Is there anything i could/can do to make a difference?
This, it’s the only thing that really counts, we all need to pull together, the only way to do that, is to vote in politicians that actually give a shit.
Apart from the voting which is above all else, if you REALLY want to do something on an individual basis, you should reduce your meat or become a vegetarian. It seems that’s what experts claim has the biggest impact. Apart from that, don’t have children, or 2 at most.
Please don’t have children. Think about the life you’re condemning them to.
There are other things you can do individually as well, like try using the car and AC less, and generally live more frugally.
But remember that 100 companies make up 71% of all human made carbon emissions. It’s good to act locally, but we need global action to stop these companies and their supporters, that means voting for competent government.
The bulk of those companies are in the energy business and they respond to consumer demand. Chevron isn’t out there drilling, extracting, refining, and burning oil for no reason.
When the parties on offer are various flavours of neoliberalism, as in most capitalist countries these days, it doesn’t give you any options that will make a difference quick enough. They simply can’t do what needs to be done within that economic framework.
That said, vote for the least worst one. But the most significant things have to be done outside of that electoral framework, because it can’t resist the demands of short-term profit.
If we don’t have children because we care for our planet, we leave the world to those who don’t care at all. Not sure if this is the right decision.
Honestly, I haven’t thought of it like that. I guess that’s a decent point. But having more than 2 children, and you are part of the problem.
Why vegetarian, not vegan? Cows are a major contributor to the emissions, and people tend to increase their dairy consumption when going vegetarian.
reduce your meat or become a vegetarian
i’m dubious about this. don’t get me wrong: i try to make sure at least half my calories come from soylent. i’m saying i have looked at the methodology, and it doesn’t seem sound. HAVING READ THE RELEVANT STUDIES it’s not clear to me that the researchers are even drawing correct conclusions.
here’s an example that i think can be extrapolated across many data points: cotton seed. first, cotton is grown for textiles. like, exclusively. like, the only reason to grow cotton is for textiles. BUT you can increase the profits from your cotton harvest if you sell the seed to cattle operations. so cattle are fed cottonseed. then the water and land-use costs of cotton get rolled into the costs of raising cattle. but that’s nonsensical. cottonseed is purely waste product, and giving it to cattle CONSERVES resources.
soybeans are another thing altogether, and the complexity of the whole agricultural system implies, to me at least, that maybe it’s not so simple as “reduce your meat intake”.
I must admit it’'s not super intuitive to me either, but it seems the consensus is pretty strong among experts, and I haven’t taken the time to really delve in deep on the issue.
But apparently a significant part of the problem is that cows make a lot of methane, that is a very bad greenhouse gas, and when it breaks down it’s to CO2 which is still a greenhouse gas. So kind of a bad double dip as I understand it.
Going vegetarian doesn’t seem to be the most impactful when you look at the numbers, as per this video. Vegan diets still have the lowest GHG footprint and GWP of all diets.
That being said, I went vegetarian first before going vegan. So your point is entirely valid.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/y9R6yJj5RO0?si=-bqRIP1zQKv0m5lG
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Honestly I wasn’t aware the difference is that big. I thought cows were bad mostly for the meat, but apparently milk is at least as bad. 🤥
That sucks. ☹️
As others have said, voting is important. But also I’d guess that direct action will play a large role in the next few decades.
Some changes people (in the US or elsewhere) might want to check into:
- See if your local electric utility has Green Power programs where you can elect to have your power come from renewables (via credits) for 2-5% of your bill/month extra
- If you own a home, consider making switches to more electrified stuff like: induction cookstoves v. natural gas, heat pumps v. AC units, power tools that have batteries and/or cables v. gasoline or diesel, adding solar panels to your roof or property (only costs ~$20k these days), etc.
- Start moving your pensions or stocks into greener index funds, or even consider adopting banks and credit unions that publicly disclose which projects and companies they invest your dollar in
- Consider buying your groceries from local farmer’s markets or farms that have mail-to-your-door programs (aka CSAs or Community Supported Agriculture programs); this is a good resource to learn more about the farms near you
- Switch to non-red meat diets, and then after that switch to a vegetarian diet, and then after that switch to a vegan diet (all while consulting health professionals); this is a good resource on vegan diets if anyone is curious
- Consider choosing a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV; 100% electric) or a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV; 50/50 electric/gas) as your new car; this resource can steer you in the right direction
- Vote in primary elections where candidates prioritize climate action, then vote for them again in general elections when the time comes; this is a good resource to stay up on current civic events
- Buy clothing/shoes used, or if you need to buy new, look for the GOTS and OEKO-TEX labels to make sure what you’re buying is organic, is ethical, and doesn’t pollute local environments of where your clothes/shoes are made
This is the best summary I could come up with:
This year is now almost certain to become Earth’s warmest on record after a hot July and August saw global temperatures reach the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the first time.
Data released last week from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.
This upward swing should ensure 2023 becomes the new warmest year on record, an assessment shared by the Bureau of Meteorology’s Senior Climatologist Blair Trewin.
“If current 2023 temperature anomalies are maintained, or increase, over the last four months of the year that would be sufficient for an annual record to be set,” he said.
Major global climatological records have fallen at a rapid rate across the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere, including:
“A large part of it is the removal of the cooling influence of La Niña which has been suppressing global temperatures over the last two to three years,” Mr Trewin said.
The original article contains 531 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
We had a good run. Good luck to the next species to dominate the earth. May you avoid religious dogma, find an economic system that respects your natural environment, and a political system that respects the right to live a clean and healthy world.
Mosquitos are like “that species was delicious. I wonder what the next one will taste like”
we probably taste like shit… they sit around the campfire and remember the good old days of fresh, free range Dino blood as far as the proboscis could poke… not this Walmart meat they get now…
I dunno, they seem fucking determined to get as much of my blood as possible, little fuckers.
@Gsicht @Sterile_Technique And “pragmatic” solutions to the climate crisis. Oh wait …!
I mean, we left the planet. We created art. We did some good, and life will diversify again after we’re gone.
and life will diversify again after we’re gone.
Here’s hoping; but that’s far from a safe assumption. The kicker about the changes we’re making to this planet is that a lot of them are positive feedback loops, so even if 100% of humans just got thanos-snapped out of existence RIGHT NOW, meaning a complete stop on fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, etc; the damage we’ve already caused will continue to get worse on its own with no further input from us.
So how far can those feedback loops go until they’re broken naturally? They might stabilize; they might just carry on until this planet is molten.
There will for sure be life after the last human dies, but given a few thousand more years, even the most resilient of critters could still be fucked because of us.
we did just waste a good few million years of evolution though (let’s say 65 million accounting for the rise of mammals). earth isn’t going to be habitable forever, from memory there’s less than a billion years left before the temp would increase with the expanding sun enough to make liquid water impossible. feels like we kind of shot earth in the foot a bit here
There were a couple of hundred thousand years of humans managing not to fuck up the entire planet, before the two centuries of doing so for the sake of money.
There were periods in which we were nicer to the planet, but we’ve always been pretty horrible to each other. Even at the stage of civilization we’re at now - with all the advancements and comforts etc - we’re still going to war with each other just for the hell of it; murdering each other over shit like skin color or what we find sexually attractive; not only profiteering off the suffering of others, but actively manufacturing suffering to profiteer off.
We really are horrible.
Realistically, extinction would be sweet relief compared to what is actually in store for humans with climate change. More likely that we hang around in smaller communities and death / suffering is even more widespread.
I mean realistically it’s all going to hell sooner or later. You’ll start with millions of climate refugees, closed borders, violence. Then climate wars (a wall with machine guns isn’t going to stop people who have no other way to survive). And if a country with nukes (like India) finds itself uninhabitable then things are really going south. Next up you have a possible nuclear war and the end of humanity as we know it.
Sure, a small amount of humans might survive, but civilization will go down in chaos. Even areas that are inhabitable and have plenty of water will break down, because the local infrastructure can’t support hundreds of thousands of refugees forcing their way in.
You’ll start with millions of climate refugees
Millions? If only.
I’ve seen estimates which say at least a billion by 2050:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/climate-refugees-the-world-s-forgotten-victims/)
I wonder if primates are incapable of building a global economic system that doesn’t end in disaster
A decade ago, It was predicted that we would hit 1.5°C between 2050-2060, and even as recently as 2 years ago the prediction had moved forward to between 2030-2040.
The next decade or two are going to be very… interesting
what’s worse is that it’s actually 1.6 C
it says in the article here
Data released last week from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.
Yes but only for a couple of months, averaged over the whole year it’s significantly lower than that. Probably still on track to hit the annual average of 1.5 sometime in the next 10-20 years. Still definitely a dire situation but not entirely out of left field based on the recent estimates.
The recent records have now lifted the year-to-date global temperature to the end of August to 1.35C above pre-industrial levels, just 0.01C behind 2016 — the current record holder
Yeah, it’s honestly horrifying to see the lack of reaction around the world. If you live anywhere near the coast, you better get the fuck out or tell your kids to.
I’m already telling people to get out of Florida*. I expect multiple Katrina-level events over the next 15 years. “Florida refugees” is going to become a common phrase.
Orlando might be more likely to survive than Miami or Tampa, but do you really want to be in the city surrounded by devastation?
We, as humans, seem to have lost the ability to plan more than 20 years into the future. Florida is still building in areas that are going to be crushed, and the only reaction is from insurance companies.
We’re not trying to prevent it. We’re not building any kind of defenses or contingency plans. We’re not encouraging people to move out. We’re not preventing people from moving in. In fact, we’re building new and encouraging people to move IN to Florida. It’s full on head in sand.
It’s nice by the coast though, I’d just put aquatic pilings under my house and have a ruggedised shelter built into it. Even if I live to a hundred and fifty with all the ice melted my land will still be under less water than the intercoastal platforms we’ve been routinely building since world war one.
The IPCC calculations were always criticized for being overly optimistic. Anyone following this debate knew that we would hit 1.5 C sooner rather than later.
We are definitely going to hit 3 degrees in our lifetime, once the melting tundras release their methane store.
Melting tundra releases methane, accelerating the increase in temperature. Rising temperature reduces polar ice, making oceans absorb more heat, accelerating heating. Climate pattern changes cause more frequent and larger wildfires, accelerating heating.
There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases that I’m not aware of, but there are a lot of positive feedback processes which is concerning.
I believe the IPCC 1.5C was criticized because it included effects of a carbon sequestering process that hasn’t been invented yet. That’s pretty optimistic.
There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases
Nuclear war, for one. In a more naturalistic vein, asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruptions. People worried about climate change just refuse to look on the bright side.
Which is why I support the idea of setting up bases on the Moon and/or Mars.
Everything is accelerating, and nobody gives a fuck to do anything before it’s too late. I hate the argument that NASA doesn’t push its budget to prevent CC or even Space X. Because stopping CC is a global effort on a colossal scale. It’s not going to work until it’s too late. Might as well get off this rock.
Edit: Very fucking optimistic of you all
If anyone is curious about what 3C looks like, here’s a solid video on how a 3C world would look.
https://youtu.be/uynhvHZUOOo?si=yk8rvR1Bg3t4aKGe
It’s 16 minutes so as a TL;DW: Not “extinction event” but extremely bad. Areas of the globe will simply become unlivable - and these areas tend to be highly populated. The resulting mass migrations and shortages of water/food will lead to conflict, often between nuclear powers. End result: humanity will keep on living, but it will be a significantly more deadly environment and a significantly more conflict-prone political environment. Economic collapse will hit major metropolitan centers.
If watching the video bums you out try to focus on the absolutely bonkers cool sideburns the climate scientist has. Cheered me up a little. Like a handsome person telling you that you have a bad disease.
Anyway, vote for climate-positive outcomes wherever possible and consider joining a climate lobbyist group. I’m a member of this one but I’m sure there are others.
They’ve been saying that literally since the 60’s?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand they’re still wrong.
Supposedly the new stringent heavy shipping emissions controls are having an impact on the greenhouse effect. Reduction of sulfur dioxide which had a reverse greenhouse effect is warming the oceans up more.
“Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions.”
So this may be our first example of the threats of NOT enacting terraforming for climate change will have.
It proves that creating cloud cover will impact ocean temperature. There are methods of doing this without creating acid rain. Just spray ocean water as a fine mist into the air and you should get some nice fluffy clouds. We have the capability to cover entire oceans in cloud cover to mitigate global warming.
Obviously this would have some unpredictable impacts on weather patterns, but we’re already dealing with that no matter what we do. We’re at a point where we’re desperate enough to try some crazy schemes like this.
After September 11th and the COVID lockdowns, scientists noted an increase in global surface temperature due to the absence of contrails. So yes, this is actually something we are already doing!
Sulfur dioxide however is an even more effective reflector of sunlight compared to water vapor. And don’t forget, water vapor is itself a very greenhouse agent that contributes toward planetary heating.
Hank Green had a pretty decent video in this.
https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL
We can do the same thing without the horrible pollution that ships produced.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I believe by “interesting,” you mean “moist.” At least, for everyone above/below ±35° latitude.
Also, I hope you enjoyed photosynthesis while it lasted because once the permafrosts at ±60° latitude thaw, we’re in for a tough time.
Hate to break it to you, but everyone in the world is either above or below ±35° latitude.
I can’t quite figure out if it’s supposed to mean everyone within 35° of the equator latitude, or everyone outside it.
Hope everyone enjoyed the coldest summer of the rest of their lives.
