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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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