• Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    3 months ago

    For better or worse (definitely worse), we’re going to stroll right into the horrors that global warming is going to give us. We won’t start making necessary changes until it’s way way past any tipping points.

    The people that care have no power. The people in power are driven by capitalist profit motives.

    If you’re a sci-fi nerd like me we can hope aliens or a true AGI will take over and save us lol. Short of that I have no confidence, mad max dystopia by 2100 or sooner.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      3 months ago

      It doesn’t take aliens or a true AGI; it takes stopping fossil fuel use, ending deforestation, and phasing out a few trace chemicals. Do that, and we end the rising temperatures

      Making that happen is a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

      • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh I totally agree with you, but

        a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

        This is the problem. To say this wouldn’t be easy is a huge, gargantuan understatement.

        The power and control is so far reaching and deep into the foundation of our society, I can’t help being cynical. By using politics and propaganda techniques huge portions of the population have been convinced that global warming either isn’t real, isn’t important, or is actually a good thing. And this is only one hurdle to overcome along with many others.

        The question is how do we seize power back.

        • zqwzzle@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

          • nlgranger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m a bit dubious that revolutions can be effective nowadays against a well organised oppressive state with present tools (propaganda, police, surveillance, corruption). All revolutions have failed over the last few decades (Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Tunisia then Arab Spring, etc.).

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          The answer varies a lot between countries. In ones where elections determine who holds power, they’re a viable path to achieving change.

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

        And the odds of any of that actually happening? How exactly are you going to regulate the growth of industries internationally in a way that doesn’t just end up offshoring the pollution to poor countries like it already has been for centuries?

        Dudes right, we need a dues ex machina to save us. We won’t make meaningful changes until it’s profitable to do so. So expect to see a lot of companies transition into cooling and environmental control. Because they won’t address the core problem, just sell you bandaids for the symptoms. The next advancement won’t be “less emissions”, it’ll be “this new coolant cools 35% better”.

        Look at heat pumps. Its literally just an AC unit that can swap the hot and cold side with a valve. It’s nothing new. But it’s the new “miracle cure” to all your heating and cooling needs. Just run your electricity that most likely comes from a coal power plant and smugly think about how you personally aren’t using gas to do it!

        We won’t fix it ourselves without major intervention.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Realistically, you couple domestic regulation with a carbon tariff, assessing incoming goods a fee based on differential pollution in their country of origin.

          • fishos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ok. You did that. China is still selling to other countries and polluting all over the place.

            Now what?

            Somalia is still burning our recycling. What about that?

            For every hole you plug, there are 10 more. But sure, we can call agree on this one thing even though the entire history of humanity has basically been “I disagree, let’s fight a war over it”.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Most studies say it’s already too late to stop a lot of it. There’s tons and tons of studies and models that say if we magically cut off all sources of climate forcing we’d still see an increase from the damage already done for centuries. We can obviously make things a LOT better for ourselves by stopping or limiting ourselves right now but a lot of damage is already done. Plus any significant changes will most likely take a decade plus to really get momentum and actually take place anyway.

      That’s why now you’re starting to see a lot more research into mitigation rather than prevention cause we’re starting to move into the “well how are we going to fix this” phase rather than the “we need to stop this from happening phase”

      The biggest indicators are the oceans. Just take a gander at oceanic temperatures over the last like 25 years. since they absorb something like 95% of our thermal extremes we’re seeing some bonkers changes out there…

    • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      by capitalist profit motives.

      I wouldn’t say it is about profits anymore, I think it’s more about their own security. Looks like we’re in the start of WWIII, so cutting down carbon dioxide sources by the US/EU would mean that China/Russia will have great advantage because they won’t cut their sources and because people in the US/EU will not be happy with that decision en masse.

    • Final Remix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’re just so big and safe!*

      *not for the other drivers, or the pedestrians who get nailed by a rolling wall of a frontend.

      • laverabe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        or in the case of parents buying SUVs to make their own children safe, children are 8 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV versus a passenger car. (ie: in their own driveway) And that’s not even factoring the added risk of blindspots for children too small to be seen from the driver seat!

        children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to those struck by a passenger car

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        They also have significantly higher rollover risk which is why the best deaths per million kilometer stats belong to big sedans and wagon not SUVs.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      As in “We haven’t cut emissions to zero yet.” We can, and will. It’s a question of whether we do it quickly enough to preserve a civilization-supporting climate.

      • Einar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Likely not. The next years will be hell. Then, after 10 years or so - maybe sooner -, 2024 will be remembered as one of the more pleasant years with still bearable temperatures and comparably few catastrophes. We even still had affordable coffee and olive oil.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        We should probably start with reducing the rate of increase first. Then talk about reducing emissions per year. As for zero emissions, I fail to see how we have a civilization of any sort without some emissions. Maybe that’s the point. Was “Net Zero” a hidden word for collapse all along?

          • hobovision@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s a really hopeful reading of that chart. What I see in that chart is that even a year or two of falling emissions could quickly be wiped away. Just look at 2022.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s a bit more than that; there are policies in place which make Chinese emissions likely to slowly drop from here on out

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes. But it makes the second sentence make more sense.

        And for the answer, the Jurassic Park “see, nobody cares” meme would fit in well.

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Like I understand what they are trying to say, but yeah really ticks me off when people say “ever” when they mean “yet”

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    3 months ago

    Well, technically we’ll reduce out emissions. Just, it’ll likely be after a mass extinction event.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Will the rotting corpses cause a spike in carbon emissions or would it immediately drop?

      • Final Remix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Rotting corpses can’t order scop from Temu that ships on old bunker fuel ships, oddly in private jets that account for hundreds of cars worth of emissions per flight.

      • Contravariant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think humans are mostly carbon-neutral, but decomposition might release gasses that are worse than just CO2. Burning them directly would probably be better.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      We’re at the point where we’ve stepped into a minefield, where each step forward risks losing major ecosystems. We need to take immediate steps to stop walking further into it.

  • JPSound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Jokes on you tho. I’ve been desperately sick and stuck inside with air conditioning and cats🫅 battling that deadly virus that shut the world down a few years ago which scientists expect may happen more and more often bc climate change (pfff… whatever nerds). It was nice and cool in here, so I don’t know what the crying is all about. Just burry your head as deep as possible and the most dense and tightly packed sand you can get ahold of and, voilá, problem solved once and for all!