a war, so that the terrorists don't win, and patriotism isn't about sacrifice but instead putting on lapel pins and bumper stickers and flying flags. The attitude of "let's do our part" has vanished from America.

          • This time we're missing an enemy. Nothing tangible that has to be killed, that would signal the end, nothing that can be defined as evil.

            And when you do manage to identify the enemy, then you discover that the enemy is your (and your neighbour's) way of life. This is a terrible thing to go through.
            As a creature that thrives in "us against them" situations, being both at the same time is an impossible conundrum...

      • Actually, we do have the tools

        Nuclear Power
        Improved electrical grid
        Electric Vehicles

        It is mostly a matter of political will to stand up to the ICE auto industry, the fossil fuel industry and the environmental whackos who have an emotional problem with nuclear power

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by rally2xs ( 1093023 )

          We DON'T have the tools.

          Nuclear power - we know how to build it, but those that are pulling for the destruction of capitalism and the west continuously block them to bring as much pain as possible to the people, in hopes that they will throw up their hands and say, "Well capitalism didn't work, lets vote for socialism." After that - the normal slavery of socialism - the very very rich, the very very poor, and nobody in between.

          We don't have the improved electrical grid, either. Try to build it, and you h

          • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by dasunt ( 249686 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:48PM (#62416846)

            Nuclear power - we know how to build it, but those that are pulling for the destruction of capitalism and the west continuously block them to bring as much pain as possible to the people, in hopes that they will throw up their hands and say, "Well capitalism didn't work, lets vote for socialism." After that - the normal slavery of socialism - the very very rich, the very very poor, and nobody in between.

            Your critique seems very centered on one side of the political spectrum, and ignores those whose common interests are anti-nuke (such as how the fossil fuel industry is linked to funding anti-nuclear leftists [forbes.com]).

            As for the destruction of capitalism, well, we've already seen capitalism take quite a hit with regulatory capture and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Not that either the left nor right is immune to being criticized for that - both are willing to accept money and echo the talking points of lobbyists.

            As for capitalist solutions, cap & trade was probably a pretty good one by creating a market for carbon dioxide emissions. Which was last proposed, IIRC, around the Obama term, and was killed through the tea party and the Koch brothers.

            Don't get me wrong - leftists have done plenty of stupid things. But this isn't a left-vs-right problem. It's a problem across the board.

            Hell, one of the better ways to reduce transportation emissions would be just upping the gas tax. But you'll be damned to find a politician of any stripe that will support that.

            • "Hell, one of the better ways to reduce transportation emissions would be just upping the gas tax. But you'll be damned to find a politician of any stripe that will support that."

              Or... pass the FairTax which is a luxury tax on new goods and services. Like Gasoline. Then fund the roads and bridges and the like via the federal treasury. The luxury comes in when you start consuming at 45,000 miles a year (like me - its one of my great pleasures to travel via the highways.) I support the FairTax. That'

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dasunt ( 249686 )

                Which Fairtax is this?

                The only one I'm familiar with is a simplified sales tax system that would replace all other taxation, as well as another welfare system to reduce it's regressive nature.

                Which doesn't seem to do much for climate change, one way or another. If two goods are priced the same, but one has double the CO2 emissions in production, the tax doesn't change.

                • But the price of fossil fuels for transportation greatly exceeds the price of electricity for transportation. So, the FairTax would tax the 2 at the same rate, but cost the buyer much more for fossil fuels than the very cheap electricity would cost for the same trip.

                  The FairTax is the same FairTax you heard of, but is better explained as a luxury tax on all new goods for sale at retail and services. That boils down to "the poor don't pay even $0.01 out of pocket for taxed items, the gov't sends them all

          • EV's - we don't have EV's, either, until pretty much everyone can afford them and they can do what our ICE cars can do. In the 1987 1-Lap of America event, a new Yugo was driven 9000 miles in 10 days to complete the event. No EV on the planet can do that, still. When it can, and those that have the $$$ to buy a Yugo in 1987 can buy that EV today, then we will "have" EV's.

            Even 35-54 year old men average less than 20,000 miles a year [dot.gov], so 9,000 miles in 10 days seems to be raising the bar rather high.

            • "Even 35-54 year old men average less than 20,000 miles a year [dot.gov], so 9,000 miles in 10 days seems to be raising the bar rather high."

              I'm 74 now, own a 3 year old as of last month Ford Edge ST, which has 114,000 miles on it. I drove that 1987 event in a Dodge Lancer and won it. "Vacation" last year was driving from Virginia to the north slope of Alaska just to see the oil fields. 10,000 miles on that trip. Took longer than 10 days tho. Still, you wouldn't make it with any EV in anywhere close

          • Actually capitalism is a bit against nuclear also. It's not the most efficient energy method for making short term profits, so there need to be government efforts to promote it. And the capitalists will accuse that of being too socialist...

            As for EVs, if we got 33% of vehicles on the road to be EV, hybrid, or at least very high mileage vehicles w/o batteries, then we'd make a HUGE improvement right there. Just getting rid of SUVs being used for commuting would help, start requiring emissions standards for

            • I'm a car nut, and can hardly wait until EV's are "ready." That means affordable and able to do everything that an ICE car will do. I love cars, but not necessarily their engines. I want to hit the road, drive all day and into the night, and maybe 1000 miles away depending on when I get tired. Billlings, Mt to Cedar Falls, Ia, >1000 miles in 1 day coming back from vacation last year. Dunno, just didn't get tired as early as usual. Doesn't happen every day, but you can't do that and charge 3 t

          • Nuclear power - we know how to build it

            We may know how to build it, but not how to build it economically. The cleanup costs for Fukushima are likely to reach one trillion US$. The cleanup costs for Hanford will cost around 500-700 billion US$. The cleanup costs for Sellafield are currently estimated to be around 100 billion UKP - and that's without any accidents, just from "regular" operation. No nuclear powerplant in the world has been able to get insurance at market prices.

            Renewables are so much cheaper, it's not even funny. They do pose som

      • Technology optimism [Re:Really?] (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:05PM (#62416642) Homepage

        We don't exactly have the tools required to limit our impact on the climate while maintaining our current standard of life and level of consumption.

        We do have the tools. At the moment, the problem is reducing the cost of the tools. But, turns out that one thing engineers have been shown to be pretty good at is reducing manufacturing costs. So, I'm optimistic.

        However, we have the know-how that by reducing consumption, we can slow and possibly reverse our damage (provided we make enough sacrifices).

        Yes, reducing consumption is one of the many components of solving the problem. But there are a lot of efficiency improvements possible with very little cost-- energy is (and still is) so low cost that up until recently people really didn't have much incentive to reduce losses. We can reduce a lot of energy usage simply by efficiency improvements with no change in our standard of living.

        The poster child for this is LED lighting. This took some serious technology: the ability to make blue LEDs was non trivial! But, once they were made, a hundred companies competed to learn how to make cheap LED lights, and now they are even cheaper than the incandescents we'd been using for a hundred years, they last longer, and they are literally five times more efficient.

        I am a technology optimist. If we choose to solve the problem, we can.

      • We totally have the tools to required to limit our impact on the climate while INCREASING our standard of life (and consumption level) and SAVING money in the long run.

        I don't know why people still promote this 70-style "sacrifice" narrative. Keep in mind that, for example, half of the energy in combustion engines gets wasted because of approx 50% efficiency. Using electric motors (>90% efficiency) will therefore unlock 50% of the previously wasted energy for other purposes. Not to mention improving qual

        • I don't know why people still promote this 70-style "sacrifice" narrative. Keep in mind that, for example, half of the energy in combustion engines gets wasted because of approx 50% efficiency. Using electric motors (>90% efficiency) will therefore unlock 50% of the previously wasted energy for other purposes. Not to mention improving quality of life through removing pollution from carbon in the air, noise pollution. And not to mention climate.

          That'll slow down the impact but on geologic timescales its irrelevant. There is a finite amount of oil in the ground. I'm not sure how long it'll take us to burn through it, but I don't care how conservative we are - if we're all driving super-machines getting 125 MPG, the oil will still all be burnt within say, 10,000 years.

          On the other hand lets say we're reckless and all the oil is burnt up within 500 years. On a geologic timescale 500 years and 10,000 years are basically the same number. The planet

      • The tools are right here. [arstechnica.com] Total cost: $145 billion between now and 2050.

        But we have to start banning devices that use fossil fuels now. That means no more gas furnaces (use heat pumps) or gas stoves (induction works well, I hear). And no more gas cars soon.

    • Mostly true. What we don't have is the tools and know-how required to limit warming without also cratering the global economy for the foreseeable future.

      We could limit warming today, as long as people are fine with turning off the Internet and everything attached to it. And stopped driving cars. And grounded all jet aircraft. And closed down sea shipping. And because nobody is driving or flying anywhere, I suppose we could turn off all the factories that are making goods that are no longer being transp

  • What, again? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @01:34PM (#62416496) Homepage

    Every year, some doomsayer says "repent now, or forever be damned". Oh, sorry, it's "cut emissions now, or it will be too late."

    Of course, the goal they set us always impossible. The deadline passes, and nothing dramatic has happened.

    This doomsaying serves only one purpose: clickbait. If anything, the unreachable goals make it counterproductive to actually achieving change.

    I suggest someone create a database of all the doomsayers. When their horror scenarios fail to happen, we break all their fingers so they can type up any more stupid predictions.

    • The longer we wait the worse, but no discontinuity (Score:5, Informative)

      by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @01:50PM (#62416558) Homepage

      Yeah, I dislike these implications of specific deadlines.

      The actual case is, the longer we wait, the worse the specific effects will be, but there really is no specific date by which we can say "before this date, we're ok, after this date, it's a catastrophe." It is a cumulative effect: the longer we wait to deal with it the more extreme the problems we'll have to deal with.

      ...

      *(with that said, warming may in fact have trigger points, such that if you exceed the trigger point, you get a sudden and catastrophic change. Release of methane from artic seabed clathrates, for example, is often suggested as one possible such tipping point. However, we do not currently have enough information to know right now exactly where these tipping points lie. You could rephrase this as "the longer we wait to address the heating, the higher the probability that we will encounter one of these tipping points")

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        A big part of the problem is that at our current emission rate there's a significant lag between anything we do (including nothing) and it's full effect. It's a nice little marshmallow test for the species.

      • It is a cumulative effect: the longer we wait to deal with it the more extreme the problems we'll have to deal with.

        The lump will go away on it's own, right?

      • We're like the proverbial frog in the soon-to-be-boiling pot.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      "In order to create a livable future we have to destroy the livable present. Now give us all your money."

      We've been hearing it for 50 years, and we'll keep hearing it until we stop giving these people money.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )

        Well, no, they don't say that. As astonishing as it may seem, nuclear generates more power than coal. Amazing. So you can have a better now and a better future.

        Nor do they want your money. No reputable scientist is a capialist.

        • Nuclear power is a great option - the problem is most of the "save the planet!" types that worry about the environment are also vehemently anti-nuclear.

          Que Meatball:
          "I would do anything thing to fight climate change, but I won't do THAT!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      Quite a lot of dramatic things have happened to the climate. Just not to you, but you're not the world.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
      The flip side to this is if and when it does happen, people will go "oh well it happened! Too late to do anything about it now!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      The deadline passes, and nothing dramatic has happened. This doomsaying serves only one purpose: clickbait.

      So because nobody does anything about the problem, what the "doomsayers" said was false?

      If that's all it takes to convince you, then you are a very easy person to manipulate. You should learn to be more skeptical!

    • Doom [Re:What, again?] (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:36PM (#62416778) Homepage

      ...I suggest someone create a database of all the doomsayers. When their horror scenarios fail to happen, we break all their fingers so they can type up any more stupid predictions.

      OK, I'll start.

      In the 1940s, the impending doom was the inexorable march of fascism (and specifically Naziism). We solved that problem. It wasn't easy, but we solved it.

      In the 1950s, the impending doom was the threat of communist totalitarianism. We solved that problem (at least, that particular iteration of the problem is gone).

      In the 1960s, the impending doom was the threat of global thermonuclear war. With a lot of work and some good deal of simple diplomacy (SALT, START, the non-prolifieration treaty), we may not have actually solved that problem, but we have at least made it a bit harder to light the fuse.

      In the late 60s, the impending doom was pollution. Turns out we could solve that problem, too. We didn't have to dump industrial effluent into rivers, and sulfur dioxide into the air. Cleaner manufacturing was possible.

      In the 1970s, the impending doom was population. Turns out, the spread of birth-control technologies meant that people stopped having so many children. That doom hasn't quite been completely put in the rear-view mirror, but the corner has been turned; the rate of increase has dropped, and is continuing to drop.

      In the 1990s, back to Russia as "the evil empire", before shifting over to terrorism.

      So, my quick conclusion is that the predicted doomsdays didn't happen... because we did predict them, and having predicted them, we did something about it.

      • Should probably add the Y2K bug to your list, just to have something that many Slashdot people have personal experience with. There weren't the massive computer failures that had been predicted because a lot of people spent a lot of time fixing the problems.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shugart ( 598491 )
        I would add the ozone hole to that list.

        • I would add the ozone hole to that list.

          Yep. Another one that didn't turn out to be a problem... because we dealt with it.

      • In the 1950s, the impending doom was the threat of communist totalitarianism. We solved that problem

        We didn't solve that problem. It was never a problem. The only way communism can win is by being better than capitalism.

    • And there are towns in Arizona shutting down for lack of water but hey, nothing dramatic right?

      We did a whole bunch of things to lessen the impact of climate change which bought us time. But all we did was lessen the impact. We're running out of that borrowed time. Less snow pack means less snow melt which means we're running out of groundwater in the American southwest. That'll collapse farms and it'll mean a huge economic downturn and massively increasing food prices. It also mean that small towns get

    • Everything seems impossible before you do it. You can't race in a marathon without that first step, but that first step is always "ugh, this is too hard!" No different from "I won't give up my 5mpg truck until everyone else does it first!" The goal is not to have a 100% fix in a short period of time - people bemoan that EVs won't help because plenty of people will still drive old smog spewing clunkers - but so what, maybe 50% is ok, or 30%, or 1%. Maybe walking or taking the bus will help. But no, some

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lorinc ( 2470890 )

      If you expect some sort of dramatic event, with the sky darkening and demons rushing out to the sound of trumpets, it's not going to be like that.

      What's going to happen, is that the world is going to get shittier a little bit every year. A few more days of unbearable hot in the summer. A storm a little bit more violent than the previous one. Crops failing a little more than the previous year, etc. Nothing dramatic, nothing radically changing in an instant, nothing you would say "oh, that's not normal" becau

  • That ship sailed last decade. Too may entrenched interests have put out conflicting messages in order to maintain business as usual. Huge chunks of society just don't buy it, and governments lack the courage to actually do something about it. Whatever level of climate change is coming because of human activities, it's going to hit us square in the face at full speed.

    If the climate deniers are right, it'll be "oh so barely warmer summer". If they are wrong, our civilization will suffer, but the deniers

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      The west coast of the US is barely livable. In a decade or two, it'll be uninhabitable.

      • The west coast of the US is barely livable. In a decade or two, it'll be uninhabitable.

        Pardon me, but that's rubbish.
        The west coast of the US is extremely livable.

        If you wanted to make a true statement you would need to say "The west coast of the US is barely livable if by 'livable' we mean everyone gets a home, transportation, computing devices, new big screen TVs, ubiquitous Internet, sports arenas, theme parks, shopping plazas, roads, utilities, etc. all built to meet the 2022 version of millions of US/California codes and regulations as well as satisfy the 2022 version of the ever-shiftin

  • Not Going To Happen (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GlennC ( 96879 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @01:52PM (#62416578)

    The sad reality is that nothing is going to change.

    We're screwed.

    Have a nice day.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      "Thank you for calling the Doomsday Hotline. We are happy to be of service. Unfortunately all operators are currently busy.

      Press 1 to hold and listen to our very calming music,

      Press 2 to receive a call-back if humanity survives,

      Press 3 for assistance in cooking and eating your neighbor,

      Press 4 to enter Hell directly, simplifying the whole process. We'll add a free month to your subscription if you press 4.

      Have a wonderful day!"

    • One could extrapolate a fairly grim narrative from all of the global warming news. Which is we are living through an explanation of the Fermi paradox. More and more data suggests that the number of planets that can support life, the 'n to the sub e' of the Drake equation is a tiny tiny value.

      Sure some numbers of us might hang on for hundreds or maybe thousands of years after a global warming apocalypse, but colonizing the galaxy requires the applied efforts of a huge civilization. Even the covid supply

  • NOT gonna happen, I'm just the messenger (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @01:54PM (#62416588) Journal

    Too many either think it's "fake news" or just don't give a shit. The pandemic made this clear. Humans don't cooperate very well on a large scale unless the danger is super clear-cut and eminent. With fuzzy or slow threats, politics and charlatism mucks things up.

    Thus, either figure out geo-engineering or play strong local defense.

  • Pandemic proved that it is possible (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xwin ( 848234 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:01PM (#62416624)
    Pandemic proved that it is possible to cut emissions. But as soon as things got better, everyone wants to do the same thing they have done before. All the companies are bringing people back into the offices instead of figuring out how to keep workers commuting less. Automakers like Ford are abandoning passenger cars and building bigger and bigger trucks. Ford ranger was a tiny truck in the 90s, now it is almost the same size as F150. People do not give a rats ass about the planet. All of the companies put out a "green" statements and go about their business are before.
    In reality it does not matter what the scientists say. People whine that there is no water in CA Central Valley but the same people keep planting more water intensive crops because they make money. So only money is what matters, at least in the current world.

    • Pandemic proved that it is possible to cut emissions. But as soon as things got better, everyone wants to do the same thing they have done before.

      No shit. The social outlook during the pandemic was so bad that tons of people were on the verge of a mental breakdown. If that's you're example of "see, we can do it!" then you're going to get a "Hell no" from most of the planet. Half the population was already on the verge of violent rebellion, hence the ease up on COVID restrictions despite cases still being rather common.

  • You can simply act. If you are able to deliver "clean energy" at parity or cheaper the market will take care of the rest.

    • Unfortunately, special interest groups like the fossil fuel industry can give money to environmental groups to file endless harassment lawsuits against the development of nuclear power plants, which keeps them from out competing fossil fuel plants

      Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement? [slashdot.org]

    • > You can simply act. If you are able to deliver "clean energy" at parity or cheaper the market will take care of the rest.

      And if that proves to be physically impossible to be done? What happens then?
      The Market will take care of making us destroy ourselves.

      I'm not saying it can't be done, just trying to think about this variant.

      And before you point out cheap renewable energy already exists, might I suggest calculating the price assuming no access to fossil energy (for mining, smelting, transport, buildin

  • China and India will not cut back (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FuzzMaster ( 596994 ) on Monday April 04, 2022 @02:34PM (#62416764)

    China is over 30% of global emissions, India is approaching 10%. They will combine for over 70% of global emissions in the second half of the century, but no one wants to talk about that.

    There's simply no chance of "slashing emissions" this decade when the two largest countries by population are not willing to cut back.

    • Who do they sell to? Cut off their market and you cut their emissions.

      • Good luck convincing the soccer moms that they don't need access to cheap clothes, toys, and food. In the current inflationary environment, the left is already going to lose badly at the ballot box. They will not cut off access to the eastern markets, but it is somewhat more likely to see that kind of movement from the right with nationalist motives.
        • Yep, this is why the world is going to be a hellish place for humans 50 years from now. Unless something changes. But that doesn't look likely. At this point our best hope is that China's actions to reduce carbon emissions (they're deploying more renewable energy than anyone, by far) will eventually shame us into following suit. I think that will happen. I don't think it will happen soon enough.

      • Who do they sell to? Cut off their market and you cut their emissions.

        Carbon tariffs FTW!

  • Humanity is 4 decades too late in landing a decisive eco-turnaround.

    What we're seeing now are the balls we dropped, the signs we didn't follow in the late 70ies/early 80ies.
    Things will get way worse before they get better either way.

    But if they are to get better in 3-4 decades, we have to do the turnaround. Now.
    Modern civilisation is at stake and the foolery has to stop now and on a global scale.

    I'm still reluctantly optimistic that humanity will make it through this one, but that sure ain't a given. We all

  • Look up how much pollution a single container ship creates. I think targeting these would be more effective in the short term than pushing electric cars. If we could get over our fear of nuclear energy we could even bring back the idea of nuclear powered merchant ships like the NS Savannah from the late 1950s.

    • If we could get over our fear of having to wait a couple of extra months for some piece of shit from China we could use sails of various types, yes even on container ships.

      If we could stop shipping things across oceans just because some other country has more lax environmental laws, we could cut the number of ships needed.

      If, and, but

  • The world needs to slash greenhouse gas emissions in half this decade

    That's not going to happen. 8 more years left.

  • Look through the posting on this very thread, lots of climate change deniers even amongst techies; and we're suppose to be critical thinkers. Anyway, there's too much profit in current business models and the oligarchs spend to much on propaganda, villainizing scientists, and pushing magic jesus mentality. Well, as Rex Tillerson said (former CEO of Exxon Mobile), get used to it being warmer.

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein

Close