Thousands of Scientists Warn Climate Tipping Points 'Imminent' (aljazeera.com) 311
Thousands of scientists have repeated calls for urgent action to tackle the climate emergency, warning that several tipping points are now imminent. From a report: The researchers, part of a group of more than 14,000 scientists who have signed on to an initiative declaring a worldwide climate emergency, said in an article published in the journal BioScience on Wednesday that governments had consistently failed to address "the overexploitation of the Earth," which they described as the root cause of the crisis. Since a similar assessment in 2019, they noted an "unprecedented surge" in climate-related disasters, including flooding in South America and Southeast Asia, record-shattering heatwaves and wildfires in Australia and the US, and devastating cyclones in Africa and South Asia.
For the study, scientists relied on "vital signs" to measure the health of the planet, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, glacier thickness and sea-ice extent and deforestation. Out of 31 signs, they found that 18 hit record highs or lows. For example, despite a dip in pollution linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, levels of atmospheric CO2 and methane hit all-time highs in 2021. Greenland and Antarctica recently showed all-time low levels of ice mass and glaciers are melting 31-percent faster than they did just 15 years ago, the authors said. Ocean heat and global sea levels set new records since 2019, and the annual loss rate of the Brazilian Amazon reached a 12-year high in 2020. Echoing previous research, the researchers said forest degradation linked to fire, drought and logging was causing parts of the Brazilian Amazon to now act as a source of carbon, rather than absorb the gas from the atmosphere.
For the study, scientists relied on "vital signs" to measure the health of the planet, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, glacier thickness and sea-ice extent and deforestation. Out of 31 signs, they found that 18 hit record highs or lows. For example, despite a dip in pollution linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, levels of atmospheric CO2 and methane hit all-time highs in 2021. Greenland and Antarctica recently showed all-time low levels of ice mass and glaciers are melting 31-percent faster than they did just 15 years ago, the authors said. Ocean heat and global sea levels set new records since 2019, and the annual loss rate of the Brazilian Amazon reached a 12-year high in 2020. Echoing previous research, the researchers said forest degradation linked to fire, drought and logging was causing parts of the Brazilian Amazon to now act as a source of carbon, rather than absorb the gas from the atmosphere.
So (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to go into damage control mode (building dikes, moving people away from coast ect)?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you’re a slashdot reader you just say all the scientists are wrong and somehow getting rich from climate change. If that’s true then how do I get in on this sweet deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, generalization there. There are many readers and they don't all share the same view. I have seen comments that say that, but also comments like yours that don't. How you know what Slashdot readers think I don't know? You only hear from posters? Have you access to some survey that says that more than 50% of /. readers think that?
I really wish people would stop grouping people by some arbitrary criteria, in this case they read Slashdot. I personally like to hear and debate from people who disagree with
500 is meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
That article is 100% bullshit by Breitbart.
https://climatefeedback.org/cl... [climatefeedback.org]
The fourth link in your search says so.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Like most fact-checking sites, climate feedback.org is engaging in logical fallacies by attacking sources they don't like and praising the sources they do without acknowledging that the sources they do like are climate activists themselves.
You need to learn to identify and reject logical fallacies and heavily biased "fact-checking." All that matters is the data and the data does NOT support the climate-alarmists.
Re:Which scientists? (Score:5, Insightful)
For an example look at the misery in Syria. The wells ran dry and the corrupt government reserved permits for new and deeper wells to those who paid bribes. When the country could no longer sustain itself, it devolved into civil war with global consequences. This is becoming commonplace and humanity ignores it its own peril.
And what of mass extinction? How will Earth's ecosystem use technology to survive? When it dies, so do we.
You also don't understand the concept of tipping point and clearly assume that the warming trend will be linear when all models indicate that it will not be linear.
Kicking the can down the road isn't an option. Your comments while factual are misleading. Stark warnings are not just political either. The time for drastic action has come already and your statements encourage those less informed to do nothing.
Re:Which scientists? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kicking the can down the road isn't an option.
It better be an option, because that's exactly what we are going to do: make token commitments for the future and implement anything that technology has made cheap enough.
Until there is ocean floods San Francisco we won't take emergency action.
Re: Which scientists? (Score:2)
Which is a cruel and short sighted attitude because the flood in SF will have root cause in something causing similar disasters EVERYWHERE. You cannot wish ill on enemies in this case without hitting yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is a cruel and short sighted attitude because the flood in SF will have root cause in something causing similar disasters EVERYWHERE. You cannot wish ill on enemies in this case without hitting yourself.
You should re-read his post. He wasnt wishing ill on SF - but that flooding there might finally convince the deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
For an example look at the misery in Syria. The wells ran dry and the corrupt government reserved permits for new and deeper wells to those who paid bribes. When the country could no longer sustain itself, it devolved into civil war with global consequences. This is becoming commonplace and humanity ignores it its own peril.
What happened in Syria was an increase in food prices due to the US not exporting much grain that year due to an experiment with biofuels. This affected the 12 different countries where civil wars happened (the Arab Spring). It wasn't about wells in all 12 of them (or probably any of them). I'm sure the corruption of the Syrian government helped but the demonstrations that led to the civil war were in cities with water supplies (many of them next to rivers), not in rural regions where water rights are mo
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a reference that makes the same claim
https://globalanticorruptionbl... [globalanti...onblog.com]
I also heard it again from Bill Gates on
Re:Syria is a climate problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which scientists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours is a sad and weak lie.
Of the 500 "scientists" we have the following right near the top.
Eric Blondeel, retired Civil Engineer.
Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp
Ferdinand Engelbeen, Former chemical process automation engineer, Akzo Nobel Chemicals
Samuel Furfari, Professor of Energy Geopolitics at the Free University of Brussels
Drieu Godefridi, PhD in Law, author of several books
None of which would count as "scientists" qualified to speak on the subject with authority. A PhD in Law does not a scientist make, nor does it confer any expertise what-so-ever on the subject of climate science. And that's not even halfway thru the first country list of people. This is desperate and pathetic attempt at padding the numbers to make it appear the argument is stronger than it is.
To be clear, they're "up top" because the list is alphabetical both by country (Belgium) and then by person last name.
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf [clintel.nl]
Re:Which scientists? (Score:5, Interesting)
I did a CTRL-F for "Climatologist" and found one... kinda.
"Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Paleoclimatologist, New Zealand, Author of the Book The Fable of Stable Climate"
A lot of these people - assuming they're even real - seem to be heads of various associations. That doesn't mean shit. I can establish my own association and declare myself head, doesn't mean my opinion is any more or less qualified on any particular subject. I suspect a lot of these associations are set up by deniers to give themselves a veneer of credibility.
=Smidge=
Re:Which scientists? (Score:4, Insightful)
None of which would count as "scientists" qualified to speak on the subject with authority.
People like civil engineers and economists are also interested in climate change because the effects of it are all-encompassing. The climate extremes and natural disasters are of course impacting cities and economies, so maybe these people do know more about climate change than you think.
Does it even matter if the climate scientists are saying [nasa.gov] the same things [sciencemag.org]?
Re:Agreed on the solution (Re:Which scientists?) (Score:5, Insightful)
So how about you listen to what the actual climatologists say.
No, but science is science and greenhouse gases keep more heat in, it's thoroughly proven by science. Damn fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we listen to Algore on global warming?
He did study it at university, apparently, although he doesn't have a BS or PhD in it. That's better than some, although learning after college is also valid.
Re: (Score:2)
If the big problem is CO2 then "follow the science" on what source of energy has the lowest CO2 emissions.
The problem with that statement is that there are various estimates of what the emissions (LCA) for all sources of power is. They have large ranges, and it is not at all clear which can claim to have the lowest CO2 emissions. Indeed, it varies on factors such as the individual system being built or the quality of inputs such are ore. So there's not actually one right answer to this, as a hydroelectric scheme in one location may well have lower CO2 emissions per GW than a nuclear plant in another. However, i
Re: (Score:2)
We like to think that the slime mold that mindlessly consumes the resources in the bucket before suffering a catastrophic die-off is stupid, but here we humans are, burning and poisoning the world faster than ever in the name of holy mammon.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas and most of the midwest had a once-in-a-century blizzard last winter.
You mean a once-in-a-century blizzard that last happened 10 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Which scientists? (Score:5, Informative)
What will we have in 20 years that we don't have today?
High sea levels, failing crops, a positive feedback loop of fucking up the atmosphere? I'll go with that.
For all your grandstanding we've done precisely fuck all to avert the disaster and are perfectly on track up until 2020 for the estimated emissions of the "Stated Policies Scenario" which climate scientists pretty much unanimously agree is not sufficient to avert disaster.
Why did I say up until 2020? Because the global pandemic caused emissions to drop last year enough to put us on the track of meeting the "450 Scenario". All it took was a global pandemic, fucking up the economy, and locking down populations to prevent them from burning oil. Yeah let's repeat that fuck-off of a year for the next 20 years and combined with your indifferent view we may have a hope in hell of coming out on top.
Less Breitbart and more https://www.iea.org/reports/wo... [iea.org]
Re: So (Score:2)
Re: So (Score:5, Interesting)
We're being impacted even now. The heat dome that nailed western North America was intense enough that it cooked many fruit crops right on the vine. It also means harsher summer droughts that may ultimately make some parts of North American effectively unlivable in the long run, at least for any significant number of people. Sure, countries like Canada and the US can probably work on desalination projects, but desalination is very energy intensive, and using it fill the hole that falling water tables only goes so far; enough for drinking water, but enough for agriculture and major industrial processes?
Shifting rain belts and changes to precipitation patterns are going to play absolute havoc with agriculture. Cost of food is already going up, and it isn't going to come down. Then there's the flooding, and not just coastal sea level rise, but with cooking hot summers and then significant precipitation means overland flooding risks get much worse.
Can the West absorb such costs? To a point, sure. We are wealthy enough to mitigate at least some of it, but it is going to become a major drag on our economies. Insurance companies have already been factoring in climate change into actuary models, and banks are investors are also looking seriously at it.
As to population, it's expected to flatten out by the end of this century, but it's not going to go down any time soon. And as history shows, even a region suddenly is unable to support its population, people just don't sit down and politely die so as to not inconvenience their neighbors, they get up and start walking to where they think food and water are, so the geopolitical ramifications are huge. We're going to see wars of the kind we haven't seen since the Asian Steppe started spilling people out in late Roman and early Medieval times.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, countries like Canada and the US can probably work on desalination projects, ...
The thing about desalination is you have to have something to desalinate in the first place. For any location on the coast building a desalination plant for local needs is an option.
But getting that water to where it's going to be most needed, like Iowa, Kansas, Niger, Chad, etc. is going to be the hard part. Pipelines cost money that governments are not going to want to spend.
Depends on how you do it, there are methods that are not very energy intensive but they are also not very efficient. Its a trade
There are too many people! (Score:2)
"At the end of the day there are too many people and we are extracting resources faster than the ecosystem can adapt."
Correct.
Current World Population [worldometers.info]. Wow! 1,394,794,385 in India.
Joke: I'm male. I've decided I will do my part to prevent population growth. I will never get pregnant!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the damage was done when Earth had a fraction of its present population. Population reduction would actually not be helpful:
https://www.wired.com/story/op... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious - do you consider yourself part of the "too many"? If not, why not, and what do you propose to do about it?
It's really amazing the extent to which people will call for the removal of OTHER PEOPLE....
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but we still need to lower our CO2 usage, otherwise you are going to end up rebuilding your infrastructure more often. We currently rely on Infrastructure that can be hundreds or thousands (if you in Europe or Asia) of years old, with normal upkeep they have long time paid for themselves, having to rebuild the infrastructure every 50 to 100 years, is going to be extremely expensive, and create more issues.
Also there are so many people who are attached to the areas that may become unlivable or greatly
Re: (Score:2)
The best explanation I've seen is from The Newsroom [youtube.com], Season 3, Episode 3.
So my rent is probably going to go up $500 (Score:5, Insightful)
If you care about climate change you have got to stabilize People's livelihoods first. Because it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it. And all the complaining about how bad things are going to be in a few years doesn't mean anything to someone who's facing homelessness now.
Re:So my rent is probably going to go up $500 (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also a huge feeling of hopelessness and that we can't do anything about it. Our politicians don't care and just want to line their own pockets. Even if we all individually tried to be more "green", it would only be a tiny dent; most of what is driving climate change is the output of large corporations. People don't care; hell many won't even get themselves vaccinated to stop an easily controlled virus.
I'm reaching a point where I'm increasingly glad I didn't have kids and that "we might as well enjoy the time we have left." It's not going to change; there's no Captain Planet that is going to fix things. I'm relieved I won't be around to see the worst of it, but feel really bad for the kids growing up now. They deserve better than the hellscape we left for them.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a huge feeling of hopelessness and that we can't do anything about it. Our politicians don't care and just want to line their own pockets.
This is why I speak about the Disease of Greed that has infected mankind, for which we have no cure.
The FUCK is the point in any politician "lining their pockets", especially the ones with children and grandchildren? Do they have some secret utopian planet they're planning on jetting off to for retirement? NO, they don't. They never change their mentality because they're infected. Not by COVID (well maybe, but irrelevant), but by Greed.
Mankind has wasted hundreds if not thousands of years carving line
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I speak about the Disease of Greed that has infected mankind, for which we have no cure.
How do you define greed? When someone wants something that you don't want?
The problem with curing "greed" is that most people who use the word have no clear definition. So it can tautologically never be cured.
Re:So my rent is probably going to go up $500 (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I speak about the Disease of Greed that has infected mankind, for which we have no cure.
How do you define greed? When someone wants something that you don't want?
The problem with curing "greed" is that most people who use the word have no clear definition. So it can tautologically never be cured.
Your sig conveys some irony here. We are not merely all brothers. We are all part of the same human race.
And when it comes to the survival of that race, Greed is simply defined as anyone and anything that looks to pit human against human, and not focus on moving us ALL forward. Soon, the only justification behind "create jobs", will be to work for our literal survival. Right now, Greed is still manipulating those priorities.
Besides, I'd venture to guess the top 500 richest humans (out of over 7 billion), retain at least 50% of the wealth of an entire planet. Says a lot about what needs to change.
Re: (Score:2)
"Greed" is when you still desire to take from others when a) what you have actually works reasonably for you and b) taking from others makes their lives a significantly more worse than it does improve yours. Basically falls back to the most basic definition of "evil": Willingness to accept (or do) significant harm to others for a minor personal gain. In economic terms it would be willingness to destroy value of your society to increase your personal fortune by less of what you destroyed.
Or in layman's terms
Re: (Score:2)
You are basically saying that so much of the human race does not have what it takes that the few that actually see what is going on and how stupid what the others do is have no chance of really doing anything. I think I agree to that.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't just blame politicians. There is a pattern to human history; whether it was in ancient Mesopotamia where poor agricultural practices and lack of maintenance of rivers and canals rendered vast areas of the "Fertile Crescent" rather infertile, or the Mayans not realizing how vulnerable their civilization was, where people just kept on doing what they were doing, and the leadership lacked the will or even the political capital to change their ways. In the West, there are strong commercial interests
Re: (Score:3)
Even if we all individually tried to be more "green", it would only be a tiny dent; most of what is driving climate change is the output of large corporations.
There are no corporations releasing CO2 as a hobby while and cackling like supervillains. They release CO2 because consumers - that's you and me - pay them to. We pay them to do it through power stations and aircraft/ship/truck engines and oil refineries/fuel transport systems (to get fuel to burn in our cars). If we all individually tried to be more "green" we would completely solve global warming, for a sufficiently wide-reaching definition of "being green."
This isn't to say that we shouldn't take collect
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations and Republicans certainly deserve a lot of blame for fighting any action to solve the problem tooth and nail the entire time, even if the problem is ultimately down to what we consumers are paying for. Sure we could all go live like the Unabomber tomorrow and vastly cut our CO2 emissions, but if corporations and Republicans could give up some profits going to people who have no use for it other than as a high-score counter anyway so that we could transition away from fossil energy, we could sol
You're subconsciously shifting blame (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't an accident. Look up John Oliver's video on Recycling and the Plastic industry.
The best thing you can do is vote in your primary election. And (I'll take a hit for this) vote for the Democrat (assuming your American). I think it's safe to say that the GOP won't do a
Re: (Score:2)
So what do the Republicans offer on this issue? That's the thing about making a choice, you can't just impeach one choice and go with the other, you've got to weigh them against each other. The Republican party has gone from being a conservative party to being reactionary one. Reactionaries are just the mirror image of radicals; they're both people bent on transforming society into their ideal, one rooted in an imagined future and another in an imagined past.
It's a shame, because philosophical conservati
What makes you think the rich won't pay? (Score:2)
It's very much not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It can't because climate change creates scarcity and scarcity is good for markets. It raises profits. We've already got people buying up water supplies around the country.
I guess we could wait for technology and science to solve the problem. Letting millio
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of hard to stabilize when one's in the middle of the results. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
One piece of good news here is that as solar and wind power becomes cheaper and batteries become cheaper, that aspect of cost of living may actually become better. There's a serious argument (made for example by Noah Smith here https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-im-so-excited-about-solar-and [substack.com]) that if we can decrease energy cost we'll start seeing the same rapid economic growth we saw in previous times when we discovered new sources of energy.
The extra good news here is that you can personally help wit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. But climate change is what is called a "skill gate" in games. If you do not get past this one, you never get at what challenges and riches lie behind it. The purpose it serves in games is to make sure people that cannot actually handle what is behind it only get one disappointment instead of a series of them.
My impression is the human race as a whole will not get past this one.
what can people do. (Score:2)
I was one of those people doing things like buying CFLs at $30 each back in the 90's to try to reduce my consumption.
But that's just a drop in the bucket compared to everything else going on on the plant. It's immensely frustrating to have spent 30 years trying to help the planet, only to see it's decline accelerating.
Fortunately, I don't have children, so I don't have to care about leaving a decent world for the next generations.
Let's hope AI and machines replace us before this planet becomes too hostile
Re: (Score:2)
>I was one of those people doing things like buying CFLs at $30 each back in the 90's to try to reduce my consumption.
Aww man, some of those early CFLs were just BAD! I had one that would flicker weirdly for like three whole seconds before coming on, then take about four minutes to reach full brightness. We put up with a lot to use those! I'm so glad they got better quickly, and then of course LEDs came along which are better still and crazy efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is what they want you to do, directly from their manifesto [oup.com]:
*) Eliminate fossil fuels (including hydrofluorocarbons) and switch to renewables
*) Protect the earth's ecosystems so they can accumulate carbon and restore biodiversity
*) Become a vegetarian
*) Recycle and don't buy too much (end of "consumerism")
*) Reduce the population
So for you personally, don't eat much meat, don't buy things, don't use air conditioning, and don't have kids.
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't seen the movie "Idiocracy", at least watch the first few minutes to gain an understanding of the irony of your thinking. Children are naturally resourceful, resilient, and adaptable in ways we rarely allow to see the light of day anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop idolizing kids. Kits are just the same mix of idiots, assholes and only a few that actually get things as adults are. Yes, this means most kids are ignorant and many are assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Your namesake understands the perils of overpopulation, and one of its logical conclusions: Trantor.
Carbon footprint-wise, having children is one of the worst things a person can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, I don't have children, so I don't have to care about leaving a decent world for the next generations.
That may backfire. Since nobody knows how that part of reality works, you may just get reborn into this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
The polluting industry wants to position the narrative
What exactly is the pollution industry? Everyone who uses gasoline or electricity, do they count?
Re: (Score:2)
Container ships are a huge source of pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
These corporations pollute like crazy and then say it's up to individuals to buy led bulbs and more efficient appliances. They're shifting the blame and making you pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read my comment, it's not the users.
Yes, I want you to explain yourself because I think you are guilty of fuzzy thinking.
It's the manufacturers and the industry around the vehicles.
What are you saying? That there's a conspiracy where car manufacturers are forcing people to buy cars?
Meanwhile companies are trying to get people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This should be modded up.
Companies that are forcing their employees back into the office don't really care about the environment, despite what they might say.
Re: (Score:2)
... back to burning gas to get to workplaces they don't need to be at.
The effects of not consuming energy cannot be understated enough. We all like to think here we can burn shit with both the heater and AC running at the same time in the hope that some government somewhere will make the coal turn green, but the reality is we as a species need to stop consuming and we can do wonders.
How much wonder? Well look at 2020. That year alone has put us from the track of the https://www.iea.org/reports/wo... [iea.org] "Stated Policies Scenario" which is a far cry from enough to actually avert
Amazon (Score:3)
"the annual loss rate of the Brazilian Amazon reached a 12-year high in 2020."
But the US Amazon had record profits in 2020...
so change the leadership ! (Score:2)
Countries, like corporations, are led by extremely competitive and ambitious people. And they are often interchangeable between corporation and government! Their attention is not on vague problems that might happen some day. They are most concerned about maintaining their leadership. Maintaining their authority.
Oddly enough, it is that authority that got them where they are. Lots of people and voters seem to believe that ambitious people are what we need in leadership positions. The more someone behaves lik
Re: (Score:2)
the US has religion (Score:2)
That goes for the china virus hoax too!!
Vegan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Planning Horizon (Score:3)
No politician (or gaggle of them) will commit to anything involving short-term pain as their planning horizon is 4-5 years at a time (depending on the so-called democracy they operate in). Hell, they can't even get the populous to take basic measures to protect themselves in a pandemic. Mix in capitalism and corporate lobbying and there is a higher chance of me turning into a duck tomorrow than us not sailing right through the climate tipping point with nary a blip in our carbon output.
The Earth will be fine after it kills off a sufficient number of us. That's pretty much the only way this ends.
nobody is listening (Score:2)
"Over the cliff" by Hugo First (Score:3)
China (and now India, the other rising industrial power) couldn't care less about global environmental concerns. They want a high-energy, resource-intensive Western lifestyle for as many of their people as they can manage, and they don't care about the cost or the damage they're doing. China especially, because China isn't limiting its hunger for more resources to its own territory, and is building more and more coal-fired power plants.
I've long stated that a correction needs to be applied and that it would be best if we were to do it collectively as a species. It doesn't matter though. If we don't stop consuming and reproducing at an ever-accelerating pace (and we won't) Mother Nature will cheerfully make that correction for us. Just remember one thing:
Mother Nature is a bitch.
As an aside, if we bungle it and civilization collapses completely, that may well spell the end. We've already used up all of the easy-to-access raw materials (coal, oil, natural gas, minerals of all kinds) with the remainder requiring more and more sophisticated technology to access. There won't be anything left for the next budding civilization to build on.
Re:"Over the cliff" by Hugo First (Score:4, Interesting)
As an aside, if we bungle it and civilization collapses completely, that may well spell the end. We've already used up all of the easy-to-access raw materials (coal, oil, natural gas, minerals of all kinds) with the remainder requiring more and more sophisticated technology to access. There won't be anything left for the next budding civilization to build on.
I agree that this should be a concern. And it should be a concern not just for climate change but for other potential major risks also. One argument for leaving the remaining fossil fuels in the ground is that completely aside from the climate issues, they represent a small insurance policy for any future civilization. Unfortunately, much of the remaining fossil fuels are themselves in more technologically difficult to access locations, so the degree to which this will help is unclear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China is less than half the CO2 emissions per capita as the US, India less than an eighth.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, the civilized West is losing population, indeed many European nations are in a population decline, as is the United States (or would be, were it not for illegal migration.) China currently has almost five times America's population, more people than the U.S. and Europe combined. Worse yet, they have a burgeoning middle class that wants all the cool
Re: (Score:2)
Face facts: North America and Europe can make all the cute little "accords" they want, but that won't make any difference.
China (and now India, the other rising industrial power) couldn't care less about global environmental concerns.
OMG Look over there. It's a China. The solution to global warming to to ensure those poor 3rd world people stay poor while we keep burning energy without remorse because we are America and being the top of emissions per capita tables is as American as guns and Jesus.
Yeah fuck poor people!
USA! USA! USA! /sarcasm
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big believer in needing to remove people immediately. I'd say the simple solution would be education and encouraging breeders to remain under par with their children. Two people spawning six to ten children is why we're watching global population rise at the scale we've seen. And while it's slowed somewhat in some countries, it's not slowed that much worldwide at the moment.
Even if most couples held themselves to just two kids it'd at least get us closer to a stable population number. Holding
The billionaires are leaving the sinking ship (Score:2)
Food for thought.
individually it is my fault - take responsibility! (Score:2)
Look behind you. (Score:2)
Look behind you, that's the cliff you just fell off.
What KIND of "scientists"? (Score:2)
Political science isn't science.
Wealthy elite (Score:2)
I'll go vegan and buy an EV just as soon as the wealthy elite stop buying multi-million dollar ocean front properties and mega mansions.
Do something (Score:2)
If anyone's looking for something to do about this, I recommend: https://citizensclimatelobby.o... [citizensclimatelobby.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists may perhaps have a better understanding of phenomena that are impacting the world on a huge scale right now than those that occurred many millions of years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course science gets "settled", but "settled" in this context refers to a shift in *burden of proof*, not a closing of debate. For example, if you claim momentum in a closed system is conserved, you have no burden of proof and you needn't provide citations for something most people take as fact. If you claim otherwise you need to provide proof and citations.
This usually results in restricting your claims. I chose conservation of momentum because people have seriously challenged that with attempts to bui
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much everything in this statement is wrong. Apocalyptic predictions exist in a lot of religions, but the only major religion where repeated imminent end of the world predictions occur at frequent intervals is Christianity. Even the other Abrahamic religions, Islam, Judaism and Bahai don't do this nearly as frequently. While other religions do make such claims, they are rarer. In the cases of Buddhism and Hinduism, they were nearly non-existent until after the religions had had substantial interactio
Re: (Score:2)
Some Christian individuals have been trying to put an exact date on the second coming, and certainly some sects have - however I think if you bothered to actually study and learn something you'd find the broader Christian community makes no such attempt and rather actively discourages followers from attempting to do so.
But this is slashdot so go on spread your Anti-Christian bigotry, facts won't get in you way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity is just about the only live religion doing this. Where do you get most from?
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 has the properties it has, and thermodynamics is a thing. Understanding these two physical principles means AGW is simply an inevitability. The universe doesn't give a flying fuck about your lifestyle, and the sooner you grow the fuck up, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change isn't going to be the cause of our civilization's decline, it'll be a consequence [wikipedia.org]. But unlike in the movie people don't have to get any dumber; the functional threshold for adequate mentality is constantly rising. In Colonial times, 30% of men and who knows how many women were illiterate, and that was just fine. Today that would be almost immediately catastrophic.
In a society where the general populace chooses leadership it's critical for people to have, not just a familiarity with commonp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$30 Billion inflation adjusted was spent on the Manhattan Project.
We spent that much before, we can certainly do it again.
$30 Billion is not very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we live in a society that is defined by capitalism, thus *everything* we do or have is about money, by definition. Thus if we do *anything* it's going to involve money.
Re: (Score:2)
and definition of a Slashdot troll is?
Re: (Score:2)
Tar sands are natural oil spills, and extracting the oil is allowing for plants to grow there. Had the tar been put there by human activity then there would be "ecocide" charges for not cleaning it up.
What kind of fucking bullshit is this? The issue is ecologically disastrous extraction methods that belch ridiculous amounts of toxins into the sky and formerly pristine watersheds while wasting stupid amounts of energy doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Things are actually going great.
In that shriveled pea brain of yours maybe. In the real world the disasters are stacking up. Couple weeks ago a whole town burned down the day after recording 49.5 degrees C. This is not normal, this stopped being normal years ago.
Just fuck off with your revisionism.