5 ms·

Carbon neutral on one small continent by 2050 won't do anything. We pretty much need to be global carbon negative by 2030 to have a fighting chance. EDIT--I'm

Carbon neutral on one small continent by 2050 won't do anything. We pretty much need to be global carbon negative by 2030 to have a fighting chance. EDIT--I'm not stating that the EU should give up. I'm stating quite the opposite and that everyone needs to seriously rethink the economic and lifestyle relationship we currently have with our environment. This is a crisis that could be an opportunity, but the stalwarts won't change and you'll continue to see petty political fighting over energy bills and taxation.

mistrial9 5y ago
> won't do anything strong disagree -1 "helpless" rhetoric
- binarymax 5y ago
  It's not rhetoric. We're seeing the effects of global warming unfold faster than we predicted 10 years ago. Everyone thought that we had until 2050 or 2060 back then but it's becoming painfully obvious that it's simply not quick enough.
  - rjknight 5y ago
    Realistically, some kind of geoengineering will be required. Given the existence of feedback loops, the sooner we deploy technology to directly reduce the temperature, the less of that technology we will have to deploy, but it seems inevitable that we will have to do something like this.
  - binarymax 5y ago
    I've hit the thread depth limit and cant reply to you @rjknight - but a technological miracle isn't something we should bet on. This is more of a social and economic problem, not a technical problem. We have the technology to be carbon negative if we all work together - but we don't want to give up our comforts.
    - blooalien 5y ago
      What's sad about that is that by worrying so much about "our comforts" we're guaranteeing that soon enough nobody excepting the filthy rich who caused much of the problem in the first place (and are still causing it) will have any comforts at all.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > We're seeing the effects of global warming unfold faster than we predicted 10 years ago. Can you please point me to some examples?
adrianN 5y ago
Every ton we don't emit makes the problem less serious. Climate change is not a binary thing. 1.5° is better than 2°, but 2° is a lot better than 3°.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Considering that EU only emits 10% of global CO2, it is more like 2.7 degrees instead of 3 degrees of warming.
  - ssully 5y ago
    Sounds great! Fits exactly in what they said about every bit being helpful.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      It might sound great to you, but I hope you understand that for many others, it might not seem very appealing to make drastic and painful changes, with great effort and sacrifice, in order to obtain barely observable result.
  - lwouis 5y ago
    I can't imagine the EU emits 10% of global CO2. You have to account for delocalized production in countries like China which is exported to the EU. CO2 emissions of an area should be emissions of production on that area, as well as emissions of offshores production which is consumed in the area. The CO2 impact of Japan for instance is large as it's a very developed country where each inhabitant enjoys a life of material abundance. 70% of its population is working in the Services tier, while all the food and goods come in boats. Large amount of fossil fuel, mined minerals, and materials are burnt/extracted elsewhere to fuel that lifestyle. These emissions shouldn't be attributed to the factory-countries as they don't benefits from it.
avianlyric 5y ago
At least the EU is trying something. Rather than curling up in a ball and complaining that someone else isn’t fixing problems for them.
- 0xffff2 5y ago
  Are they really? I don't know much about EU politics. How much of this is going to happen within the current term of office for the relevant politicians?
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Just wait for the next heat wave. Not doing anything is becoming politically dangerous (at least in countries that pretend to be democratic).
RandomLensman 5y ago
We probably will need to start actively mitigating and adapting - the ship for carbon neutrality or even moderate carbon negativity has sailed as they probably do not address arising issues fast enough. Politics are - as usual - a little bit behind.
akmarinov 5y ago
Gotta start somewhere
f6v 5y ago
> We pretty much need to be global carbon negative by 2030 to have a fighting chance. I have a feeling being all radical and alarmist about it doesn’t achieve the desired effect. Too much emotion that doesn’t convince people.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Presenting the facts as they are understood is not alarmist. There are many prominent climate scientists who feel the evidence implies that carbon neutrality by 2030 is the only way to prevent the effects of global warming from hitting a positive feedback loop that can't be stopped. Look how quickly climate change has escalated in even the past five years. What's going to happen when temperatures in the American breadbasket hit the temperatures we are seeing in the west coast, but sustain them throughout the growing season? What if that happens by 2024? We really need to be prepared for the fact that nature might force our hand on a much shorter timeline than 2030. Imagine the reaction you'd have if you could tell your 2016-self about how the past year has been. Now imagine we continue on the same course for the next five years.

mistrial9 5y ago

> won't do anything strong disagree -1 "helpless" rhetoric

binarymax 5y ago
It's not rhetoric. We're seeing the effects of global warming unfold faster than we predicted 10 years ago. Everyone thought that we had until 2050 or 2060 back then but it's becoming painfully obvious that it's simply not quick enough.
- rjknight 5y ago
  Realistically, some kind of geoengineering will be required. Given the existence of feedback loops, the sooner we deploy technology to directly reduce the temperature, the less of that technology we will have to deploy, but it seems inevitable that we will have to do something like this.
- binarymax 5y ago
  I've hit the thread depth limit and cant reply to you @rjknight - but a technological miracle isn't something we should bet on. This is more of a social and economic problem, not a technical problem. We have the technology to be carbon negative if we all work together - but we don't want to give up our comforts.
  - blooalien 5y ago
    What's sad about that is that by worrying so much about "our comforts" we're guaranteeing that soon enough nobody excepting the filthy rich who caused much of the problem in the first place (and are still causing it) will have any comforts at all.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > We're seeing the effects of global warming unfold faster than we predicted 10 years ago. Can you please point me to some examples?

adrianN 5y ago

Every ton we don't emit makes the problem less serious. Climate change is not a binary thing. 1.5° is better than 2°, but 2° is a lot better than 3°.

xyzzyz 5y ago
Considering that EU only emits 10% of global CO2, it is more like 2.7 degrees instead of 3 degrees of warming.
- ssully 5y ago
  Sounds great! Fits exactly in what they said about every bit being helpful.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    It might sound great to you, but I hope you understand that for many others, it might not seem very appealing to make drastic and painful changes, with great effort and sacrifice, in order to obtain barely observable result.
- lwouis 5y ago
  I can't imagine the EU emits 10% of global CO2. You have to account for delocalized production in countries like China which is exported to the EU. CO2 emissions of an area should be emissions of production on that area, as well as emissions of offshores production which is consumed in the area. The CO2 impact of Japan for instance is large as it's a very developed country where each inhabitant enjoys a life of material abundance. 70% of its population is working in the Services tier, while all the food and goods come in boats. Large amount of fossil fuel, mined minerals, and materials are burnt/extracted elsewhere to fuel that lifestyle. These emissions shouldn't be attributed to the factory-countries as they don't benefits from it.

avianlyric 5y ago

At least the EU is trying something. Rather than curling up in a ball and complaining that someone else isn’t fixing problems for them.

0xffff2 5y ago
Are they really? I don't know much about EU politics. How much of this is going to happen within the current term of office for the relevant politicians?
- kergonath 5y ago
  Just wait for the next heat wave. Not doing anything is becoming politically dangerous (at least in countries that pretend to be democratic).

RandomLensman 5y ago

We probably will need to start actively mitigating and adapting - the ship for carbon neutrality or even moderate carbon negativity has sailed as they probably do not address arising issues fast enough. Politics are - as usual - a little bit behind.

akmarinov 5y ago

Gotta start somewhere

f6v 5y ago

> We pretty much need to be global carbon negative by 2030 to have a fighting chance. I have a feeling being all radical and alarmist about it doesn’t achieve the desired effect. Too much emotion that doesn’t convince people.

mywittyname 5y ago
Presenting the facts as they are understood is not alarmist. There are many prominent climate scientists who feel the evidence implies that carbon neutrality by 2030 is the only way to prevent the effects of global warming from hitting a positive feedback loop that can't be stopped. Look how quickly climate change has escalated in even the past five years. What's going to happen when temperatures in the American breadbasket hit the temperatures we are seeing in the west coast, but sustain them throughout the growing season? What if that happens by 2024? We really need to be prepared for the fact that nature might force our hand on a much shorter timeline than 2030. Imagine the reaction you'd have if you could tell your 2016-self about how the past year has been. Now imagine we continue on the same course for the next five years.