4 ms·

Is there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? The UN? The EU? China? Anyone? Like, we're obviously in the middle of some type of rapidly escalati

Is there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? The UN? The EU? China? Anyone? Like, we're obviously in the middle of some type of rapidly escalating climate emergency / crisis and honestly, there is just silence from any of the agencies and or institutions who may have any chance to avert a potential catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. The news we're starting to receive on a daily basis is the kind of thing you'd hope to see The POTUS making an address to the world over and actually discussing next steps. That graph looks bad enough it's time to declare the war on the climate crisis and end fossil fuel usage immediately. If this means re-organizing society to build nuclear plants at scale in record time, so be it. Let's be honest, we let free markets try sort it out, and they have been fairly successful through renewables but not successful enough, we need to try something more radical now. Not panic, but we need to move.

asah 3y ago
True emergency will only be declared after a sufficiently catastrophic event, such as the 20M deaths imagined in _Ministry for the Future_.
phkahler 3y ago
>> is there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? The UN? The EU? China? Anyone? China has been been aiming to reduce human impact on the planet for decades by reducing the number of humans. They are finally getting somewhere with it.
- NickC25 3y ago
  Maybe they are paying lip service to such, but in practice, no, they haven't, and they aren't. At least internally. Why? Because their economy is slowing down and they have a massive population imbalance. They ended the one-child policy and want families to have 2 or 3 kids in hopes that they can help revive their economy. They can't continue to grow at the pace they have been since the turn of the century, but if The Party wants to maintain its power (which it does at all costs), it needs to continue to hit growth targets. Can't do that with a shrinking population. Their Belt-And-Road doesn't really help either because it brings new money to developing countries which in turn brings new lifestyle demands from countries with now increased standards of living due to an influx of capital from increased trade with China.
- nehal3m 3y ago
  That sparked a thought: Considering how global all supply chains are nowadays, would the disruption sparked by the first big impacts of climate change be better for the climate, or worse? Let's say most of the markets for luxury goods crash because of poverty due to mass migration and food and water shortages. That would be a net benefit to overall CO2 emissions, right?
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
If you think the Q-adjacent populist right is scary now... wait until governments actually make serious attempts to deal with CO2 emissions. Like, beyond the soft incentives, mild carbon taxes that do little, and the subsidies for electric cars etc? Like, real "we're gonna shut down large parts of the oil & gas sector" or "we're going to ban coal mining"... Riots, revolts, assassinations. Secession attempts from oil producing states and provinces. Wars. And not revolts in favour of carbon caps, but against it. The metaphorical ground has been covered in ideological mines by powerful energy sector interests, and the living has been too "easy" and the needed transition too "hard" (unprofitable) for some people to bear the change. They'd rather things go up in flames while they still hold their piece of the pie. Sorry to be so bleak, but I'm angry.
- ImaCake 3y ago
  There will be plenty of pro-climate action too. When people start dying in their millions from undeniable climate change then there are going to be a lot of angry people with nothing left to lose.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    I really hope so. And I hope I don't pass this middle-aged-man-defeatism on to my children, and can get over it, myself. It's hard to watch all of this.
jeffbee 3y ago
> Is there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? Sure. The ruling party of the USA has introduced a resolution to forbid wind power. What other leadership were you hoping for? https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/239?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%22%5D%7D&s=2&r=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolutio...
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Unfortunately we will see more of this all over oil producing regions as the competitive threat to petrochemical hegemony becomes actually-real: For example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/renewables-industry-feels-burned-by-alberta-s-sudden-pause-on-project-approvals-1.6926094 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/renewables-industry-... (Alberta is an oil-dependent economy run by a far right party that is rabidly pro-oil sector) In both cases the excuse is "this is harming [environment|farms]" but what it's really about is "this is harming [the golden goose|our patrons]".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

asah 3y ago

True emergency will only be declared after a sufficiently catastrophic event, such as the 20M deaths imagined in _Ministry for the Future_.

phkahler 3y ago

>> is there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? The UN? The EU? China? Anyone? China has been been aiming to reduce human impact on the planet for decades by reducing the number of humans. They are finally getting somewhere with it.

NickC25 3y ago
Maybe they are paying lip service to such, but in practice, no, they haven't, and they aren't. At least internally. Why? Because their economy is slowing down and they have a massive population imbalance. They ended the one-child policy and want families to have 2 or 3 kids in hopes that they can help revive their economy. They can't continue to grow at the pace they have been since the turn of the century, but if The Party wants to maintain its power (which it does at all costs), it needs to continue to hit growth targets. Can't do that with a shrinking population. Their Belt-And-Road doesn't really help either because it brings new money to developing countries which in turn brings new lifestyle demands from countries with now increased standards of living due to an influx of capital from increased trade with China.
nehal3m 3y ago
That sparked a thought: Considering how global all supply chains are nowadays, would the disruption sparked by the first big impacts of climate change be better for the climate, or worse? Let's say most of the markets for luxury goods crash because of poverty due to mass migration and food and water shortages. That would be a net benefit to overall CO2 emissions, right?

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

If you think the Q-adjacent populist right is scary now... wait until governments actually make serious attempts to deal with CO2 emissions. Like, beyond the soft incentives, mild carbon taxes that do little, and the subsidies for electric cars etc? Like, real "we're gonna shut down large parts of the oil & gas sector" or "we're going to ban coal mining"... Riots, revolts, assassinations. Secession attempts from oil producing states and provinces. Wars. And not revolts in favour of carbon caps, but against it. The metaphorical ground has been covered in ideological mines by powerful energy sector interests, and the living has been too "easy" and the needed transition too "hard" (unprofitable) for some people to bear the change. They'd rather things go up in flames while they still hold their piece of the pie. Sorry to be so bleak, but I'm angry.

ImaCake 3y ago
There will be plenty of pro-climate action too. When people start dying in their millions from undeniable climate change then there are going to be a lot of angry people with nothing left to lose.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  I really hope so. And I hope I don't pass this middle-aged-man-defeatism on to my children, and can get over it, myself. It's hard to watch all of this.

jeffbee 3y ago

> Is there going to be any leadership here from say, the USA? Sure. The ruling party of the USA has introduced a resolution to forbid wind power. What other leadership were you hoping for? https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/239?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%22%5D%7D&s=2&r=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolutio...

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Unfortunately we will see more of this all over oil producing regions as the competitive threat to petrochemical hegemony becomes actually-real: For example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/renewables-industry-feels-burned-by-alberta-s-sudden-pause-on-project-approvals-1.6926094 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/renewables-industry-... (Alberta is an oil-dependent economy run by a far right party that is rabidly pro-oil sector) In both cases the excuse is "this is harming [environment|farms]" but what it's really about is "this is harming [the golden goose|our patrons]".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]