Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.

  • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    7 months ago

    My favorite part was when corporations lied their asses off to the entire world for over 50 years while simultaneously telling is this is all our fault but if we recycled and didn’t use too much water, gas, or electricity we could undo the harm that we were personally responsible for.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I’m rather fond of the part where they admitted to those lies, and the US didn’t force them to pay restitutions equal to the cost of mitigating the damage they’ve caused.

        • Zombifrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          But we fined them $10,000 and wagged our fingers at them, surely they won’t do it again!

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        In 2068, I’m sure some entrepreneurial politician will run on the “Prosecute the oil companies!” platform, long after a bunch of them have gone bankrupt and all the damage has long since been irreparably done.

        Until then, we just need to keep looking for the Least Bad politician (the guy who has one hand out to fossil fuel and another to privatized wind/solar) rather than the guy who insists wind farms spread COVID with 5g, and hope we don’t live long enough to reap the whirlwind.

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Alright time for corporations to take responsibility and shut down all of their emissions. No more new cars, or gasoline for existing cars, or oil, or meat, a lot of the electrical grid is coming down, construction is halted, no more deliveries or shipping.

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          What do you wanna aim for, half? Cut all these things in half, prices skyrocket and only rich folks can afford. A quarter? There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.

          • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.

            This is true in the world we live in now. The powers that be like the way things are, They are mostly very old and very rich, they don’t give a fuck. This makes it easy for massive corporations that have created this mess to manipulate those in power so they don’t have to do anything to be apart of fixing the problems

            But there is a world where we could put younger, more concerned people into power that could start to make some changes to how the world works. This won’t fix the problem, we are too far along for that, but it would at least (hopefully) not make this planet completely uninhabitable to every form of life.

            • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s not like a greedy old fucks are going to just step down. For that dream to happen if would have to be by force.

      • Eigerloft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        Good ideas all around. Thanks for suggesting them. Shut it all down before we all burn to death or drown.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m curious what your point is. I am not trying to be rude, just not sure what you’re getting at. Do you think there’s no solution so we just ride the whole mess out?

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          as you can see in the comment I was replying to, discussions of emissions always get derailed by putting responsibility on corporations when faced with the prospect of changing their own lifestyle to lower emissions. But the emissions people want corporations to take responsibility for are the same emissions coming out of their own tailpipes, and I dont mean that figuratively. An oil corporation isnt just pumping emissions into the air at the drill site, or the pipeline, or the corporate office. When researchers are talking about carbon footprint of oil companies, they’re literally talking about the co2 emitted from the process which is at the end point, your vehicle.

          There is no world where responsibility is taken for emissions that doesnt cut off access to these high emissions products and services to people, either by corporations no longer providing it, or people no longer buying it, it doesnt matter which side you blame, you dont get to keep driving a gas vehicle, eat red meat, or use non-renewable electricity.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I kinda get where you’re coming from. I believe in personal responsibility and try to limit my own impact (no car, vegan) and just in my own life it’s frustrating talking to people who turn around and say ‘but corporations’.

            But I still think holding them accountable would be helpful, it might force people to finally address these issues, money could go toward pedestrian infrastructure and subsidies for vegan businesses and foods. In a lot of cases it’s not as simple as people choosing, corporations have helped create a world where, for a lot of people, there is no choice.

          • daltotron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            the point people are generally making when they complain about corporations comprising the majority of the emissions is that they have the majority of the actual control in the situation, there’s not really a real alternative that exists to a lot of these other options that’s viable for people to actually partake in, short of moving out into the countryside and deciding to start homesteading, which also takes a lot of resources to start up. And then also that, because the corporations have a lot of the control, and the consumers can’t realistically do jack shit, it makes more sense to put the focus on them and regulate what they do.

            lots of people can’t live without a car right now because they don’t have access to public transit. lots of the food supply that exists right now is energy inefficient because it’s profitable for the corporations to rely on publicly subsidized highway infrastructure and underpaid non-union trucking and guarantee consistent delivery times compared to huge idiot precision scheduled rail operations. some people can’t switch over to a non-coal power plant without cutting out basically all electrical use from their life (not sustainable) or ponying up for solar panels on their roof (can’t be done everywhere, potentially makes the grid less stable, expensive even with tax credits, can’t do it if you’re renting).

            none of that is shit that they’re really given any say on outside of occasional city council meetings which realistically affect very little about their local community, and like an election every couple years. I don’t think there’s an equal share of responsibility there, and I don’t think the people even really have the ability to take responsibility for it. even just looking at it pragmatically, even if they had the ability to do so, they probably won’t. it makes more sense to attack the head of the pyramid there, to attack the concentration of power.

          • tmsbrdrs2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s not such a bad thing either.

            Renewable energy should be subsidized for any home owner/apartment building/business which has somewhere to put solar panels or wind turbines to augment the grid locally. Budget for battery backups and you have a solution for the majority of use cases. Next, why not make EVs an even better proposition than they currently are? Increase the number of level DCFC stations, put level 2 charging everywhere it’s feasible, including restaurants, the library, all public buildings, grocery stores. Battery size can be reduced if you can charge literally everywhere you go. Your third point with beef. Well, doctors have been saying for decades not to eat so much red meat. Now there’s a climate excuse for being able to replace all those burger chains with something healthier.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            But even if the pollution is all yours, the corporations do share responsibility.

            The entire point of capitalism is to decide in your best financial interest, but your cheapest option is the most polluting and the corps biggest profit is what they can mass produce the most of. The whole system is resistant to change unless government looks out for the interests of its constituents and shapes the market for the constituents best interest.

            I recently had reason to buy a car. I chose an EV for my investment into one little corner of our future, but it was not the best choice financially. I’m a bad capitalist. Government incentives did help a lot though. I know transitioning to EVs is important, but $11k incentives made it affordable. It’s not looking for a handout, it’s government looking out for our future by helping the transition along.

            But there also needs to be EVs to buy and chargers to charge at. All of which are an up front investment that is good in the long term but poor financial decision in the short term. Yes the corps need to be pushed. They been pushed for years, over a decade and just keep resisting change. Given all the backpedaling this past year, legacy car manufacturers need to be pushed harder, maybe to the point where their existence is threatened if they still don’t do the right thing. But it’s not just pushing, incentives are important to growing the market and creating a profit incentive

      • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’ll go vegetarian and ride my bike, fuck it.

        That said, these motherfuckers need to fix what they fucked up, not just stop making it worse.

    • FortuneMisteller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      They are telling provocative things on purpose. It is needed to create the fake debate that traps the public between two falsehood.

      The heated tones and the strong arguments are meant to enrage people, drag them into the battle and push them to take one side and accept the arguments of that side without a proper deep thinking.