3 ms·

> From all the things I have seen and read from experts over the past ten or so years there isn't really anything we can actually do so that things are less fuc

> From all the things I have seen and read from experts over the past ten or so years there isn't really anything we can actually do so that things are less fucked in our lifetimes. While that's what we once thought, the latest science says it's not true. If we stopped emitting carbon immediately, warming would halt (not reverse but halt) within a few decades: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/07/global-heating-stabilize-net-zero-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/07/global-h... So there's absolutely something we could do, today, to lessen how much the future is fucked in our lifetimes. We just refuse to do it.

jjeaff 5y ago
Wouldn't most agree that the chaos of stopping -all- carbon emissions tomorrow would likely be far more damaging to humanity than what global warming will do in the next few decades if we don't?
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  Wow, talk about a straw man. The very same evidence means If we slow carbon emissions over, say, the next decade, warming will slow accordingly with a lag of a few decades. If we reduce emissions a lot, warming will slow a lot. If we stop emissions warning will stop. All within our lifetimes. And every fraction of a degree the globe doesn't warm will have significant impacts to outcomes due to the non-linear effects highlighted in this article. The OPs claim is we can't do anything now to change our trajectory within ours or even our children's lifetimes; that the trajectory of climate change is locked in at this point thanks to the carbon we've already emitted; that "5 years. 10 years. 20 years. 50 years. 100 years. It is all fucked." and that "the future is already written." That's simply false, though in the OPs defense we've only come to understand that recently due to improved modelling. We can meaningfully change our future today. We simply refuse to do so.
  - BackBlast 5y ago
    It's not a straw man. Effects of warming are guesses. Stopping the activities that release carbon is understood much better and stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? Future mitigation had a lot to recommend it from a risk perspective, we wouldn't be throwing good money after bad policy like we might be doing now.
    - CarelessExpert 5y ago
      > Effects of warming are guesses. No they're not, though you betray a deep ignorance of the science and success of climate modelling by making use of this well-worn rhetorical falsehood. > stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. Yup still a straw man. > The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? And now it's a false dichotomy. We can and should do all the things: carbon emission reductions now aiming toward net zero, including transition to renewables, efficiency improvements, carbon capture, etc. We should also start scrubbing carbon from the atmosphere, planting trees, and whatever else it takes to get atmospheric carbon levels down. And much of that will help buy us time for societal adaptation: moving folks from coastal areas or regions where the wet bulb temperature will become fatal, making changes to our food supply, etc, etc, all while continuing to decarbonize. BTW, I wouldn't waste time replying. My main goal was to ensure anyone coming across this thread saw a counterargument to what you're putting into the world. It's pretty clear based on you comment history that you won't be moved by some rando on the internet so there's little point in continuing this discussion.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
satysin 5y ago
> If we stopped emitting carbon immediately, warming would halt (not reverse but halt) within a few decades Again it comes down to caring about decades in the future. Look at the age of people who control everything. There are very few people under forty so if we take “a few decades” to mean forty years even people in their thirties are going to be near end of life before we see any benefit. For the majority of people in positions of power they are in their fifties, sixties or seventies. They just don’t care about forty years+ in the future. They say they care for their grandchildren’s futures but they clearly don’t as they never take strong action. They act as if pathetic targets will make a difference when what we need is extreme reductions.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  That's a different argument. You're telling me why we won't make change, whereas previously you were claiming there's no point in making any change in the first place because we're already "fucked". And I happen to agree with you on this point. We can do something to change our future and we can start today. But I'm quite sure we won't, for the reasons you cite and many more besides, including the persistent myth that we're already screwed and there's no point in trying. And then we have folks like BackBlast who, in the desire to resist any and all necessary change, seem to have, over the last 20 years as the evidence has become undeniable, switched from climate change denial to climate change dismissiveness to now climate change acceptance. It's deeply disheartening and entirely predictable.

jjeaff 5y ago

Wouldn't most agree that the chaos of stopping -all- carbon emissions tomorrow would likely be far more damaging to humanity than what global warming will do in the next few decades if we don't?

CarelessExpert 5y ago
Wow, talk about a straw man. The very same evidence means If we slow carbon emissions over, say, the next decade, warming will slow accordingly with a lag of a few decades. If we reduce emissions a lot, warming will slow a lot. If we stop emissions warning will stop. All within our lifetimes. And every fraction of a degree the globe doesn't warm will have significant impacts to outcomes due to the non-linear effects highlighted in this article. The OPs claim is we can't do anything now to change our trajectory within ours or even our children's lifetimes; that the trajectory of climate change is locked in at this point thanks to the carbon we've already emitted; that "5 years. 10 years. 20 years. 50 years. 100 years. It is all fucked." and that "the future is already written." That's simply false, though in the OPs defense we've only come to understand that recently due to improved modelling. We can meaningfully change our future today. We simply refuse to do so.
- BackBlast 5y ago
  It's not a straw man. Effects of warming are guesses. Stopping the activities that release carbon is understood much better and stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? Future mitigation had a lot to recommend it from a risk perspective, we wouldn't be throwing good money after bad policy like we might be doing now.
  - CarelessExpert 5y ago
    > Effects of warming are guesses. No they're not, though you betray a deep ignorance of the science and success of climate modelling by making use of this well-worn rhetorical falsehood. > stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. Yup still a straw man. > The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? And now it's a false dichotomy. We can and should do all the things: carbon emission reductions now aiming toward net zero, including transition to renewables, efficiency improvements, carbon capture, etc. We should also start scrubbing carbon from the atmosphere, planting trees, and whatever else it takes to get atmospheric carbon levels down. And much of that will help buy us time for societal adaptation: moving folks from coastal areas or regions where the wet bulb temperature will become fatal, making changes to our food supply, etc, etc, all while continuing to decarbonize. BTW, I wouldn't waste time replying. My main goal was to ensure anyone coming across this thread saw a counterargument to what you're putting into the world. It's pretty clear based on you comment history that you won't be moved by some rando on the internet so there's little point in continuing this discussion.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

satysin 5y ago

> If we stopped emitting carbon immediately, warming would halt (not reverse but halt) within a few decades Again it comes down to caring about decades in the future. Look at the age of people who control everything. There are very few people under forty so if we take “a few decades” to mean forty years even people in their thirties are going to be near end of life before we see any benefit. For the majority of people in positions of power they are in their fifties, sixties or seventies. They just don’t care about forty years+ in the future. They say they care for their grandchildren’s futures but they clearly don’t as they never take strong action. They act as if pathetic targets will make a difference when what we need is extreme reductions.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
That's a different argument. You're telling me why we won't make change, whereas previously you were claiming there's no point in making any change in the first place because we're already "fucked". And I happen to agree with you on this point. We can do something to change our future and we can start today. But I'm quite sure we won't, for the reasons you cite and many more besides, including the persistent myth that we're already screwed and there's no point in trying. And then we have folks like BackBlast who, in the desire to resist any and all necessary change, seem to have, over the last 20 years as the evidence has become undeniable, switched from climate change denial to climate change dismissiveness to now climate change acceptance. It's deeply disheartening and entirely predictable.