10 ms·

UN Climate change is so severe we're running out of time to adapt

golemiprague 5y ago
WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
m_ke 5y ago
With the west looking to cut off Russian energy and the world economy staring at a ton of misery due to the sanctions a green new deal like stimulus could be a great way to tackle all 3 problems.
- chmod600 5y ago
  The green new deal will just be a blank check, managed by politicians. It'll be a catch all where every political wishlist item and special interest will jump on the bandwagon with zero scrutiny or oversight. I am not very hopeful that it will have a good result. Let's focus on high ROI climate mitigation projects driven by the people who actually know what they are doing and can execute on those ideas.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    The Green New Deal has actual proposals. In other words, it is not a blank check. Writing it off with platitudes is not a serious response. Conversely, saying "Let's focus on high ROI climate mitigation projects" etc. is just writing yourself a blank check. There is no concrete proposal, just an assertion that certain people should get the power and funding. Give them the cash and they'll solve it for us.
    - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
      Yeah but they were shit proposals that just tried to attach a bunch of random progressive ideas to carbon neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_... > "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States." "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - belval 5y ago
      Going through the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_...) it is pretty much a blank check, saying "we have to be 100% carbon free by 2050" isn't an actual proposal, it's just a goal. I am not American, this is an actual good faith assessment as I don't have a favorite "party".
      - DFHippie 5y ago
        The Green New Deal, as it says in that article, is not a particular proposed piece of legislation but a collection of proposals. Nonetheless, each of these does contain particular proposals. And you didn't pick a proposal, you picked a goal. A sample actual proposal is "invest x dollars over y years upgrading the electrical grid as a necessary precursor to more widespread adoption of variable but renewable power sources". "Invest x dollars over y years to subsidize the transition to electrified transportation", i.e., tax incentives and grants to build charging stations and get people to buy electric cars -- another proposal. These have actually been worked out in excruciating detail in one Green New Deal-esque legislative proposal: the Build Back Better plan. They had to work it out in detail because they had to put a pricetag to it so they could submit it to the Congressional Budget Office. This legislation has a vast amount of detail, but maddeningly its opponents deride it both for being too detailed ("Who could read this doorstop!? We don't know what we're voting on! Government red tape!") and for being a blank check.
- syshum 5y ago
  Wait, so your solution to massive economic harm caused by government regulations, and money printing is to increase government regulations and print even more money... That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them last time government tried to solve climate change we got 10% corn based ethanol gas which current research indicates has made things WORSE not better.[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU
- programmarchy 5y ago
  Pipe dream. You can’t run a military on green energy. The West needs to re-industrialize, quickly, or it’ll lose the next Cold War.
  - landemva 5y ago
    The US military runs engines without emissions controls because ... war. It is embarassing to waste so much wealth on endless conflicts. DoD spend continues to be a white-collar welfare program.
  - amusedcyclist 5y ago
    1. The Cold War wasn't won by the military. 2. You can definitely run a military on green energy 3. The world is moving towards more cooperation, not less. 4. Yes the west should re-industrialize by electrifying everything and replacing all the dirty energy production with green energy production
    - programmarchy 5y ago
      1. Couldn’t have been won without it though. 2. Ships, jets, and rockets all require fuel. Coal is required to produce steel. 3. Could have been, but this trend is reversing. The only place becoming more unified might be Europe, and the relationship between China and Russia. We are shifting away from the unipolar world order of dollar hegemony. 4. Would agree if nuclear is counted.
      - landemva 5y ago
        Europe unification will crack within a decade. Southern Europe is strangled by euro without effective ability to shift course. It will be okay, like brexit.
        programmarchy 5y ago
        Can you elaborate a bit? Doesn't the Ukraine/Russia conflict imposing an existential threat on Europe change your calculation? For example, we see Germany re-militarizing [1], which would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Security trumps economics. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/world/europe/germany-ukraine-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/world/europe/germany-ukra...
chmod600 5y ago
Hopeful that https://www.vesta.earth/ https://www.vesta.earth/ can make a difference.
jeffbee 5y ago
The headline is a poor summary. The report finds that the climate is tracking right down the middle of predictions made 10, 20, and 30 years ago. But the report finds that the impacts on human civilization is more severe than anticipated.
titzer 5y ago
Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways? Los Angeles literally had the cleanest air of any major city in the world [1]. How quickly we forgot...because the economy. Climate change is exactly the same situation, but at a much larger scale. Literally everything runs on the energy that we are currently getting from fossil fuels. We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Not for air quality, not for ecosystem destruction, not for catastrophic climate change. We're gonna fry this planet for our comfort and leisure. There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. We're barreling headlong into this and can't stop. [1] https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/iqair-los-angeles-has-lowest-pollution-in-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR1rtWVxjFl_bO_N6z8rh1yKx3qknw3UXKKhPSBb_zUWH5Pa7lf7tNYiZiA https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/iqair-los-angeles-h...
- syshum 5y ago
  >>We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Largely this is correct, nor should we. >There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here?
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    If Governments put the same kind of resources into more sustainable technologies as they did into COVID response, then a similar death-minimisation outcome may be possible. I see the problem is entirely political, in which the more morally bankrupt / desperate politicians use climate change to score political points by telling people the safe, comforting answers they want to hear, or conversely and more commonly, say that "the other side" are going to take away your X, Y, and Z. The COVID response has proved that global mobilisation to find solutions is possible. The difference between the two things is, entirely, the political will to 'do' rather than 'do not'.
  - 5y ago
labster 5y ago
Glory to Putin, his war on imperialist Western powers will finally force them to stop burning fossil fuels. If that doesn’t work, he’ll try geoengineering with nuclear weapons to induce global cooling. What a great environmentalist, ol’ Vlad!
encryptluks2 5y ago
Ask a Republican or Democrat what is more important, capitalism or the environment (safe environment for future generations)? Neither will be able to give you a straight answer.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  apparently we can either cause major damage to the planet or all go live in caves. either we have to lay off the market completely for it to work its magic or its totalitarian communism. certainly I have a heard a republican answer - double down on consumption and the market will figure out a way (I call this this 'shoot the moon' idea from hearts). the best thing about the market is that its highly adaptive. we should change the ground slowly and let it adapt. I guess that would be 'choosing the winners'
- DFHippie 5y ago
  What? What is your answer? I assume by capitalism you mean economic prosperity. Climate change is going to be terrible for economic prosperity. On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The problem isn't that we have to choose between economic prosperity and doing something about the climate, but that certain vested interests will be harmed. If you've invested billions in prospecting for fossil fuels and buying up mineral rights your ox is going to be gored. These people, who only foresee a few more decades of life before them anyway, have a lot of spare cash to invest in propaganda to change the subject, confuse issues, and divide the electorate. Telling people that they have to choose between the economy and the climate is one of the ways they do this. Don't buy it.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    > On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The environment is real, and no matter how much we pretend to care about it, the artificial economy will continue to take priority as long as capitalism is around.
- ericd 5y ago
  Put a heavy price on carbon externalities, let the free market do its work. It will heavily incentivize local manufacturing and onshoring in general, so it should result in a hell of a lot of local job creation.
DarkmSparks 5y ago
afaict, the amount of actual science in this report is zero. The referencing and style shouldnt even get it into a low grade scam journal. Worse, it definately wouldnt convince an average policy maker to part with a roll of wall paper, let alone commit to any kind of serious action.
pier25 5y ago
Most people think that we'll be able to deal with climate change when the impact becomes problematic but when that happens it will be already too late to do anything for the current generation. There is a lag of decades between emissions and perceivable changes in the climate. We're now only seeing the effects from the emissions of the late 20th century. The other important point that most of the public narrative is missing is climatic feedbacks. These are self sustaining systems that once triggered will have a life of its own and are already having a significant impact (eg: methane from the permafrost). Finally, CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries if not more.
tamaharbor 5y ago
greggeter 5y ago
HonestOp001 5y ago
Look at how we say climate change as opposed to global warming, or global freezing. What hubris we have as humans that we are wanting to freeze in place the climate. If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed. With that, please provide with a serious set of facts, that we can model impacts that can be implemented to change the system. Please bear in mind that I just watched a model tell us to lock down a system. People said that the model had issues, they were pilloried for questioning it. The model turned out to be politically motivated and has been shown to be adjusted to justify a lockdown. Now, with a serious set of facts tell me that the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible. Now, with a serious face tell me that the climate change modeling community does not have a positive feedback loop to encourage dire warnings, please include that we just watched the sciences go along with bad ideas to make sure they kept their NIH funding. Finally, please include Michael Mann’s active avoidance of sharing data because his hockey stick model failed in its data. My metric for finding out if people understand reality is to ask the following: Is nuclear power on the table as a base load provider? If the answer is “no” then the person is not versed in what we need and is a signal to smile and get away from them.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  > If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible That works both ways, and there's a fucking fuckton, like, I can't even find the words that would describe the size difference, like Arcturus to the Sun[0] sized motherfatherfucking fuckton difference in money to be made promoting fossil fuels and the status quo versus renewables and sustainability. An excerpt from a conversation no-one will ever hear: "I want to be a billionaire, I'm going to go into environmental science". [0]: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-etc.jpg http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-et...
  - hnuser847 5y ago
    There’s a tremendous amount of political power that can be gained by promoting climate change, i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives. You don’t think that’s a potentially juicy incentive to a budding young technocrat?
Bancakes 5y ago
Another alarmist article. Can we please get concrete, non-negotiable deadlines with clear goals? E.g. by 2030 - only electric cars, by 2040 - only recyclable materials, by 2050... Statistics and expert warnings are nothing new and the vast majority are coping with the doomsaying with ease.

m_ke 5y ago

With the west looking to cut off Russian energy and the world economy staring at a ton of misery due to the sanctions a green new deal like stimulus could be a great way to tackle all 3 problems.

chmod600 5y ago
The green new deal will just be a blank check, managed by politicians. It'll be a catch all where every political wishlist item and special interest will jump on the bandwagon with zero scrutiny or oversight. I am not very hopeful that it will have a good result. Let's focus on high ROI climate mitigation projects driven by the people who actually know what they are doing and can execute on those ideas.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  The Green New Deal has actual proposals. In other words, it is not a blank check. Writing it off with platitudes is not a serious response. Conversely, saying "Let's focus on high ROI climate mitigation projects" etc. is just writing yourself a blank check. There is no concrete proposal, just an assertion that certain people should get the power and funding. Give them the cash and they'll solve it for us.
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    Yeah but they were shit proposals that just tried to attach a bunch of random progressive ideas to carbon neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_... > "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States." "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - belval 5y ago
    Going through the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_...) it is pretty much a blank check, saying "we have to be 100% carbon free by 2050" isn't an actual proposal, it's just a goal. I am not American, this is an actual good faith assessment as I don't have a favorite "party".
    - DFHippie 5y ago
      The Green New Deal, as it says in that article, is not a particular proposed piece of legislation but a collection of proposals. Nonetheless, each of these does contain particular proposals. And you didn't pick a proposal, you picked a goal. A sample actual proposal is "invest x dollars over y years upgrading the electrical grid as a necessary precursor to more widespread adoption of variable but renewable power sources". "Invest x dollars over y years to subsidize the transition to electrified transportation", i.e., tax incentives and grants to build charging stations and get people to buy electric cars -- another proposal. These have actually been worked out in excruciating detail in one Green New Deal-esque legislative proposal: the Build Back Better plan. They had to work it out in detail because they had to put a pricetag to it so they could submit it to the Congressional Budget Office. This legislation has a vast amount of detail, but maddeningly its opponents deride it both for being too detailed ("Who could read this doorstop!? We don't know what we're voting on! Government red tape!") and for being a blank check.
syshum 5y ago
Wait, so your solution to massive economic harm caused by government regulations, and money printing is to increase government regulations and print even more money... That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them last time government tried to solve climate change we got 10% corn based ethanol gas which current research indicates has made things WORSE not better.[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU
programmarchy 5y ago
Pipe dream. You can’t run a military on green energy. The West needs to re-industrialize, quickly, or it’ll lose the next Cold War.
- landemva 5y ago
  The US military runs engines without emissions controls because ... war. It is embarassing to waste so much wealth on endless conflicts. DoD spend continues to be a white-collar welfare program.
- amusedcyclist 5y ago
  1. The Cold War wasn't won by the military. 2. You can definitely run a military on green energy 3. The world is moving towards more cooperation, not less. 4. Yes the west should re-industrialize by electrifying everything and replacing all the dirty energy production with green energy production
  - programmarchy 5y ago
    1. Couldn’t have been won without it though. 2. Ships, jets, and rockets all require fuel. Coal is required to produce steel. 3. Could have been, but this trend is reversing. The only place becoming more unified might be Europe, and the relationship between China and Russia. We are shifting away from the unipolar world order of dollar hegemony. 4. Would agree if nuclear is counted.
    - landemva 5y ago
      Europe unification will crack within a decade. Southern Europe is strangled by euro without effective ability to shift course. It will be okay, like brexit.
      - programmarchy 5y ago
        Can you elaborate a bit? Doesn't the Ukraine/Russia conflict imposing an existential threat on Europe change your calculation? For example, we see Germany re-militarizing [1], which would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Security trumps economics. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/world/europe/germany-ukraine-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/world/europe/germany-ukra...

chmod600 5y ago

Hopeful that https://www.vesta.earth/ https://www.vesta.earth/ can make a difference.

jeffbee 5y ago

The headline is a poor summary. The report finds that the climate is tracking right down the middle of predictions made 10, 20, and 30 years ago. But the report finds that the impacts on human civilization is more severe than anticipated.

titzer 5y ago

Remember when the first COVID shutdowns happened and air quality around the world rebounded in astonishing ways? Los Angeles literally had the cleanest air of any major city in the world [1]. How quickly we forgot...because the economy. Climate change is exactly the same situation, but at a much larger scale. Literally everything runs on the energy that we are currently getting from fossil fuels. We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Not for air quality, not for ecosystem destruction, not for catastrophic climate change. We're gonna fry this planet for our comfort and leisure. There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. We're barreling headlong into this and can't stop. [1] https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/iqair-los-angeles-has-lowest-pollution-in-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR1rtWVxjFl_bO_N6z8rh1yKx3qknw3UXKKhPSBb_zUWH5Pa7lf7tNYiZiA https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/iqair-los-angeles-h...

syshum 5y ago
>>We will accept no reduction in the standard of living. Largely this is correct, nor should we. >There is no realistic plan to transition to alternative energy sources fast enough. That is because there is not realistic replacement at this stage. They are being developed and will get there but we are not there yet, not with out causing not just a "reduction in living standard" but more like famine, disease and death How much poverty, death are you willing to accept, because during COVID that answer was ZERO, so i am wondering what the answer is here?
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  If Governments put the same kind of resources into more sustainable technologies as they did into COVID response, then a similar death-minimisation outcome may be possible. I see the problem is entirely political, in which the more morally bankrupt / desperate politicians use climate change to score political points by telling people the safe, comforting answers they want to hear, or conversely and more commonly, say that "the other side" are going to take away your X, Y, and Z. The COVID response has proved that global mobilisation to find solutions is possible. The difference between the two things is, entirely, the political will to 'do' rather than 'do not'.
- 5y ago

labster 5y ago

Glory to Putin, his war on imperialist Western powers will finally force them to stop burning fossil fuels. If that doesn’t work, he’ll try geoengineering with nuclear weapons to induce global cooling. What a great environmentalist, ol’ Vlad!

encryptluks2 5y ago

Ask a Republican or Democrat what is more important, capitalism or the environment (safe environment for future generations)? Neither will be able to give you a straight answer.

convolvatron 5y ago
apparently we can either cause major damage to the planet or all go live in caves. either we have to lay off the market completely for it to work its magic or its totalitarian communism. certainly I have a heard a republican answer - double down on consumption and the market will figure out a way (I call this this 'shoot the moon' idea from hearts). the best thing about the market is that its highly adaptive. we should change the ground slowly and let it adapt. I guess that would be 'choosing the winners'
DFHippie 5y ago
What? What is your answer? I assume by capitalism you mean economic prosperity. Climate change is going to be terrible for economic prosperity. On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The problem isn't that we have to choose between economic prosperity and doing something about the climate, but that certain vested interests will be harmed. If you've invested billions in prospecting for fossil fuels and buying up mineral rights your ox is going to be gored. These people, who only foresee a few more decades of life before them anyway, have a lot of spare cash to invest in propaganda to change the subject, confuse issues, and divide the electorate. Telling people that they have to choose between the economy and the climate is one of the ways they do this. Don't buy it.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  > On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The environment is real, and no matter how much we pretend to care about it, the artificial economy will continue to take priority as long as capitalism is around.
ericd 5y ago
Put a heavy price on carbon externalities, let the free market do its work. It will heavily incentivize local manufacturing and onshoring in general, so it should result in a hell of a lot of local job creation.

DarkmSparks 5y ago

afaict, the amount of actual science in this report is zero. The referencing and style shouldnt even get it into a low grade scam journal. Worse, it definately wouldnt convince an average policy maker to part with a roll of wall paper, let alone commit to any kind of serious action.

pier25 5y ago

Most people think that we'll be able to deal with climate change when the impact becomes problematic but when that happens it will be already too late to do anything for the current generation. There is a lag of decades between emissions and perceivable changes in the climate. We're now only seeing the effects from the emissions of the late 20th century. The other important point that most of the public narrative is missing is climatic feedbacks. These are self sustaining systems that once triggered will have a life of its own and are already having a significant impact (eg: methane from the permafrost). Finally, CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries if not more.

tamaharbor 5y ago

greggeter 5y ago

HonestOp001 5y ago

Look at how we say climate change as opposed to global warming, or global freezing. What hubris we have as humans that we are wanting to freeze in place the climate. If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed. With that, please provide with a serious set of facts, that we can model impacts that can be implemented to change the system. Please bear in mind that I just watched a model tell us to lock down a system. People said that the model had issues, they were pilloried for questioning it. The model turned out to be politically motivated and has been shown to be adjusted to justify a lockdown. Now, with a serious set of facts tell me that the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible. Now, with a serious face tell me that the climate change modeling community does not have a positive feedback loop to encourage dire warnings, please include that we just watched the sciences go along with bad ideas to make sure they kept their NIH funding. Finally, please include Michael Mann’s active avoidance of sharing data because his hockey stick model failed in its data. My metric for finding out if people understand reality is to ask the following: Is nuclear power on the table as a base load provider? If the answer is “no” then the person is not versed in what we need and is a signal to smile and get away from them.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
> If you go back in time and look at the climate, it has changed. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > the people who are doing the models are not politically susceptible That works both ways, and there's a fucking fuckton, like, I can't even find the words that would describe the size difference, like Arcturus to the Sun[0] sized motherfatherfucking fuckton difference in money to be made promoting fossil fuels and the status quo versus renewables and sustainability. An excerpt from a conversation no-one will ever hear: "I want to be a billionaire, I'm going to go into environmental science". [0]: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-etc.jpg http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/arcturus-et...
- hnuser847 5y ago
  There’s a tremendous amount of political power that can be gained by promoting climate change, i.e. the ability to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives. You don’t think that’s a potentially juicy incentive to a budding young technocrat?

Bancakes 5y ago

Another alarmist article. Can we please get concrete, non-negotiable deadlines with clear goals? E.g. by 2030 - only electric cars, by 2040 - only recyclable materials, by 2050... Statistics and expert warnings are nothing new and the vast majority are coping with the doomsaying with ease.