monkey wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-close-to-irreversible-climate-breakdown-warn-major-studies
It's hopeless. We've fucked it. Out of time now.

Works for me.

Honestly it's like 3+ is in doubt. Emissions have only accelerated since lockdowns were in force.

It's game over, man.  We're all gonna die!

We were never keeping to 1.5. Too much, too soon.

Should have bought two and washed them both.

I absolutely agree that once we get our arses into gear then we can move quite quickly. It’s just about when that point comes.

poprock wrote:

To bring a little more optimism to the table, I’ve spoken to people over the last month or so who genuinely believe they can save the world. At least in terms of energy transition and reversing global warming. Heads of research schools at some of the big universities, and so on.

So … there’s hope still. But in the form of ‘new science can yet save us!’ Which might be a bit premature when it hasn’t actually been done yet.

How much of it is science vs habits though? People had meltdowns over wearing masks. Getting any personal contribution from people of a similar stubborn mindset will be challenging.

Anyone read Ministry for the Future? It might take a severe wet bulb event to wake a critical mass of people up.

This is about switching off fossil fuels pretty much overnight because something better comes along.

Generating electricity via fusion, for example. Or making solar in a new way that’s so great we dump all other forms of generation.

A proper scientific breakthrough, revolutionary stuff.

Magic, basically. Magic’s now our only hope.

Fusion needs a succession of breakthroughs. It’s one thing making it happen. Then you've got to capture power from it. Then make it happen at scale. Then make a power plant that won’t melt after a few weeks.

monkey wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

monkey wrote:

I think as soon as you get the first extreme event in mainland US or Europe then you’ll get the political movement necessary.

Not exactly sure what would count as the first extreme event in Europe or the US. We’ve had a rise in all kinds of extreme events in both places, some of which have been pretty unprecedented (London was on fire over the summer and not because of a bakery this time), none of those appear to have prompted any real urgency to fix things.

A natural disaster that can be hand-waved away by Fox News. “We’ve always had heat waves.”

If famously damp London catching fire can be handwaved, I genuinely cannot picture what would need to happen that can’t be.

monkey wrote:

undeniably caused from the climate breaking down.

I think this is the tricky part. In the course of history, pretty much every type of climate event has been experienced pretty much everywhere due to some freak confluence of circumstances, there’s always room to spread doubt about the causes of these events.

acemuzzy wrote:

I think people will handwave whatever it is

Yup. 

There's a pretty strong movement within the anti-anti-environmental movement that basically says that ok sure yes, climate change is happening BUT it's actually something that is occurring naturally and has happened throughout earth's natural history and so our best bet is to prepare to adapt rather than prevent.

A climate disaster, to them, will be an example of sth perfectly normal and any attempt to counteract it will be attacked as a pointless waste of money.

What a cunt.

Within this very page of this very thread there are criticisms of "people" (I assumed from it was members of the public?) who will remain sceptical and hand wave things away until they are underwater and even then just say things like "it's natural, gotta get some gills", and yet still, the position that we can all contribute to changing things (no, not just via virtue signalling yoghurt pot cleaning or dropping a steak from a diet), which would contribute to the education and mass movement towards pressure and changing mindsets and behaviours, which would lead to fewer people resisting the science and fewer people denying reality and more pressure on those leading us and representing us, is totally misunderstood and misrepresented.

It's not about making you feel guilty for your steak, Paul, or suggesting that people giving up steaks would equal the breakthrough we need to save us. It's about finding a way to get people (both 'everyone', especially those normies who deny climate science or hope for magic, and our leaders and representatives who come up with laws) to do something about this before it really is too late (unless you do believe magic of course?) - laws are the only way you will stop businesses in China, the US, India etc from fucking us up for real.

This conversation is a dead end I know I'm gonna get loads of "ha you've fallen for the large company trap, putting all the guilt onto us the little people as if me not eating steak makes any difference" and I'm going to wonder again at the logical capabilities of human beings and then eat a steak and post it on tiktok to show them big businesses