8 ms·
The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change
- allears 2mo agoLess time than it thinks? We ran out of time a while ago, it's already well in progress.
- marssaxman 2mo agoYes, exactly, what time do people think they have? It's here, it's now, it's happening, it's all around us. This headline would have made a little more sense ten years ago.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- stouset 2mo agoThe world thinks it has time left, but it doesn’t. Seems accurate to me.
- jmclnx 2mo agoMagazines like The Economist helped bring us here by describing Oil Companies still has a bright future and a great investment in the 80s and 90s. Instead if they had authored high profile articles about how fossil fuels are driving this world to disaster, maybe we would be in a better place. Doing that would have made their advertisers mad, so they kept writing about clean coal and oil for better $. It was the exact same with politicians, they did not want to loose most of their bribes (ie: political contributions) so they hid their head in the sand. So now this magazine is writing articles about Climate Change, no thanks.
- dghlsakjg 2mo agoYou should look into the economist a bit more. For one, they have no advertisers to keep happy. Edit: I stand corrected. A better way to phrase it is that their business model does not rely on advertising, and they traditionally did not run ads until recently.
- ceejayoz 2mo agoThe top of economist.com has a 250px high `adComponent_adcontainer__eooQr` div. My Pihole blocks its content, but I have a guess as to what it is. They seem to think they have advertisers. https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/How-do-I-advertise-with-The-Economist https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/How-do-I-advertise...
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- stouset 2mo agoThe ads they accept are basically just classifieds for high-level positions in NGOs. I turned off anblocking and see zero ads on the site.
- ceejayoz 2mo agohttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/29/saudi-aramco-removes-sustainable-oil-adverts-after-complaints https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/29/saudi-aramc... > The world’s biggest oil company has withdrawn an advertising campaign that boasted it was “powering a more sustainable future”, after dozens of complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. > The adverts appeared in The Week magazine and The Economist online at the beginning of the year. Baines said it was wrong for publications to accept them in the midst of a climate crisis. > In a statement, the Economist said: “Advertising is not editorial content and does not imply any endorsement on our part. In the case of this particular ad, it was put on hold at the request of the client.”
- michaelt 2mo agoI have their print magazine right here. Inside of the cover (page 2), ad saying portugal is the smart choice for data centres and ai computing. Page 11, two NGO job ads and an ad for timeshare holiday homes. Page 75, ad for Economist Education Online Courses. Page 75 (back cover) ad for a cruise. Last week's edition: Rolex, page 2. Page 11, executive recruitment network ad, NGO job ad, teaching job ad. Page 11-12, ad for timeshares. Page 15, barclays bank account ad. Page 20: Ad saying amazon employees' working conditions are good. Page 25: Ad for 'securing identity for the ai enterprise'. Page 32, ad for european cybersecurity investments, page 84 (back page) ad for Oracle. So there are some ads - not many, but some.
- underlipton 2mo agoThis goes for almost every institution you can think of, save higher education and the field of climate science - and, even then, you can make an argument for lax funding and marketing on their part, in terms of overwhelming politicians and industry with the truth, no doubt at the behest of wealthy donors looking at their portfolios. But journalism, especially: essentially asleep at the wheel, when the gravity of the situation is considered. Too many people obsessed with their careers and with blinders on.
- r0ckarong 2mo agoAs long as there is no accountability for politicians, we will always have at least as much time as the next guy plans to stay in power.
- fzeroracer 2mo agoPoliticians can only be held accountable as long as their base is willing to hold them to account. And unfortunately the old and wealthy have practiced the maximal mantra of FYGM. The degree with which not only do they hoard wealth but do everything in their power to ensure the old ways they made their wealth stay empowered tilts politics heavily.
- kakacik 1mo agoYeah its a nice quick mental scapegoat to blame politicians, because actual truth is much harder to accept - this is us humans, doing all this shit to ourselves. We all allow them to behave that way, so they do because why not. By not caring about results of our actions down the line, by being selfish, even petty, dumb. Maybe not You specifically, maybe not me, but us as a society? Absolutely 100%. trump has still ~30% support for example. Incompetent pedophile with massive mental issues and insecurities that people like putin and netanyahu can play like fiddle, holds most power in the world.
- HEmanZ 2mo agoIf you live in a western democracy your politicians are held very accountable to the opinion and will of the people who vote. They are not kings or inherited aristocracy, they do what the people want (roughly) or get voted out. The people who vote by-and-large don't believe climate change is real, don't believe it is serious, or are not willing to tolerate the level of discomfort necessary to solve the problem. At least in my country, politician's hands are completely utterly tied from fighting climate change, because if they do something serious enough to actually matter they will immediately be voted out of office and whatever they did rolled back.
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
- sho_hn 2mo agoIt's strange that anyone's still thinking there's "still time until we have to act". Is this really the average view out there?
- herbst 2mo agoI don't know anyone or ever see any media reflecting such a weird standpoint. It's more "better act now than even later"
- micromacrofoot 2mo agoa lot of people think that the time to do something is when your house is already flooded
- Terr_ 2mo agoHopefully not average, but I guarantee there are forces out there actively pushing it. Two versions, eventually: 1. Don't do anything that might interfere with our profits, time is available/needed to consider what to do. 2. Don't do anything that might interfere with out profits, it's too late anyway.
- ActorNightly 2mo agoThe average view is that "climate change" == "higher/lower temperatures". Nobody really thinks of all the secondary effects.
- HEmanZ 2mo agoIn my family, about 5 out of 100 people believe climate change is even real. So ya, I think the average at this point is "I'm ambivalent, climate change may not even be real. But mostly I don't care"
- sparkie 2mo agoThe poorest in society are the lowest CO2 emitters - they don't fly often, many don't own a car and use public transport - they can't afford meat in every meal - can't afford air con in summer or heating in winter. Conversely, the wealthiest are frequent flyers, are chauffeured about in SUVs and rarely walk. They have everything they'll ever need and don't concern themselves about running the AC or heating. They're preaching to the poor guy about what he needs to do to stop climate change. Even if the poor guy wanted to care, he can't do much, but the people who claim to care could do a lot more, if they really did care. The media circus tries to put the blame on the poor, while ignoring the emissions of the celebrities and treating them as royalty. Is it any wonder most people simply don't care? If the media cared, they would be making villains of the celebrities and idols of the poor.
- greenchair 2mo agoal gore, hold me!
- monneyboi 2mo agoEvery prediction we make seems to be reached sooner than expected. There is so many effects that we don't understand yet. Keeping with the "this is surprising" narrative, or like this title, implying that we have any time at all, is not helping. I would expect a less naive title from a platform like the economist.
- antonvs 2mo agoThe Economist is torn, because on the one hand they try to appear clever, but on the other hand they generally support unrestrained capitalism. It’s not possible to do both at the same time.
- measurablefunc 2mo ago[flagged]
- wazdra 2mo agoSarcasm?
- anonymars 2mo agoLike a carbon tax?
- rickydroll 2mo agoYes, a carbon tax would go a long way, but I think a broader view is to look for ways to use taxes to shift externalities back onto the organizations that created the problem. For example, data centers (a popular demon). The two main externalities are water consumption and power consumption. The tariffs for providing those services to a data center should be high enough to compensate the rest of the community for the impact the data center has on the community. For example, tariffs could be used to subsidize non-data-center power users. Higher tariffs could also be used to fund community solar and community BESS, helping provide greater local grid resilience. For example, the tariffs should be high enough to subsidize everybody else so they don't have to pay more for their electric service, roughly speaking. I would also advocate closing the on-prem generator loophole by classifying on-prem power generation services as belonging to or leased from local utilities, and setting the tariff for locally generated power to match the tariff they pay for drawing from the grid.
- coolThingsFirst 2mo agowhy is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? is it too politicized, are the required changes too damaging to the economy to start agressively implementing them?
- ceejayoz 2mo agoIndustry groups saw the ozone scenario unfold and said "never again". Same thing happened after Nixon - it led directly to the founding of Fox News (https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/memo-from-1970-a-plan-for-putting-the-gop-on-tv-news/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/memo-from-197...).
- ActorNightly 2mo ago[flagged]
- nom 2mo agoThis worked so well because we had suitable replacement gases and the industry had little financial incentives to push against it. It's a very different situation with fossil fuels.
- bryan0 2mo agoReducing CFCs, while difficult and requiring global cooperation, was far more simplistic and targeted than decreasing co2 emissions
- flexagoon 2mo ago> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? Because it also happened to be profitable for a large company (DuPont), which was also the company largely responsible for the whole ozone layer thing. They lobbied against ozone layer protections while they had a patent on Freon, but as soon as it expired, they came up with a new more expensive alternative and started supporting environmental regulations forcing people to switch to the new one.
- antonvs 2mo agoBecause with the ozone layer, the causes of the problem were much more narrow, the solutions were orders of magnitude cheaper, and they affected a much smaller industry, much less dramatically. It’s not that the changes are “too damaging to the economy,” it’s that they’d need to be much more widespread. For example, everyone should have stopped driving gasoline engine cars at least by 2010, when the scientific evidence had already been undeniable for years, for anyone studying the matter in good faith. No such action was needed to deal with the ozone layer. Compounding the problem for climate change mitigation is that it threatens the wealth of people in the oil, gas, and related industries. Changing refrigerant type for ozone hole mitigation was not an existential threat to any industry. The fossil fuel industry has plowed billions of dollars into propaganda and political influence to prevent or slow down changes.
- BonerWiener 2mo agoArchive link? Paywall blocks content
- ifdefdebug 2mo agoUsually people trying to be helpful just post an archive link, instead of requesting others to do so...
- gwbas1c 2mo agoI had a lot of trouble finding one
- jay_kyburz 2mo agoI tried to create one for archive.is but it failed.
- tim333 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_Paywalls_Clean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_Paywalls_Clean works
- kuerbel 2mo agohttps://archive.is/UwGSh https://archive.is/UwGSh
- cautiouscat 2mo agoI recognize this is deeply cynical and definitely doomerist. What can I as an individual actually do to stop this? Why should I even bother reading articles like this at this point? I can't do anything. I can't action it. I can collect my recycling, pop solar panels on my roof and be the most carbon footprint conscious person and it wouldn't move the needle an atom's width. Politicians don't care, and the ones that do can't make a difference either. Corporations definitely don't care. I can go protest, and that gets a lot of media attention but it doesn't change a voter's mind when their main concern is who gets to play in school sports. I know this is vitriolic, but I am genuinely curious about it. What can I do? What can I do outside of putting my ballot in the box and hoping something changes?
- literalAardvark 2mo agoVolunteer with a group trying to do something to improve the situation. There are plenty.
- Arodex 2mo agoStop trying to imagine yourself as the hero saving the day all by yourself. It is a fantasy. And learn about the paradox of voting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting
- fedpost 2mo agoYou can totally be the hero and make an outsized impact on climate change. You'll just end up in supermax for the rest of your life. Pros and cons I suppose.
- throwaway27727 2mo agoAs a first step, what do you want? Would you rather live your life in peace, bettering the controllable world around you? Or would you rather live your life in stress and action and possibly fixing the problem? I chose one of those for myself and can't blame anyone for choosing differently. They're both valid.
- unsupp0rted 2mo agoI’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now. Already then you could find this exact article title in a dozen publications per year, especially in academic publications. Al Gore made a third career out of it. It was alarmist and too soon then but it’s not alarmist and too soon now? Nobody upvotes an article titled “Things are about 0.5% more concerning than they were two decades ago”
- JV00 2mo agoTake a walk up the alps, compare to pictures from 20 years ago and see for yourself
- metabagel 2mo ago> I’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now. I don't doubt that is your recollection, but nobody back then was predicting it would happen in 20 years. The time frames given were much longer. But, the vibe was definitely that we need to wake up and do something right now, because by the time climate change hits real hard it will be too late to avert the calamity.
- unsupp0rted 2mo agoIn 1992 Al Gore’s book said 60% of the population of Florida will have to relocate due to flooding. He didn’t mean in 100 years.
- ceejayoz 2mo agoThe actual quote is a little more circumspect than you portray it to be. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/al-gores-long-and-persistent-record-of-miserable-failure-8ebbeaca https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/al-gores-long-an... > The then-senator claimed that “according to some predictions”—no specifics were offered—“in the next few decades,” “up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated.” It's possible to be right on the substance and wrong on the timing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry 's investor revolt. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/floridas-private-home-insurance-market-124000361.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/floridas-private-home-insuran... > Active private home insurance policies in Florida declined by 78% over roughly a decade, with the state's insurer of last resort skyrocketing to 63% of the market share, as reported by PRNewswire and republished on Yahoo. That is a dramatic pullback in a state where storm risk has long shaped the housing market.
- micromacrofoot 2mo agoWe're already cooked, the Paris Agreement was aiming for avoiding 1.5°C global increase by 2030 and we're pretty much at that now. We're already seeing global weather shifts as the beginning of what appears to be rapid climate change and we're not yet at the peak of carbon output.
- talon8635 2mo agoBirth rates are in decline. The global population is estimated to peak in the 2080s. I suspect that could be later than reality as the endless doom (like this article) inspires more and more people to not have kids. Then as the population declines precipitously, nature takes back over and begins resolving the problem itself.
- ballsac 2mo agoHilariously naive take. Typical HN.
- dgellow 2mo agoPopulation decline will not solve climate change, we already passed multiple points of no return that will result in worsening climate for the next 50-100y. And there won’t be a way to roll back those changes
- Panino 2mo ago> And there won’t be a way to roll back those changes It's possible to sequester CO2, and here are a couple ways. 1. Use permaculture or regenerative agriculture to aggressively increase SOM (soil organic matter) / carbon content of the soil. Typical degraded farmland is around 1.5% SOM. For every 0.1% increase per acre, roughly 1 ton of carbon is sequestered. Setting an ambitious increase to 10% would take decades but would increase yields along the way. There are billions of acres of farmland, so a lot of carbon can be removed from the biosphere. Additionally, since people naively mimic farmers for home gardening etc., if farmers were part of the solution, then more home growers would be, too. With a couple decades of regenerative ag you can go from 1.5% to 7.5%, but with more time and motivation you can go higher. 2. Research and then put into practice industrial-scale pyrolysis for energy generation. So, instead of burning methane (aka "natural gas") to boil water to spin a turbine, we could pyrolysize organic material to emit and burn syngas to boil water to spin a turbine. The resulting biochar can be co-composted and when finished, used as a soil amendment. With a different mindset a lot can change, and quickly.
- 2mo ago
- saddat 2mo agoDiscussion is pointless . -All- of it. Germany has reduced emissions by what, 20% ? It costs its world industrial leadership . No AI to power by electricity . And Germany has 3% of world CO2 output . Meanwhile , China emissions exploding almost exponentially , as they produce all the good and bad things for you .
- plugger 2mo agoChina's emissions peaked in 2025 and have been declining since. They have rolled out massive amounts of renewables, unlike the US.
- goawaydang 2mo ago[flagged]
- defrost 2mo agoHonest Question: what bearing does that have on the words written by and opinion of: Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor Emeritus at the Department of Physics, University of Oxford.
- zeristor 2mo agoHave you seen the Prime Ministers who have graduated from Oxford? Johnson, Truss, etc Oxford is tanking.
- defrost 2mo agoOrthogonal to any current arc of Oxford, he's a graduate from the 1970s, elected to the US National Academy of Sciences, and a Royal Society Research Professor. Is attacking the man because of an institute the best you can do, rather than address the content of his writing? Maybe you take issue with the meat of, say, this from 26 years past: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsta/article/378/2166/20190058/111560/The-physics-of-numerical-analysis-a-climate https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsta/article/378/2166/201... By all means say something meaningful. FWiW I too like The Goodies, Monty Python, and wouldn't mind seeing The Forever War given a film treatment by a good director ... just not a fan of ankle deep casual dismissal by association - it's not this chap's fault the UK keeps electing the wrong sort of toff.
- 1attice 2mo agoThis is unintentionally hilarious, but also very recent: Economist for most of its publication history banned naming authors. You knew them only as The Economist. Meanwhile, physicists are not known for their great views on other matters. A physicist talking about climate change is sus, no matter what their pedigree. It's almost as if expertise is localized by domain!
- kuerbel 2mo agohttps://archive.is/UwGSh https://archive.is/UwGSh Paywall free link
- VimEscapeArtist 2mo ago[flagged]
- alexpc201 2mo agoLess time to do what precisely? Prevent China from emitting 10 times more CO2 than the rest of the world combined? Good luck with that, meanwhile the West leads millions of people into poverty to pursue a strategy that will not make a dent in climate change if it is caused by CO2.
- card_zero 2mo agoNow, now, it's only half as much as the rest of the world combined, and only twice the USA and Canada together.
- defrost 2mo agoand only 15% of the global cumulative total to the USofA's 25% (plus/minus the usual quibble about sources and definitions). Meanwhile, the problem persists and grows.
- card_zero 2mo agoSo why are you invoking the last seven decades ("cumulative")? Boring answer: in order to find a way to blame the US, which is the more urgent problem. I don't think a lot of the people being vocal about climate change even care about solving it, they care about ideological enemies.
- thinkafter 2mo ago[flagged]
- Henchman21 2mo agoOur hubris will be the death of us. We will have earned it.
- tsoukase 2mo agoThe globe couldnt afford a couple of massive energy consumers (USA and Europe) let alone three more (China, India and Africa). Even if Renewables or EVs reach a pesky 30% in limited areas, CO2 levels will not care. Total climate change is almost 100% sure, there is no return. Or, for the optimists, the time we have is until the next elections.