Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

WPMUFC said:
My recommendations for understanding and processing this side of humans:
  • Merchants of Doubt (book)
  • Losing Earth (book)
  • Drilled - Podcast series.
The mixture of strict ideology (conservatism extremism) in the early years and still present today, was the driving force for arguing that government/supranational action was essentially communism/soviet policy. On top of this, you had the short-termism voices that argued that you could not model future economic catastrophe so it was better to get stinking rich now and let "hypothetical humans" deal with "hypothetical problems" in the future. The reason we are where we are now is that extreme conservatism and short-term people won the war inside corporations and government over the last 50 years. Government officials that screamed governmental policy was "communism" won the policy debate. The short-termists argued and won the argument that the stock price was the only thing they had to care about. When you get to right now, these voices are still dominate because their ideology and short-termism achieved their intended goal, it made them filthy rich. This enabled them to dominate the popular and governmental discourse, and conservatism extremism has created an unmovable power-base which disproportionately controls policy compared to their actual political adherents/base which is disproportionately funded by status-quo short-termists.

In particular, I would have a listen to the last ~10 episodes of Drilled which goes into great detail about how the oil companies had seriously fantastic scientific research on global warming and certain parts of the businesses actually led the charge on framing global warming science as the potential source of vast riches for these companies (as in, "ok we have the science, lets become the leaders of renewable energy first and dominate a new market"). This is when the mixture of those two things noted above overwhelmed this progressive view of solving the problem. And I would say its only been within the last 10-15 years that potentially the first weaknesses in the dominate structures have become visible. By no means is the prevailing dominate ideology or economic narrative in threat of being replaced, but their arguments are losing weight. If you think about it like that, maybe within the last 10-15 years have seen seen a weakness in the prevailing narrative, I think could be one possible explanation for where we are now.
Click to expand...

A rather convoluted post which I have read a few times.
There is a mass of evidence that the oil producing companies knew pretty much categorically that burning fossil fuels was not going to end well for humanity.
And in fact they used significant amounts of their revenue to try and persuade the various scientific communities otherwise.
And in my view they are totally culpable and should be forced by legislation to contribute to reducing C02 levels as a result.

Where we are now is the reality that the world is unlikely to meet the +1.5C maximum threshold. And maybe by a wide margin.
And no amount of arguing about who is to blame is going to change that.
 
FqyfT79X0AkBNy1
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65000182

Despite some positive news, the reality of this report which has been agreed by all governments is that humanity is highly likely to exceed the +1.5C maximum figure.
And it calls for all governments to bring forward their net zero by a decade to 2030. Something even the most optimistic of us will recognise as an extremely remote possibility.
 
Buster15 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65000182

Despite some positive news, the reality of this report which has been agreed by all governments is that humanity is highly likely to exceed the +1.5C maximum figure.
And it calls for all governments to bring forward their net zero by a decade to 2030. Something even the most optimistic of us will recognise as an extremely remote possibility.
Click to expand...

Most bodies have been saying 1.5c is gone for some time. It's happening within the next decade the only question is how much will we overshoot and for how long.

There's clearly no panic from major world governments but since when did they ever care about the most vulnerable. They've probably sized in +1.7c warming and decades of it as a tolerable GDP hit.
 
The weather here (Switzerland specifically, but presumably most of Europe) has been off for a few years now. Was 20°C last week, then the next day it snowed heavily, then the next day it was back up to 18°C. And last year was the driest year in ages, and this current year is drier again until now.

And now with more and more reports and findings about how we're not getting anywhere near any targets, it's all a bit hopeless. Is there any reason for optimism?
 
BD said:
The weather here (Switzerland specifically, but presumably most of Europe) has been off for a few years now. Was 20°C last week, then the next day it snowed heavily, then the next day it was back up to 18°C. And last year was the driest year in ages, and this current year is drier again until now.

And now with more and more reports and findings about how we're not getting anywhere near any targets, it's all a bit hopeless. Is there any reason for optimism?
Click to expand...
I have completely given up on humanity reaching those targets. Nobody wants to give up even the lightest of new luxuries we have seen become normal in the last 20 years, we are addicted to doing things the easy way rather than taking the smarter, slightly more difficult route.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Why we aren’t rioting en masse against this 1% is completely beyond me!
Click to expand...

To be in the top 1% income it's 'only' around £78k. That's the issue with these things, it's yet another finger pointing exercise designed to make us feel better when the issues are actually closer to home. Most of us will be in top 10%.

Anyone taking a flight every year or driving around in an SUV is already amongst the worst direct polluters. Anyone voting for political parties that take half measures or lip service is to blame.

We're not mentally equipped to sacrifice our comforts for a distant issue. Come election time though we should be, yet most will vote prejudice or the false solutions of centrists.
 
Stack said:
I have completely given up on humanity reaching those targets. Nobody wants to give up even the lightest of new luxuries we have seen become normal in the last 20 years, we are addicted to doing things the easy way rather than taking the smarter, slightly more difficult route.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think it is even more depressing than that. Renewables, if promoted and funded as well as fossil fuels would be cheaper, cleaner (obvioulsy), sustainable and able to replace a huge propotion of fossil fuel use now and even more in the future as EVs become the norm. But governments are addicted to the tax revenue and (far more importantly) they are addicted to helping their mates in the fossil fuel industries maintain their huge profits.

I don't always agree with The Greens but I vote for them as they are the only party here who really take global warming and climate change seriously. We have a Greens local MP (the only one in NSW) amd we now have a few Green Federal MPs but I don't see them getting anywhere near power any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
Most bodies have been saying 1.5c is gone for some time. It's happening within the next decade the only question is how much will we overshoot and for how long.

There's clearly no panic from major world governments but since when did they ever care about the most vulnerable. They've probably sized in +1.7c warming and decades of it as a tolerable GDP hit.
Click to expand...

Yes definitely. World leaders will always talk about what they are supposed to be doing about climate change.
Just more and more bullsh1t I am afraid. None of them can actually be trusted. Just full of self interest.
As long as they can cling onto power, the rest of us can burn for all they care.
 
Wibble said:
Sadly I think it is even more depressing than that. Renewables, if promoted and funded as well as fossil fuels would be cheaper, cleaner (obvioulsy), sustainable and able to replace a huge propotion of fossil fuel use now and even more in the future as EVs become the norm. But governments are addicted to the tax revenue and (far more importantly) they are addicted to helping their mates in the fossil fuel industries maintain their huge profits.

I don't always agree with The Greens but I vote for them as they are the only party here who really take global warming and climate change seriously. We have a Greens local MP (the only one in NSW) amd we now have a few Green Federal MPs but I don't see them getting anywhere near power any time soon.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you. You are Spot On as usual.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WPMUFC said:
wow he's one of those "the food pyramid causes disease" nutters as well?

How on earth was he ever able to hold down a university job?
Click to expand...
It’s grifter playbook. He nods to all the individual conspiracies not because he believes them, but because he knows how rabidly certain groups of people do. So he throws them each a little bait every now and they suddenly think he’s based and they feel seen and start rabidly following him too and that’s what he monetises.
 
Pexbo said:
It’s grifter playbook. He nods to all the individual conspiracies not because he believes them, but because he knows how rabidly certain groups of people do. So he throws them each a little bait every now and they suddenly think he’s based and they feel seen and start rabidly following him too and that’s what he monetises.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think he might actually genuinely believe these things. Keep in mind that he nearly killed himself by putting himself in a coma to escape addiction.

He's dumb.
 
WPMUFC said:
wow he's one of those "the food pyramid causes disease" nutters as well?

How on earth was he ever able to hold down a university job?
Click to expand...

The guy literally only eats meat. He's bound to oppose anything that might endanger his wonder diet.
 
berbatrick said:
Click to expand...


Yes indeed. We simply can not dismiss the possibility of that happening.
I do believe that a high proportion of people are acting like it has nothing to do with them and are going to continue doing what they have been doing with impunity.

We, those of us who actually care, already know that even reaching a net zero emissions will be nothing like good enough.
We have to become negative emitters by activity removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. And removing them quickly and at scale. And that is still some way off.
 
I've got a mate who loves Peterson for some reason, and a few years ago I told him he'll go down the climate change denier grift route and you'll probably end up defending that too.. when i brought up some of his climate skeptic tweets recently the cnut said "well I haven't seen any of the climate evidence so I can't comment".. the prick
 
Gehrman said:
Click to expand...





Micheal Thomas, who writes the climate newsletter Distilled, outlined the shift in wording driven by Brazil and Argentina, countries with large and influential beef industries. As Thomas points out, the IPCC report’s authors initially recommended a shift to plant-based diets, stating that “plant-based diets can reduce GHG emissions by up to 50% compared to the average emission-intensive Western diet,” according to a draft leaked by Scientist Rebellion.

In the published report, the line was changed to “balanced, sustainable healthy diets acknowledging nutritional needs,” skirting a direct mention of beef and dairy, what a sustainable diet actually looks like, or any reference to the Western and largely wealthy countries that should most urgently start eating less meat.

Other revelations from the leak include Norway watering down wording about the urgency to reduce emissions; China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt calling for references to “subsidies” to be deleted; Saudi Arabia pushing to suggest carbon capture and storage as a suitable replacement for using renewable energy; and Switzerland and the US pushing back on a reference to developing countries’ access to climate financing.
 
I might as well just go kill myself now.

What’s the fecking point? People will just keep going, making the all mighty dollar, and destroy our fecking planet in the process.

Why the feck I brought a child into this world I’ll never know, and will never forgive myself for it.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I might as well just go kill myself now.

What’s the fecking point? People will just keep going, making the all mighty dollar, and destroy our fecking planet in the process.

Why the feck I brought a child into this world I’ll never know, and will never forgive myself for it.
Click to expand...

May as well just wait for mother nature to go bat shit crazy so then at least you can say "told you so" to all the ignorant, selfish morons. Gotta have the final say!
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I might as well just go kill myself now.

What’s the fecking point? People will just keep going, making the all mighty dollar, and destroy our fecking planet in the process.

Why the feck I brought a child into this world I’ll never know, and will never forgive myself for it.
Click to expand...

If it's any consolation, the planet will be just fine. Humanity [and loads of animals] won't, but that's another matter.
 
The thing is, most people don't care and never will. It's not about those who don't believe that there is climate change, it's also about those who are aware but keep living their lives to the fullest. Travel, vacations, all those things are problematic in the current world and are just adding up to trouble. It will be too late when it hits us all on the head.

Capitalism and consumerism are not compatible with long-term existence of human-inhabitable (or inhabitable at all) Earth, and ideas of going green seem to be made up just to prolong the inevitable. We have to divorce from the economic growth model as it will make us vanish. When I see something like "Green growth" it actually angers me. It really is nothing more than the free pass to continue going down the destructive route that we are on, without changing a thing in the way we live. I'm pretty sure that whoever came up with the idea of going green had different things in mind.
 
It's a shame he gave an idiot like Kennedy such easy points to score.
 
Dickheads like Kennedy are exactly why we are fecked and will never get where we need to go. But that guy he was talking to should’ve had the numbers at hand.
 
BD said:
So what's the alternative that Kennedy is proposing? Or is it just a case of it's too expensive and difficult, so let's do feck all?
Click to expand...

Im not Kennedy so i dont know. But i imagine he wants some specific estimates from the person who's job it is to have those estimates.

On deeper level i can imagine he's toying with idea whether spending trillions of dollars makes any meaningful difference considering south american countries, China and India are increasing their co2 output and are unwilling to stop to do so at the expense of the wealth of their citizens and economical growth which just means the US would be spending a fortune in symbolic politics that amounts to feck all.
 
Last edited:
BD said:
So what's the alternative that Kennedy is proposing? Or is it just a case of it's too expensive and difficult, so let's do feck all?
Click to expand...

I was curious about the source, so I took a quick look at his twitter page. Turns out he recently re-tweeted a tweet by EndWokeness. You know, this guy:

FvdQIy2XsAIbaz6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.