UN Warns World Will Miss Climate Targets Unless Fossil Fuels Phased Out (theguardian.com) 224
Governments are failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to stave off climate disaster, a major report by the UN has found. From a report: Meeting the goals will require "phasing out all unabated fossil fuels," the report says, in an acknowledgment that some oil-producing countries may find hard to take. The need to phase out fossil fuels has not been explicitly adopted by the UN before, under successive rounds of climate talks, and language over "phasing out" or "phasing down" fossil fuels has caused controversy at the annual UN climate talks.
There is a "rapidly narrowing window" for governments to move faster, according to the report, as global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest, and be rapidly reduced from there, to limit temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Emissions are still rising, however, and there is a gap of 20 to 23 gigatonnes of CO2 between the cuts needed by 2030 to limit global temperatures to 1.5C and the world's current emissions trajectory. The report, which was expected next week but was published hurriedly in draft by the UN on Friday, will form the basis of the first "global stocktake" under the 2015 Paris agreement. That process is meant to track countries' efforts to meet the goals of the treaty.
There is a "rapidly narrowing window" for governments to move faster, according to the report, as global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest, and be rapidly reduced from there, to limit temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Emissions are still rising, however, and there is a gap of 20 to 23 gigatonnes of CO2 between the cuts needed by 2030 to limit global temperatures to 1.5C and the world's current emissions trajectory. The report, which was expected next week but was published hurriedly in draft by the UN on Friday, will form the basis of the first "global stocktake" under the 2015 Paris agreement. That process is meant to track countries' efforts to meet the goals of the treaty.
Looks like we a missing targets. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We will get to that. Don't worry. Will safe absolutely nothing at that time though.
Re:Looks like we a missing targets. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"They're completely targeting the wrong things on purpose."
Correct. When a government impounds the Icon of the Seas, moors it to a pier or beaches it forever and converts it to housing for the homeless/refugees, then call me. I'm not freezing in the dark so that idle upper class can party on that monstrosity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Time to pat the US on the back! (Score:5, Informative)
Our emissions have been in decline since 2007.
https://www.macrotrends.net/co... [macrotrends.net]
That is, if you ever care, which apparently applies to this UN panel.
Re: (Score:3)
Our emissions have been in decline since 2007.
https://www.macrotrends.net/co... [macrotrends.net]
That is, if you ever care, which apparently applies to this UN panel.
That's admirable. Truly.
But. There had to be a but. Those statistics also mean that it'll be about 50 more years until the US stops making the world a shittier place every year.
Yes, I totally get it that a} zero emissions is a nonsensical goal, b} I'm a horrible, polluting monkey myself, c} many/most other countries are either not getting better as quickly or not getting better at all. It's just... before we authorize a parade, it's important to take a step back and recognize "polluting less" is bet
Re:Time to pat the US on the back! (Score:5, Insightful)
50 more years until the US stops making the world a shittier place every year.
https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
Ouch. China emits 2x the US.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com].
USA is staying almost even with population growth, compared to China, and others that have exploded.
Nothing the US can do (alone) will stop climate change. Not even close. This is China and India's ball game. Your problem is going to be finding any bleeding hearts in these merging countries that give a hoot about your cause.
Re: (Score:2)
The US emits 15.32t/person, China emits 7.44t/person.
So the US is more than twice as bad as China. What's worse is that China is due to peak in the next few years, at less than half the US' current emissions, let alone where the US peaked at over 23t/person.
Be very thankful that China didn't decide to adopt a US lifestyle and economy, because if it had done we would be absolutely screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
What's worse is that China is due to peak in the next few years
Ok.
In September 2020, President Xi Jinping announced that the People’s Republic of China will “aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060”
So they SAY they WANT TO peak by 2030.
https://www.iea.org/reports/an... [iea.org]
Going to be pretty hard to achieve when you're fighting a war with Taiwan (which they also said they definitely will do before 2030). Blowing up shit tends to not be carbon neutral. Did China also pledge to fight a carbon neutral war?
Meanwhile, their rate of decrease in emissions is 7x less than the US:
https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
The US emits 15.32t/person, China emits 7.44t/person.
And Qatar emits ~3x the US per capita. See what I did their? The correct response to that would be t
Re: (Score:2)
They are 5 years ahead of their goal when you look at the curve. They should peak by 2025-26, unless something major happens.
Re: (Score:2)
China is [europa.eu] NOT 1/2 of the US [europa.eu]. They are 2/3 and still climbing. As you point out, they continue to add new coal plants to both China and in undeveloped nations.
China's emissions will climb again this year, while America's will continue downward.
Re: (Score:2)
Those statistics also mean that it'll be about 50 more years until the US stops making the world a shittier place every year.
Wow. Are you clueless or what.
Re: (Score:2)
Those statistics also mean that it'll be about 50 more years until the US stops making the world a shittier place every year.
Wow. Are you clueless or what.
As it happens, the answer is "what".
Re: (Score:2)
Pat on a back? Nope. Many states can do much better, esp red states.
Likewise, the GD dems continue to fuck things up badly, while speaking about AGW.
Many issues are from BOTH political parties and NOT from AGW.
Skip that pat. We have a LOT of work to do. That includes re-building our nuclear industry, putting in intelligent regulations and taxes, as opposed to screaming about cooktops while ignoring 75% of the emissions, or cutting O&G exploration while doing rel
Nothing special about 1.5C (Score:5, Informative)
A reminder that there's no particular science behind picking 1.5 C as the do-not-exceed target. There's no abrupt catastrophe that occurs at 1.5 C but not 1.4 C. It's just a simple number to set for a goal.
If we exceed 1.5 C of warming, the effects will be slightly more extreme than if we stayed at 1.4 C of warming, but not as extreme as 1.6 C or 1.7 C.
(there probably are tipping points in warming, where feedback effects kick in... but they are not at neat even values of average warming.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Nothing special about 1.5C (Score:2)
Being able to study and understand how atmospheres can effect the temperatures of a planet has given great ways towards understanding climate. Studies based on the temperatures and atmospheres of Earth, Venus, and Mars have all given way to this. Mars is cooler than it should be for its distance, and Venus is a lot hotter that it should be for its distance. This led scientist to study their atmospheres and what might be causing these temperatu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Without the revolutions in farming which increased food supply, the population would not have increased so much so there wouldn't have been such starvation.
If there were wars, without petroleum it's likely the wars would have been on a much smaller scale fought locally with horses and swords instead of aircraft and missiles over thousands of miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A reminder that there's no particular science behind picking 1.5 C as the do-not-exceed target ... (there probably are tipping points in warming, where feedback effects kick in... but they are not at neat even values of average warming.)
To be fair, 1.5C is neither neat (it's a fraction) or even (it's odd).
Re: (Score:2)
That's is a wonderful piece of pedantry. Well played.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Re:Nothing special about 1.5C (Score:4, Funny)
It is called risk-management. Something you obviously have never heard of. At 1.5C (which we already will exceed significantly and nothing can be done about that anymore), the risk of too many trigger-points getting reached is still relatively low and collapse of civilization is relatively unlikely.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is called risk-management. Something you obviously have never heard of. At 1.5C (which we already will exceed significantly
Not yet, but the way things are going it's very likely that we will. [bbc.com]
and nothing can be done about that anymore), the risk of too many trigger-points getting reached is still relatively low and collapse of civilization is relatively unlikely.
There's nothing special about 1.5 C. You could say the same about 1.6 C, or 1.7 C, or 1.8 C.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Eemian climate is believed to have been warmer than the current Holocene.[8][9] Changes in the Earth's orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as Milankovitch cycles, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere.[citation needed] During the northern summer, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 C higher than in 2011.[10] The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as
Re: (Score:3)
It is called risk-management.
Also, there's no risk at all to increasing fuel prices where average Joe and Jan can't get to work, or increasing energy prices so they can't afford to heat their homes. Not a problem though, just buy a Tesla solar battery system for your home for $25,000, and an electric car for $35,000. Right?
One thing is for sure, the rich will be fine regardless. They will live in low-pollution suburbs and can afford price increases. The left needs to figure out if they want to help the underclass, or save the climate.
Re: (Score:2)
If the average joe dies (or rather his children) as a result of climate change, you would think that would be more of a concern than fuel prices. But I guess the average joe does not understand long-term changes at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If the average joe dies (or rather his children) as a result of climate change, you would think that would be more of a concern than fuel prices. But I guess the average joe does not understand long-term changes at all.
Keep on telling underprivileged of the world that you know better than for them and their families. Much easier to virtual signal to folks that won't be much affected by the decision either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of being underprivileged is being ignorant.
Thank goodness we have folks like you to tell us ig'nats what to think and do.
What we really need is one, or a few really smart, rich (and good looking!) people to control everything. Those people wouldn't at all be tempted to enact policies that make them richer at the expense of the ig'nats. That's never happened before. Yes. History is definitely on the side of authoritarian regimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Authoritarian regimes are really bad. But species extinction or (if we are lucky and only get that) collapse of civilization is significantly worse. At this time, there are no good solutions left. The fundamental problem with Democracy is that people vote themselves bread and games until no bread or games are left. We are approaching that point. This is essentially just the "tragedy of the commons" on global scale and an example that self-regulation does not work for problems of this type.
Scientifically, th
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no, not even close on the solar. Almost on the car.
Well, you had your 20 minutes of feeling smart.
Based on our sample quote for Atlanta, Georgia, a 13.2-kW Tesla solar system costs $30,756, plus $14,200 for one Powerwall. The total system costs $42,256, or $29,579 after applying the federal tax credit.
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/s... [thisoldhouse.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1.5C was chosen both because it was believed to be avoidable & because it's supposed to be *probably* much safer than the 2.0 threshold that almost certain to mean long term catastrophic impact.
The truth is that even the 1.0 - 1.1 deg C warming to date has been hugely impacting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of climate change, and the risk of serious conflicts, goes up exponentially with temperature. 1.5C is the point at which we are fucked but it might not lead to massive catastrophise where hundreds of millions of people migrate and we experience massive reduction in quality of life.
I think a lot of people are hoping that they die before it gets really bad, and it becomes someone else's problem.
need more nuclear power! (Score:2)
need more nuclear power!
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit too late now, as takes decades to build those.
The money probably would be better spent boosting the power storage research and improving the power lines, so we don't have LOT of losses by just carrying the power around.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No reason to not start today then, our kids will thank us.
We can also do all those things as well, it's just a matter of political will.
Also line losses are "only" around 5% which is nothing to sneeze at with the scale we're talking about but still, I will take some line losses for an abundance of nuclear backed energy.
Reactors on grid in 7.5 years on average (Score:2)
No reason to not start today then
Our current average is 7.5 years.
"Nuclear reactors connected to the grid in 2022 had a median construction time of 89 months or almost 7.5 years"
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually less than I would have thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Average nuke plant, 7.5 years to build. (Score:2)
It's a bit too late now, as takes decades to build those.
"Nuclear reactors connected to the grid in 2022 had a median construction time of 89 months or almost 7.5 years"
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Failure to use nuclear, now or in 8 years, will just mean more usage of coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Even now, NuScale, Natrium and likely Helion will all have reactor/generator running before 2030 and likely sooner.
In addition, they will be able to scale quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully i'm wrong on this one.
Other than build time (that seems to be smaller than i was thinking as pointed out by the other posters), its just a great tech and don't actively kills a shitton of people with air pollution like coal does.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is a true "emergency", then it WON'T take decades to build them.
However, the big bucks are in alarmism, "carbon credits", and BS wind and solar projects.
We get this so much - and it's utter rubbish. You want to know where the big bucks are? You want to follow the money? Just look at how much Shell, BP, Saudi-Aramco and others have invested in keeping fossil fuels on sale, and then consider how much they might be willing to spend to disrupt any political push to wind back fossil fuel use. And then consider just how you've been played by them.
Quite apart from the impending disaster part of it, I'm pretty sure that these scientists would rather have be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
need more nuclear power!
We also need more fracking! Let's aggressively replace coal with natural gas. You can get that done in months, not decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Easiest prediction ever (Score:3)
It's been clear to me for about 15-20 years that we would fail, after reading George Monbiot's "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning".
The actual report (Score:3)
Link in The Guardian article is broken
https://unfccc.int/documents/6... [unfccc.int]
Summary: Get rid of your stinking ICE automobile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're buying an electric vehicle in China, you're really only moving your CO2 emissions from a tailpipe to a smokestack at a coal plant.
But, hey... keep fighting the good fight. Maybe the rest of the world will catch up to you someday.
Re: (Score:2)
But hey.. keep talking shit and doing nothing. Maybe one of your children will forgive you.
Need more nuclear fission power (Score:5, Interesting)
I keep hearing people give excuses on how more nuclear power plants won't solve global warming. I don't know about that, we could at least try. I have a sneaking suspicion that the real reason so many people oppose nuclear power is because if we start building nuclear power plants then there's no more global warming fears to hold over the heads of others. Once we clear that hurdle on getting new nuclear power plants built then any more complaints on global warming is just permission to build another nuclear power plant. The threat of global warming loses all power after that.
Oh, you want to complain that we don't know what to do with the radioactive waste from nuclear power? First, solving the waste problem is trivial compared to global warming. Second, we solved the waste problem, it's the same brainless banshees that scream about global warming that are screaming about a waste problem that doesn't exist.
You believe nuclear power is dangerous? How dangerous is global warming? Take your pick because there's no solving global warming without nuclear power.
I'll believe global warming is a real threat when I see nuclear power plants getting built by the dozens. This is all sounding like bullshit since people have been trying to scare people into believing that carbon dioxide emissions will kill us all for decades. How many more decades of CO2 emissions have to happen before we start to use the one energy source we know of that has the lowest CO2 emissions and highest safety record of any energy source humanity has created?
What a bunch of bullshit. If this is not bullshit then stop making excuses on why we can't build more nuclear power plants and solve the problem already. If you don't want nuclear power then you must want global warming, or at least the threat or global warming. We have the solution, we only lack the will to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say we go all in on nuclear, and do everything we can to make it happen.
Remove all the regulations, you don't even need a containment building now. Cancel all environmental impact assessments, you can build them anywhere and destroy whatever river you need to. Ban lawsuits entirely. Mass produce the reactors, strip mine the fuel. For disposal we will just dig a big hole and lob the spent fuel in it.
Let's say that gets the cost down to about 30% of what it is today, so around £10-11 billion
Re: (Score:2)
If you claim that nuclear power is not a solution then my claim is global warming is not a problem. Do you understand where I'm coming from yet?
I'm not alone in thinking this, we have people all over the world getting real confused on how global warming is some big scary monster that's going to kill us all if we don't do something to keep it away but when nuclear power is mentioned then everyone comes up with excuses on why we shouldn't consider that. So, which is the bigger monster, nuclear power or glob
Re: (Score:2)
If you insist that it has to be nuclear, if we don't demonstrate that renewables are a viable alternative that maintains or even improves our lives, developing nations are going to use fossil fuels.
Re: Need more nuclear fission power (Score:5, Interesting)
Mostly because the current pressurized water reactor designs are _obsolete_ .
New Generation IV reactors use way cheaper thorium-232 as the fissile fuel and the radioactive waste from a modern thorium reactor design is very small with a radioactive half-life of only 350 years, which means really cheap disposal (if the nuclear medicine industry doesn't grab it first!).
Re: (Score:2)
In Finland they are planning to use the tech we use for deep bore drilling to drill some shafts straight down about a mile, drop the waste down the hole and seal it up with concrete. The material is less radioactive than the surrounding rock and basically impossible to get to which makes it quite safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's review all the thorium reactors built so far.
Indian Point Energy Center - Didn't work properly, switched to uranium fuel after a few years.
BORAX - deliberately released radioactive material into the atmosphere to see what would happen.
Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - produced less energy than a medium size wind turbine, and demonstrated that cracking of metal surfaces exposed to fuel salt was a major unsolved problem.
Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant - lasted 3 years due to numerous safety critical
Pragmatism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We will miss it by a large amount (Score:3)
If the west, hell, the world, REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to solve this, then there is only one way to do this:
Force businesses to switch to clean parts/services. How? BY applying a slowly increasing tax rate locally consumed goods/services based on where the WORST part/sub-service comes from.
And at this time, the easiest and fastest way is to simply worry about direction of emissions. Below a threshold, down, stable, or up.
If below a threshold, then no tax on their parts/goods/services.
If several years down, then no tax.
If last year down, and 2 years ago stable, then 25% of the tax rate.
If last year down/2 years ago up, OR stable for 2 years, then 50% of the tax rate.
If last year up/2 years ago stable, then 75% of the tax rate.
If last 2 years were up, then 100% of the tax rate.
This way, if the worst assembly/part/sub-services/etc comes from a nation that has been 2 years up, then the increasing tax rate will be applied 100%.
This will encourage companies to put pressure on governments to clean up and drop emissions, OR they will simply shift away.
We have already seen that nearly all nations are making promises to lower their emissions, but really, not that many are. Until ALL NATIONS drop their emissions until below a threshold (and remain below it), then things will only climb and continue to get worse.
And no, the solution is NOT to stop drilling O&G. The solution is to STOP BURNING FF. If
Re: (Score:2)
Force businesses to switch to clean parts/services. How? BY applying a slowly increasing tax rate locally consumed goods/services based on where the WORST part/sub-service comes from.
This is not a problem we can solve with taxes.
Do you believe we burn fossil fuels to because the taxes aren't high enough? You can raise taxes on fossil fuels all you like but it's not going to move the needle unless there's an alternative somewhere. You think batteries and solar panels are going to solve this? Hardly. After 100 years of relying on diesel powered machines we can't just turn that off and not see people die of cold and hunger. What is likely the fastest path from fossil fuel is nuclear p
They need to target China and India. (Score:2)
Those two are easily the biggest polluters in the world, no contest. Clean up these two countries and the world's air and water quality will become a lot better.
Yeah right... (Score:2)
UN (Score:2)
I've been hearing about this "UN" a lot lately. Is that some religion I haven't heard about before? Maybe like some branch of Zoroastrianism, or one of those Amazon religions, like the cargo cult?
Fuck off, UN. And you, Guardian (Score:2)
See above
Carbon isn't the cause, cosmic magnetism is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dear United Nations (Score:5, Informative)
There are 2 "main" (for lack of a better word) sections to these reports.
The summary/front page style section which is what the journalists take their headlines from which is written by non-scientist appointed politician types, and the raw science and data nerdy section in the back written by real scientists, which few read and fewer understand. The two sections are often at odds.
The science guys may or may not be flying first class to some boon dongle conference at some exotic location on occasion but the politicians sure as hell are and they're going by private charter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We're all gonna die (Score:5, Informative)
You know, "global warming" was a perfectly decent term. It meant exactly what it said.
The problem is a collection of.... people... who couldn't understand what "global" meant, and could not discern between global averages and local weather. And so the term had to be abandoned. "Climate change" is a softer, less definite term that is an unfortunate compromise.
They didn't get it wrong. They just couldn't overcome the desire of people to remain ignorant in opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the earth end? Nope.
Will humanity end? Nope.
Will the world end up with major problems and head for a biological or nuclear world war? Quite likely.
Will this end humanity? Nope. Just most.
Re: (Score:2)
Maui and most of these fires in the west are NOT from Climate Change. It is mostly from mismanagement of our lands, and most due to GD far lefties.
However, the increased heat, increased severity of storms IS likely coming from AGW.
OTOH, the increased damage that we see from storms is a combination of storm severity, combined with more ppl having moved to disaster zones combined with piss poor regulations on buildings.
Most of this
Re: (Score:2)
The earth cycles...not in 1,2,5,10 year cycles, but in HUNDREDS of year cycles.
Obligatory: Earth Temperature Timeline [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's informal but does that mean he got the data wrong?
Here's some sciencier data
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our... [bas.ac.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Well sorry you feel that way but consensus is the data is accurate and pop science can be annoying but is also important.
Obligatory "You must be fun at parties"
Re: (Score:2)
Please try to update your denialism instead of respewing bunk that was discredited long ago
https://skepticalscience.com/i... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They've been spewing this crap for over 50 years. In the 70's, we were headed to a new ice age, because of pollution blocking sunlight. In the 80's-90's, it was global warming. When that didn't work, it was called climate change. When that didn't work, it was called climate emergency. The earth climate changes the most when a huge volcano explodes more than anything man does or doesn't. The earth cycles...not in 1,2,5,10 year cycles, but in HUNDREDS of year cycles. The problem is, the ignorant only see history, from the time they were born.
"This is fine."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They've been spewing this crap for over 50 years. In the 70's, we were headed to a new ice age, because of pollution blocking sunlight.
Do us all a favour and drop the "Ice age in the 1970s" arrow from your quiver - there was no scientific consensus of a coming ice age, it was a beat-up by a couple of "science" magazines on a bit of loose talk. There was however, since before the 1980s, warnings about fossil fuel-based climate change.
If you want to talk about whose benefiting from all this, it's not the scientists, it's the fossil-fuel companies. They've been pushing the FUD button as hard as they can, and it seems to have lit you up.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no scientific consensus today either.
Yes there bloody is, unless you insist on absolute unanimity of opinion, which is vanishingly rare in the scientific world. Many if not all of those "qualified scientists" you mention that oppose the notion are not qualified in the field of climate science, and many of them accept funding from those fossil fuel companies. Science is not a numbers game, but there are many many more who agree with the consensus that climate change is anthropocentric than who oppose it, and it would be challenging to name a r
Re: (Score:2)
This is a make-or-brake situation for the human race and it looks very much like we will not make it.
So according to you, it's a break situation. All hell is now going to break loose, right?
The real question is whether you're completely stupid or disingenuous. At some point you could not feel the warming with your senses, because it was beginning. Now you can. Our bodies clearly sense it. The science has grown tremendously. Everything is pointing in the same direction.
What exactly is wrong with you ?
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is wrong with you ?
Denial, bad education, stupidity. All in pretty large doses. Anybody that still thinks that climate change will not be a huge long-term catastrophe has no connection to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
the fear machine has to keep running so "they" can justify more control and unnecessary spending
there's been a lot of unnecessary spending on militaries that FAR outweigh the relative pittance on climate change & global warming research & mitigation.
"more control"? how? my interest & awareness of environmental issues began in the early 80s when pickups were rare in suburbs & cities & the pioneering Jeep SUV had just been introduced.
what were you controlled into buying or not buying? lightbulbs?
tell us how that ruined your life
Re: (Score:2)
what were you controlled into buying or not buying? lightbulbs?
tell us how that ruined your life
You've heard of Greta Thunberg, have you not? I heard that as a child she was so scared of global warming ending the world that she was struck mute and was barely eating. Her parents, teachers, and other adults around her had her so scared that she could not even speak. She's apparently improved some since then but she's still been made so scared of global warming that she's made it her career to raise awareness of global warming. She can't be the only person as a child that was scared speechless from
Re: (Score:2)
At least in America, fear is how far too many thing are sold and I think way more kids have been traumatized by nuclear threats back in the day & active shooting drills today.
Greta Thunberg is an extreme example but it's telling that she didn't just curl up & cry or kill herself but stood up, stepped up & took action.
More should do the same & we should enable that kind of resilience & determination.
"This fear is so pervasive in our lives that the trivial task of buying a light bulb bring
Re: (Score:2)
there's been a lot of unnecessary spending on militaries that FAR outweigh the relative pittance on climate change & global warming research & mitigation.
You must be kidding. Are you paying attention to the world. Ukraine did not spend that much money on military. How has that faired for them?
Taiwan is more than a little concerned and must spend money to stop CHina from invading.
India is spending money because Pakistan and China keep invading their lands.
Viet Nam is concerned because China keeps trying to steal their lands/resources.
Philippines are concerned because China keeps trying to steal their lands/resources.
Japanese are concerned because China
Re: (Score:2)
"Ukraine did not spend that much money on military"
They put their faith in the Budapest Memorandum; in retrospect that was probably a mistake but it's not clear what else they could have done.
The arms race broke the USSR & while Russia seems to be much improved in the past 10-20 years, it's been a long slow climb out of being a shithole country, still a work in progress.
All your other points have something in common, namely China. The West did a LOT, far too much to helped China become what it is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, with that said, before Xi, China WAS headed in the right direction. But even with that, I would have preferred that we helped Russia, Brazil, Mexico, India, etc far more that helping the CCP.
And yes, I think that the west, mainly America and less of the Western allies, are responsible for having pushed our companies there. Though to be fair, it was far less about pushing and more abo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's deaths from extreme weather, famine, & diseases, which naturally increase exponentially as the climate warms.
Then there's the climate refugees, displaced because where they're from is no longer inhabitable; Think exoduses on a massive scale.
The USA already has internally displaced climate refugees & cities are accommodating most of them, so far. It's gonna get a whole lot worse though; Think "The Gra
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing with a moron. Notice his progression: it's not here, we'll it is but it's not bad, we it is but the alternative is worse. Whatever facts or reason you present you'll just be playing whac-a-mole with his excuses. He will not ever acknowledge that he was wrong on any point even though he smoothly minds from one to another predicated on the previous being wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol no you are not coming with an argument, or proposing anything. You first claimed it's not here yet, then that it's not too bad and then that doing anything is too hard. The first is objectively false, the second is dependent on your definition of "too bad", but you know people are dying now, so it's not good and the third is just a pointless brain fart from you.
So, who is the moron?
You, objectively so.
Re: (Score:2)