Not good for profits, so it’s swept under the rug while we deal with the bloated cheeto craziness as a diversion for something else even shittier happening.
As usual the mainstream journalists don't understand what the paper is about and produce hysterical headlines.
If you read the paper it does in no way say the earth is going to be uninhabitable. It does say that they have modelled which bits of the earth will become less habitable and they are areas of high population density, and also that the risk is reduced sognificant of climate change is limited to 2 degrees. That's starkly different from the headline.
That is also without any critical appraisal of the paper. My first thoughts are how accurate is transfering static lab based measures of habitability to dynamic open environments?
This research is mildly interesting but like most research frankly it is of limited scope and utility, and unfortunately a great deal of research is actually unreproducible dross.
On top of that a lot of journalism is unthinking dross. This makes a good headline to feed the beast that is the internet but it does not reflect the reality of the climate crisis.
many different reasons, but one of the main ones is that we (as a global society) dont focus on projects that take many decades to come to fruition. projects that receive funding are those that have an immediate payoff or those that have a return measured in years.
“fixing” climate change is something that will require that basically everyone alive today alter how they live - large and small changes - basically permanently, and for some nebulous payoff to occur several generations (or much longer) in the future.
it means limited product runs of consumer grade technology a drastic reduction in the number of companies allowed to manufacture products a severe reduction it the amount of consumer grade devices available at all
it means a severe reduction in international shipping (no more importing/exporting food) near total reduction in air travel, both international and domestic essentially an elimination of all non-food production petroleum usage (synthesizing fertilizer and plastic are still required or the entire system will collapse)
global population will have to drastically decrease effective immediately you dont have to live like amish but you wont be allowed to buy new tech/devices anymore. maybe 1 laptop/decade, if that. everyone has to live in arcologies. planned economies, planned societies, planned breeding/population controls
some or most of these changes are incompatible with some or all societies. it’s just not going to happen without strict, authoritarian, regimental control on a global level.
I’m not sure why you think consumer tech is the thing to blame for emissions.
If you look at what’s being shipped, it’s clothing, food, and a LOT of plastic. Consumer electronic goods are a tiny fraction of the shipping/manufacturing load. You likely eat multiple times a day, but buy a new phone once per year at most.
Food waste, clothing, offices, and business travel are some of the biggest emitters. The yearly electronics purchase is a blip on the radar in terms of climate impact. (Arguably, the electricity running the devices has a larger impact).
Because news is sales, and this doesn’t sell. In fact, it will likely hurt sales. And almost everyone can’t do anything meaninful about it on an individual, immediate level. So it’s hard to think about and hard to act on.
Bad for business, hard to digest = out of scope for corporate or government media.
Well, there is a really simple, meaningful thing we could do:
We could all go vegan.
If we stop paying for these products we’d solve 25% of the climate catastrophe tomorrow. But you don’t want to. The rich, smart, educated people in the west won’t even give up cheese to save their childrem from collaps.
No no, no plan, they suggested a hypothetical situation which, if it magically became true, would have an impact. As a result, they are absolved of any further effort, justification, or planning. This is the sum total of their contribution to solving global climate change. Think of them as an “ideas person,” or a “visionary leader” who “manages by walking around.”
After receiving this totally sufficient direction from an obviously exceptional thinker, it is entirely up to you to figure out how to make it work. If you don’t, then you are not being a team player. Further criticism, or even just asking clarifying questions, is evidence YOU are the problem and are not taking constructive, solution-focused steps, and your bad attitude will be noted in your next performance review cycle along with being assigned full responsibility for letting the climate go to shit.
You sound so cynical. I didn’t suggest to i.e. stop driving cars by tomorrow, because that would (as you stated) not be possible in the real word. Stop eating animal products is very different, because you choose to do so every single day and you CAN stop it tomorrow. It’s a super simple action we could take. But most people don’t do it because most people don’t do it.
I obviously already broke that habit and I invite you give it a try.
Add comment