16 ms·

If we can't reach 1.5°C then we should try to reach 1.6°C. If we can't reach that then 1.7°C. Ultimately: It doesn't matter whether we can reach 1.5°C, because

by hannob 3y ago

If we can't reach 1.5°C then we should try to reach 1.6°C. If we can't reach that then 1.7°C. Ultimately: It doesn't matter whether we can reach 1.5°C, because everything we try helps making things better. And any carbon sequestation technology will only help significantly after drastic emission cuts, not as a replacement for it.: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x

slashdev 3y ago
How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure? That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
- phpnode 3y ago
  we did aim for an achievable goal, and steamed straight past it with our fingers in our ears.
  - blooalien 3y ago
    Yep. And those of us who listened to the experts and took steps to understand the issue and act upon our findings were largely ridiculed and harassed endlessly as "tree hugging hippies" or "paranoid tin-foil hatted doomers" and shunned by pretty much everyone else around us until many of us (like myself) have simply given up. Why the hell should I care about literally anything if that caring only utterly destroys any chance at a remotely enjoyable life? I don't want to live the rest of my life learning to hate every single human I meet simply because they're human (monster). I'd rather just accept we're all doomed because most of us are ignorant, greedy, hateful, and stupid, and depressing though that may be, it's less depressing than speaking about things I know to be true and instantly being shunned for it by almost everyone. The alternative (one I've seriously considered) is for me to sneak off to the woods somewhere and build a cabin and defend it to the death.
- circuit10 3y ago
  If you only just fail on a more ambitious goal that’s better than succeeding on a less ambitious one
- joshstrange 3y ago
  I think most of us would be fine with an "achievable goal" but that's not really what you asked for or proposed in your first comment and most of the people who say something like "I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore" aren't offering new goals as much as they are throwing up their hands and essentially saying "oh well, what are you going to do". I'm not saying you think that way but that's the people who suggest giving up say the same things. Too many people are just "hoping for a miracle" as if that's doing something. Or they think "technology will fix this before it gets too bad". It might, but it will be in spite of those people, not because of. If we want technology to save us we have to make investments today, not "when it gets bad".
  - slashdev 3y ago
    An achievable goal is exactly what I’m asking for. That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
- amrocha 3y ago
  There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that
  - orwin 3y ago
    It is though. The Co2 we emit today will only have a greenhouse effect in 20 years. The average climate we have today is the result of the Co2 we put in the atmosphere in 2003.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Indeed, this inertia has been missing in the media coverage recently where it was mentioned very often a few years ago. I wonder why.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    There is 50% chance that in the next five years we will experience a year where the global average temperature is greater than 1.5° C. We are already in 1.2° C and the El Niño index is negative. There is high probability that 2024 will be the hottest year on record (probably getting really close to 1.5° C). Global carbon emissions are still rising. Climate policies are not being rolled out, new fossil fuel projects are still being approved and built. I think that even if we stop emitting all CO2 right now (which is not going to happen), we are still looking at 1.5° C. I think it is time to admit that we have failed. And climate doom is upon us all. We are all going to die.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      I agree we will hit the 1.5 degrees for sure. There's a lot of inertia in climate change anyway. Even if we stop tomorrow it will still continue to rise for years. But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X ) The problem is mostly that a ton of people now live in the areas that will become much less habitable and the resulting mass-migrations will lead to extreme societal disruption and possibly wars. And the areas that will become more habitable have no infrastructure. This is why it's going to be more expensive to deal with the problem later than to prevent it. I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live. In fact climate change is normal in the scope of earth. The situation we are in now has become this way also due to change from the ice age that was before. The bigger problem is that we made this a phenomenon on the scale of decades where it was previously millennia. So society and nature can't adapt quickly enough.
- colonCapitalDee 3y ago
  Not sure why this is getting downvoted? He's right. The odds that global warming will stay below 1.5C are miniscule. I guess there may be PR benefits in pushing 1.5C because it's ambitious (shoot for the moon and land among the stars), but those PR benefits will be offset by the fact that anyone who does the tiniest bit of research will realize that it's bullshit! Not to mention that using 1.5C as a goal without lying is difficult. "If we do <x> we'll be able to stay under 1.5C" <- lie "If we don't do <y> we won't be able to stay under 1.5C" <- possibly true, but deceptive "Our goal is to keep global warming under 1.5C" <- lie, a goal is by definition achievable and anyone who's giving statements on climate change knows that 1.5C is not achievable
teawrecks 3y ago
If we're already going to have to heavily adapt our living arrangements to account for extreme climate change, at what point does 0.1° not matter? 5.0° vs 5.1°? 10.0° vs 10.1°?
- Kye 3y ago
  The difference is how many billions of dollars it costs, and by proxy, who can afford to survive climate change.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  It's an average on the whole planet and the whole year. 0.1 on average can mean huge spikes on some parts of the globe.
- mlyle 3y ago
  Just think of that 0.1C as an incremental step making even more of what's currently productive agricultural land, not. Can you give up a little more? Maybe... but not forever.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  Learn the concept of marginality. Things get progressively worse. Reality is usually not a binary switch.
antisthenes 3y ago
Goals should be realistic. Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal of 200lbs, and then telling themselves in front of the mirror every extra 10lb - "I'm going to stop eating junk food today! No, really, this is the day!" It's a cognitive failure to adequately process signals that the real physical world is sending to you. Or measurements that you take from the real world. We _should_ be making things better, yes. But setting an arbitrary goal isn't helpful. You know what would be helpful? Just giving ever person who's considering a solar project a much larger tax break than currently exists. Expand community solar programs for medium-size installations up to 2MW. Subsidize energy storage installations to complement that installed solar. Anyone who's advocating for targeting an ambitious goal is missing the point completely. If that was helpful, why not just say we're targeting 0C? In fact, let's target -1C and shoot extra energy into space. We might even discover some cool tech this way.
- gibolt 3y ago
  The alternative is a higher number, and then continuously not doing anything by pushing it into the future, eventually blowing past it anyway
- kitkat_new 3y ago
  Well, the goals were realistic, and only became unrealistic, because action was lacking... and is still lacking. People are being told technology will solve the problem, you can do x only if the alternative has at least the same advantages and no more disadvantages and you can't do y, because 'freedom'. (oh and did I forget 'communism'?) 1,5 degrees aren't an arbitrary goal either, at least to climate scientists: four tipping points are triggered at about that temperature. https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/1616477248374046725 https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/16164772483740467...
- mlyle 3y ago
  Really, the goal needs to be to minimize it to whatever we can attain. There's some really bad redline some place past 1.5C. Putting the goal possibly to the right of that redline (and possibly blowing past it anyways) is not good. 1.5C is a decent benchmark because it lets us measure various scales of intervention against it.

by hannob 3y ago

slashdev 3y ago

How about we aim for an achievable goal instead. What’s the point of setting ourselves up for failure? That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.

phpnode 3y ago
we did aim for an achievable goal, and steamed straight past it with our fingers in our ears.
- blooalien 3y ago
  Yep. And those of us who listened to the experts and took steps to understand the issue and act upon our findings were largely ridiculed and harassed endlessly as "tree hugging hippies" or "paranoid tin-foil hatted doomers" and shunned by pretty much everyone else around us until many of us (like myself) have simply given up. Why the hell should I care about literally anything if that caring only utterly destroys any chance at a remotely enjoyable life? I don't want to live the rest of my life learning to hate every single human I meet simply because they're human (monster). I'd rather just accept we're all doomed because most of us are ignorant, greedy, hateful, and stupid, and depressing though that may be, it's less depressing than speaking about things I know to be true and instantly being shunned for it by almost everyone. The alternative (one I've seriously considered) is for me to sneak off to the woods somewhere and build a cabin and defend it to the death.
circuit10 3y ago
If you only just fail on a more ambitious goal that’s better than succeeding on a less ambitious one
joshstrange 3y ago
I think most of us would be fine with an "achievable goal" but that's not really what you asked for or proposed in your first comment and most of the people who say something like "I’m not sure what’s the point of focusing on 1.5C anymore" aren't offering new goals as much as they are throwing up their hands and essentially saying "oh well, what are you going to do". I'm not saying you think that way but that's the people who suggest giving up say the same things. Too many people are just "hoping for a miracle" as if that's doing something. Or they think "technology will fix this before it gets too bad". It might, but it will be in spite of those people, not because of. If we want technology to save us we have to make investments today, not "when it gets bad".
- slashdev 3y ago
  An achievable goal is exactly what I’m asking for. That’s part of effective goal setting. Anything else is fantasy and counterproductive.
amrocha 3y ago
There's nothing unachievable about 1.5C It would require sacrifices and global cooperation, but any real solution to climate change will require that
- orwin 3y ago
  It is though. The Co2 we emit today will only have a greenhouse effect in 20 years. The average climate we have today is the result of the Co2 we put in the atmosphere in 2003.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Indeed, this inertia has been missing in the media coverage recently where it was mentioned very often a few years ago. I wonder why.
- runarberg 3y ago
  There is 50% chance that in the next five years we will experience a year where the global average temperature is greater than 1.5° C. We are already in 1.2° C and the El Niño index is negative. There is high probability that 2024 will be the hottest year on record (probably getting really close to 1.5° C). Global carbon emissions are still rising. Climate policies are not being rolled out, new fossil fuel projects are still being approved and built. I think that even if we stop emitting all CO2 right now (which is not going to happen), we are still looking at 1.5° C. I think it is time to admit that we have failed. And climate doom is upon us all. We are all going to die.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    I agree we will hit the 1.5 degrees for sure. There's a lot of inertia in climate change anyway. Even if we stop tomorrow it will still continue to rise for years. But I don't agree we're all going to die. It's not a human extinction type problem. There will still be habitable places and some places will become more habitable (the Russians even had a crazy plan in the 60s to dam the Bering strait and melt the Arctic with nukes to make Siberia more habitable.... :X ) The problem is mostly that a ton of people now live in the areas that will become much less habitable and the resulting mass-migrations will lead to extreme societal disruption and possibly wars. And the areas that will become more habitable have no infrastructure. This is why it's going to be more expensive to deal with the problem later than to prevent it. I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live. In fact climate change is normal in the scope of earth. The situation we are in now has become this way also due to change from the ice age that was before. The bigger problem is that we made this a phenomenon on the scale of decades where it was previously millennia. So society and nature can't adapt quickly enough.
colonCapitalDee 3y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted? He's right. The odds that global warming will stay below 1.5C are miniscule. I guess there may be PR benefits in pushing 1.5C because it's ambitious (shoot for the moon and land among the stars), but those PR benefits will be offset by the fact that anyone who does the tiniest bit of research will realize that it's bullshit! Not to mention that using 1.5C as a goal without lying is difficult. "If we do <x> we'll be able to stay under 1.5C" <- lie "If we don't do <y> we won't be able to stay under 1.5C" <- possibly true, but deceptive "Our goal is to keep global warming under 1.5C" <- lie, a goal is by definition achievable and anyone who's giving statements on climate change knows that 1.5C is not achievable

teawrecks 3y ago

If we're already going to have to heavily adapt our living arrangements to account for extreme climate change, at what point does 0.1° not matter? 5.0° vs 5.1°? 10.0° vs 10.1°?

Kye 3y ago
The difference is how many billions of dollars it costs, and by proxy, who can afford to survive climate change.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
It's an average on the whole planet and the whole year. 0.1 on average can mean huge spikes on some parts of the globe.
mlyle 3y ago
Just think of that 0.1C as an incremental step making even more of what's currently productive agricultural land, not. Can you give up a little more? Maybe... but not forever.
hackerlight 3y ago
Learn the concept of marginality. Things get progressively worse. Reality is usually not a binary switch.

antisthenes 3y ago

Goals should be realistic. Aiming for 1.5C, then missing it and then continuously failing on 1.6C, 1.7C, 1.8C etc. is akin to a fat person missing their goal of 200lbs, and then telling themselves in front of the mirror every extra 10lb - "I'm going to stop eating junk food today! No, really, this is the day!" It's a cognitive failure to adequately process signals that the real physical world is sending to you. Or measurements that you take from the real world. We _should_ be making things better, yes. But setting an arbitrary goal isn't helpful. You know what would be helpful? Just giving ever person who's considering a solar project a much larger tax break than currently exists. Expand community solar programs for medium-size installations up to 2MW. Subsidize energy storage installations to complement that installed solar. Anyone who's advocating for targeting an ambitious goal is missing the point completely. If that was helpful, why not just say we're targeting 0C? In fact, let's target -1C and shoot extra energy into space. We might even discover some cool tech this way.

gibolt 3y ago
The alternative is a higher number, and then continuously not doing anything by pushing it into the future, eventually blowing past it anyway
kitkat_new 3y ago
Well, the goals were realistic, and only became unrealistic, because action was lacking... and is still lacking. People are being told technology will solve the problem, you can do x only if the alternative has at least the same advantages and no more disadvantages and you can't do y, because 'freedom'. (oh and did I forget 'communism'?) 1,5 degrees aren't an arbitrary goal either, at least to climate scientists: four tipping points are triggered at about that temperature. https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/1616477248374046725 https://twitter.com/globalcommonshq/status/16164772483740467...
mlyle 3y ago
Really, the goal needs to be to minimize it to whatever we can attain. There's some really bad redline some place past 1.5C. Putting the goal possibly to the right of that redline (and possibly blowing past it anyways) is not good. 1.5C is a decent benchmark because it lets us measure various scales of intervention against it.