Now you work to change the rules of society so that we can stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and limit the amount of additional warming we see.
i had the same thought: NPR did a story on alaskan pipelayers & plumbers that were starting to experience the effects of climate change on the soil about 15-is years ago and then revisited them again about 5-ish years ago. in the first set of interviews from 15 years ago, a big majority refused to attribute the issues that they were experiencing to climate change and in the second set 5 years ago, they nearly unanimously refused to attribute the issues to climate change.
climate change is now politics and any and all politics will be denied if you want it bad enough
It’s crazy to me that the highest populated countries that are most affected by it by that article (China and US) are contributing the most to it (unchecked capitalism) and still refuse see their connnection to their own discomfort
Do you have links to show what they’re doing? Because as far as I was aware, the only climate issues they’re trying to fix is air pollution in big cities like Hong Kong. I haven’t seen anything about them trying to save the planet.
People will bring up coal to challenge the argument that China is serious about tackling climate change. China is building many new coal plants, which seems counterintuitive. I, and I’m sure they, would prefer not to. But they’re not quite ready to fully transition off, so the next best thing is upgrading then. If you look into the details, they’re replacing old plants with incredibly efficient ones. Here’s a separate link about that: americanprogress.org/…/everything-think-know-coal…
It must me remembered, however, that many if not most of the states that China is working with aren’t even close to their ‘fair share’ of global emissions: doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00044-4 . As the tech improves, the emissions attached to BRI development will reduce.
Given capital strikes are a thing, simply not taking money doesn't mean they are immune the influence of those entrenched interest groups. But it's certainly better than outright corruption.
Not a Climate Change denier but it feels weird that scientists who projected climate change to take a few decades to really fuck us is suddenly melting the planet.
Right after a pandemic, while AI is killing jobs and a war between Ukraine and Russia can officially escalate to WW3 any day.
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in the nineties. But we had lots of time then, so no rush…
Back when I was young and naive I figured the Kyoto Protocol would work. We had lots of time then. The climate change is a hoax thing didn’t really take off until the early aughts as I recall.
There were a lot of different models, including some that were really close to the timelines we see now. All of those depended on different amounts of emissions, and if humanity took this seriously as soon as it was discovered the rate of change would be wildly different.
But there were very little significant changes to curb the emission rate, so we’re currently following the path of some of the worst predictive models. They still existed, just weren’t publicized as much as those that counted on some more reasonable approaches.
This is what happens when the developed world spends 150 years rejecting the most advanced scientific theory for fear that if the working class gets hold of it they’ll have a revolution.
The theory being dialectical materialism. It’s unsurprising that China, one of the five states explicitly led by DiaMat, have been acting as fast as possible to wean off fossils.
The speed at which things are changing – and this year’s changes won’t be the last – makes perfect sense to dialectical materialists. The transformation of quantity into quality is built into this worldview. What’s hard to predict is when a quantitative change will become a transformative leap in quality. The fact of the leap is not in question, however.
Meanwhile, in most of the rest of the world, most participants in the debate are still operating under the illusion that change is linear. For people who think that things will just get a bit worse every year, what’s a little distracting war in the grand scheme of things, and what does it matter if a pandemic is left to run free?
Life is cheap and there will always be a little more time in the schedule – to get ‘back to normal’ – before we tackle emissions properly, think the decision-makers. Except it’s precious and there is no spare time. Unless westerners get their act together and challenge imperialism, we better hope that dedollarisation leads to demilitarisation so people can concentrate on healing the world. Otherwise, we’ll be looking back at this year’s weather with the starry eyes of nostalgia.
That's the whole point. They're surprised that it's happening so fast. The acceleration at which things are happening has gone far beyond anything they predicted. My local area hit 40°C a couple of days ago, the highest recorded temperature on record since we started taking temperatures. We've had constant temperatures in the high 30s for the past 2 weeks. I can't remember temperatures this high and I'm almost in my fifth decade on our little blue dot. The icebergs that we see every year failed to show up this year because of the large amount of melt happening in the Arctic, something I can't remember seeing in my lifetime. I know what I'm saying is all anecdotal but there's also plenty of evidence supporting global atmospheric warming that's backed up by scientific data.
I live in the southern hemisphere so we have winter right now. By European standards our winters are “warm”. Last week we had a few really cold days to the point where it snowed. I have never experienced snow in my 30 years being alive.
To my knowledge, there had been an understanding that scientists were being fairly conservative with their statements of how bad things were going to get, and how fast it was going to happen.
I know of two primary drivers for this (which I am somewhat oversimplifying for brevity):
Scientists really didn't want to get it wrong by saying X will definitely happen by year Y, and then be wrong, thus giving ammunition to climate deniers and vested interests running counter-PR such as oil companies.
Scientists didn't want to paint a picture of unstoppable, inevitable doom that no person could possibly imagine a way for them to fix, or contribute towards fixing, thus leading to the mindset of 'if there's no way to stop it why even try?'.
For your first point, I’d just like to add that the scientists didn’t give conservative estimates to stay clear of conspiracy theorists, but to stay clear of criticisms of fellow scientists. If there’s insufficient data to back up the claims a researcher makes, you can bet the other researchers will always beat the conspiracy theorists in calling out the bullshit.
Add comment