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
    157
    ·
    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
      51
      ·
      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
      31
      ·
      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.

    • sic_1@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      But I drive my car less, that should do it! /s

      This is the reason we’re should focus out efforts to make a ruckus and force decision makers to enforce carbon neutrality BY NEXT YEAR instead of by next century. Of course that won’t happen but that would be the reasonable way.

          • interceder270@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t kill the wealthy. Redistribute their wealth and make them part of the working class.

            It’s a fate worse than death in their eyes.

            • uphillbothways@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Unfortunately, they’d probably call in the military in the case of a general strike. At least try to assassinate the leadership.
              Guillotines might result in less and more well directed bloodshed. Though, I don’t disagree entirely. That kind of violence, any kind of mass violence, ends up at least somewhat with spillover and misdirection.

              Hard to say.

              • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                We are all tired and angry, and it would seem violence could provide an amount of catharsis and finality. Yet I think the situation is too dynamic to be sure of a positive outcome. Peaceful but firm methods should be tried first, at least.

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

          Will just result in new draconian laws being drafted and enacted. Watch how fast people lose the right to peaceful assembly if it actually affected the ruling class.

          • OurTragicUniverse@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t blame the symptom for the disease.

            Capitalism didn’t just pop up out of a vacuum to fuck humanity over, we invented it and have continuously supported it to do so.

            • SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, we did invent it. However, that was done by a small group of people that have been in power for generations, and kept it difficult to change to a better system.

              What I’m trying to say is that I think most people probably don’t find it very fair that someone like Bezos can just be so ridiculously rich.

              Maybe we can change this.

              • OurTragicUniverse@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You really think that’s going to happen? Lmao. Yeah sure, and next we’ll have world peace and end poverty.

                Greedy, easily corruptable and prone to violent authoritarianism- describes like 85% of our species now and throughout recorded history.

                Stop nice-washing humanity and wake the fuck up. You’re not going to end capitalism, too many people benefit from it to let you.

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

                  If we just give up, then there is a 0% chance. If we try, then the chance of succession isn’t zero. We have to try to be optimistic. Yes, the world is fucked, but hey, giving up is just accepting that and allowing it.

          • Nudding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Maybe when I see the magical communist revolution where humanity doesn’t destroy itself I’ll be a believer, but until then, I think humanity as a whole is a destructive force for bad.

            • SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t really think communism in the extreme version is currently a solution, but there is a simpler solution for now for the ultra-rich if you tax them for a large amount of money proportional to the income let’s say 100% after 10 million per year you quickly fix (I guess bandaid-patch) a big problem with capitalism.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most species on earth will be dead in any situation that wipes out humanity.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      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.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Worldwide, yes. That generally includes your average Americans, who are in the richest 1% globally.

          The largest climate contributors are the billions of “average” people worldwide though, and it isn’t close.

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

              1.1% of the world’s adult population are millionaires. This adds up to about 56 million people

              I had a decimal point wrong on the Top 10% which does indeed make me look silly.

              Regardless, this holds true:

              The largest climate contributors are the billions of “average” people worldwide though, and it isn’t close.

              The idea that owning stock makes you a polluter is beyond stupid, and that entire article you’re initially referencing is dumb as fuck.

              • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                People are arguing with you because they don’t want to take responsibility for themselves or pay the true cost of their consumption. As long as they see someone worse, they don’t have to do anything. The top 1% make 16% of the emissions, sure. But the top 10% are responsible for 52%. That’s 34% belonging to the 1.1-10% . Much of that is due to transportation (in dumb Suv and trucks), inefficient home heating, aviation, and dirty power generation.

                We simply don’t solve this problem by focusing on the top1% alone . Which, like you said, is why carbon taxes should be effective. Especially how Canada did it, with the tax being redistributed to the bottom 90% or so. Unfortunately, bringing in an effective system of carbon taxation just gets you voted out for a science denier.

                I swear, if I was the fossil fuel industry this exact kind of class anxiety is what I would exploit to stop progress. Get people paying attention to Taylor Swifts jet so they’ll refuse the systematic changes needed avoid this actual crisis.

                https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

  • jray4559@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No duh, because not a single country has made any real attempt to lower their citizens’ emissions.

    It will take sacrifice from all of us to stop warming.

    Forget 1.5°C, honestly, forget 2°C as well, keeping it under 3°C is likely the best that we can hope for right now. You’re needing to throw out our gas-based car infrastructure, reduce our reliance on jets as much as possible, lower not just meat consumption but also almonds/alfalfa/etc., and that is just to get started.

    Really, I don’t see the average voter letting that happen. What’s going to happen is eventually, sometime 30-40 years from now, a heat wave is gonna thrash the Middle East, consistent 130°F days for a solid month, 100,000 people dead, and the very next year planes will be in the air, making clouds to block the sun.

    We are not ready to give up the things that the developed world will have to give up to truly back away from this coming apocalypse.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The majority of emissions come from just a handful of large companies, even if every individual cut their carbon footprint to zero those companies would still continue to kill the planet. It’s also easier to change the behaviour of some companies than every person on the planet.

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

      Then we’ll go too far and freeze the planet as foretold by the wise minds of Hollywood.

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

      Planes are kinda necessary now and less of a convenience. I moved to Miami from NJ (where the rest of my family lives) and just came home today for Thanksgiving. Driving would have taken around 3 days/about 23 hours of total driving and cost a few hundred bucks in gas and maintenance costs. I flew home in under 3 hours and it cost me about $100.

      My buddy in NJ married a British woman, so for her, if planes didn’t exist her only option would be to take a boat home which easily takes a week or two, instead it takes her about 7 hours.

          • FatCrab
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            We live in an age where you can literally talk face to face with virtually anyone, nearly anywhere in the world on a tiny rectangle in your pocket. Yes, we can all afford to travel a little less over long distances.

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

              Not everyone has a smartphone or webcam, you, right? My father is 73 and has neither, he doesn’t like to videochat because he feels it impersonal. My mom has a smartphone but doesn’t video chat with anyone. So I’m just supposed to not see my parents for a year or more because they don’t want to video chat?

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

            Yes, that’s how normal people live. Or, you know, HAVE FUCKING TRAINS.

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

              What you consider “normal” isn’t exactly normal. This isn’t the 1800s.

              Umm you know that trains take energy to run right? The energy doesn’t come out of thin air. Most trains either run off diesel fuel which is dirty as hell or they run off electric and that energy is usually from burning fossil fuels.

              So your suggestion is “don’t use this one method of transportation that burns fossil fuels, use this other method of transportation that takes longer and still burns fossil fuels!”

              Really great argument you have there! 🤦‍♂️

              • Gabu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                What you consider “normal” isn’t exactly normal.

                Your American perspective is only a thin slice of the world. Don’t be so conceited.

                you know that trains take energy to run right?

                Less energy per passenger, and the energy sources available are much more diverse.

                run off electric and that energy is usually from burning fossil fuels. [sic]

                In ass-backwards places, sure. You know Brazil, that country to the south of yours, with a comparable landmass and population? More than 85% of their electricity comes from renewable sources. I guess 'murica is too much of a shithole to figure this one out.

                So your suggestion is “don’t use this one method of transportation that burns fossil fuels, use this other method of transportation that takes longer and still burns fossil fuels!” [sic]

                So the implication is that you think the efficiency of a process is meaningless and the path to an outcome is unimportant (which is braindead). You may as well drop dead right now, then, since “you’ll still die some day, anyway”.

      • jose1324@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or just… live closer together. You don’t see Europeans fly from Germany to the other side just for a few family days

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

          So people aren’t supposed to move anywhere in your opinion, and if you do,just forget about seeing them for years. The US is a hell of a lot bigger than any European country.

          • jose1324@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not that far and still expect to see family for every freaking occasion. I meant through Europe, if I’m Dutch and my family is in Spain, I’m not going for Christmas or whatever. Maybe once in a few years, or stay for a vacation not just a few days. That’s idiotic.

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

                  My parents are getting older and I want to see them as much as I can while still living where I want to. IMO its ridiculous to be like “live in a place you don’t like because you want to see your family often or live where you want to and rarely see your family.” There is a middle ground. Yo may be cool with seeing your family once a year, I’m not.

    • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So clearly we need a different solution than cutting back on emissions.

      I’d argue we might have to start human expansion into space to have any real positive impact. A solar shade, for example, could block out enough sunlight to artificially prevent warming and stabilize the climate while we construct or seek out alternative energy resources.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    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.

  • metaStatic@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    no one wanted to be held accountable for the triage so we let everyone bleed out, safe in the knowledge there was nothing we could have done.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wealthy nations are making progress, but too little and they’re starting from a bad place.

      Poor nations are busily repeating the industrialization process that made the wealthy nations wealthy. Anyone want to tell them they don’t have the right to do so?

      I wonder if the window of opportunity on geoengineering is also closing. Because this emissions reduction thing isn’t going anywhere.

      “But there are risks with geoengineering! We don’t know what might happen!” So: let’s get testing and find out, the way we do with everything else. Doing nothing on this spells certain doom. I’ll take an unknown quantity over certain doom.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    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
      15
      ·
      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
      4
      ·
      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.

  • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fact is that this was a conscious choice, even recently. The switch to natural gas that everyone is touting is one that is designed to cause higher short-term emissions.

    Methane is really bad over a 20-year time frame and only really lets natural gas equal coal over a 100-year period (assuming typical fugitive emissions rates). The transition from coal to natural gas is accelerating the rate at which we boil ourselves alive.

    • Magrath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Methane is burned at the point of use and produces carbon dioxide. Ideally there is no methane released in to the environment.

      • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Methane leaks

        Something like 3-10% of all methane production leaks. Methane is about 80x worse than CO2 over a 20-year period.

        • Magrath@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh it does for sure. At least in Canada there are government regulations requiring inspections by 3rd parties to check for leaks with some sort of thermal camera. I’m not familiar with the technology to check for leaks but I’ve had to fix the leaks before and it’s taken seriously and well documented.

  • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    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
      35
      ·
      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
      21
      ·
      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
        5
        ·
        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.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, no, wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.

          And there’s a whole range between that and being a vegan anti-natalist, and once you get into calculating your impact on others the whole equation changes

          This isn’t a problem that can be solved personally, it doesn’t make sense to look at it like that

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

            wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.

            what about destroying fossil fuel extraction or transportation projects?

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well that’s not really personal anymore.

              Like say you blow up an oil rig or tanker… Congrats, you just made huge a carbon footprint.

              Now say oil equipment gains a habit of being sabotaged, consistently. If it’s one person, It’s a problem for law enforcement. If it’s a consistent thing, fossil fuels have just become more expensive to produce statistically

              Or, you know, we could pass a tax or regulate them properly

              Regardless, my point is that climate change is a systematic problem, thinking of it in terms of individual action is already flawed

        • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          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
            3
            ·
            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
              7
              ·
              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
                ·
                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
                ·
                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
            ·
            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
              5
              ·
              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
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

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

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Eugenics sounds good at first, but human greed and corruption makes it an incredibly dangerous tool that should probably not be in the hands of anyone

            • 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.

    • sirdorius@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And the easiest. But even if all animal products were eliminated worldwide tomorrow, it would probably still not be enough for the emissions target. So individual changes do not make a dent in the problem.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

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

  • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    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.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes but they’re paying for an already protected forest to be protected, so it balances out right?

    Fortunately the EU is making that kinda advertisement illegal

  • thorbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    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
      24
      ·
      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
        ·
        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
      19
      ·
      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
        3
        ·
        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
        ·
        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

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been day saying this for the past two years now, humanity is fucked, and soon.

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a direct result from the energy we took from burning fossil fuels. To get all that CO2 out were going to have to wait Millenia for earth to do it (that is, if it still can) or spend that same amount of energy to get the CO2 out.

    To put that into something understandable: we’re going to have to spend ALL the energy we produced over the last two centuries on too of the energy we need for ourselves to be able to get CO2 back to preindustrial levels. Basically, for the next two to four centuries were going to have to spend at least 50% of our world energy budget to scrubbing CO2 and NONE of that energy is allowed to generate CO2. Actually, NOTHING from humanity can generate CO2 to reach that. If we continue spewing CO2 then you can double that number.

    To put that into perspective, adding all required work and infrastructure, energy -all energy- will become 3-4 times as expensive for the next few centuries

    People will not understand the issue and will not want to pay more, rich people will not want to foot the bill even though they could, so we won’t do anything and things will get worse and worse until we all die.

    One possible alternative might be spraying sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, that might buy us a few valuable years while we fix shit but what will happen is that we’ll just spray the crap out of it and call that a solution while we continue to spray CO2 into the atmosphere like there literally is no tomorrow for humanity

    We’re fucked