3 ms·
This is maddening to read. The science has not changed. What has changed is that an enormous amount of effort to transition society away from fossil fuels has a
by mbgerring 4y ago
This is maddening to read. The science has not changed. What has changed is that an enormous amount of effort to transition society away from fossil fuels has accelerated in the last decade, and because of that, we have bent the curve on future emissions such that RCP8.5 is no longer “business as usual.”
This is very much a scenario like the Y2K problem — if the doomsday scenario does not occur it will be because people dug in and did the hard work to avoid it.
Clueless people like the author of this article, who apparently only experience the very real crisis of climate change as a media spectacle, will continue making dumb comments like “ha ha, remember when those dumb scientists said the sky was falling?” all along the way to eventual drawdown of CO2, while those of us engaged in the problem are up to our necks in the muck, actually doing the work.
- titzer 4y agoI mostly agree with your comment, but I don't think we've really "bent the curve" all that much. RCP8.5 was always the highest accelerating emission scenario, not BAU (flat or low emissions growth). In fact, global emissions of CO2 have never been higher, and are still growing. The world is by no means "transitioning away from fossil fuels". We're tracking towards the middle or high middle of the emissions scenarios. We're still not pointed the right direction.
- titzer 4y agoJust for context, to justify my above comment, according to [1], 2022 emissions were, as expected, a record high, but grew less than normal, partly due to Ukraine and other energy crises. Of the 37 gigatons of CO2 output, about 0.5 of additional emissions were avoided by having renewables. That's less than 2%. Also worrying is that coal emissions actually started growing again. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022 https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Shaggy2000 4y ago[flagged]
- realreality 4y agoRCP 8.5 was never realistic, because there’s a point when accumulated disasters will limit industrial output (and therefore emissions), due to resource wars, famine, and instability. The problem is that the IPCC doesn’t factor in climatic tipping points. When we pass 2°, chances are, we’ll accelerate toward 3-5 and beyond.
- titzer 4y ago> When we pass 2°, chances are, we’ll accelerate toward 3-5 and beyond. Yeah, buckle up, because it looks like there's not a lot of dampening forces; only bad surprises ahead. I think the methane in permafrost is going to be very problematic.
- Shaggy2000 4y ago[flagged]
- shagmin 4y agoJust curious, why do you think they want to destroy nations? It seems like if banks want to destroy the economy they have the means to do more effective things than trying to get governments to embrace green policies.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoWhy would flat or low emissions growth be Business as Usual? Historically they've been roughly a straight line on a logarithmic scale: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_co2_emissions_graph.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_co2_emissions... If dealing with climate change is turning an oil tanker, then we've started to brake and turn, but are still moving mostly in the original direction. Which isn't great, but is better than accelerating into the rocks ahead.
- Shaggy2000 4y ago[flagged]