This. It's also not accurate to say it's the warmest we've been in the past 10,000 years, it was likely warmer during the roman warm period, and potentially a couple of other points. So we can only really say it's the warmest we've seen in the last couple hundred years.
That's not to say this isn't concerning, we're on track to smash the roman warm periods average temperatures within our lifetimes and make the earth the hottest it's been since the paleoscene, which would have massive ramifications. But we're not there yet, the problem is that we will likely get there in the next few decades.
If you want some more optimism, we actually have slowed the rate of warming from what was predicted 20 years ago. The reality we are living in would have been considered an "optimistic prediction" at one point. We are still warming, things are still going in the wrong direction, but the changes that people have been making to mitigate global warming are making an impact. We might still be going over the cliff, but at least we're doing it with our brakes on instead of full speed ahead. So yes, I do think it will be decades before we truly break temperature records that have been seen by humans, maybe even several decades. That doesn't downplay the significance of the need to stop it though
You can slam the brakes on your Camry but there’s an oil tanker behind you and all they’re doing is laying on the horn and pointing at their green logo while shoving your car off the cliff.
That's what the oil industry likes to think, but they're actually with us in the Camry. There is only the Camry, we're all on the Camry together, good and bad.
What about tipping points? I hear about ice cover, ocean currents, and other systems where once we get past a tipping point, additional warming is self sustaining. At that point it doesn't matter if we have our brakes on, we've gone over the cliff right?
If we end up triggering a self-sustaining feedback loop, that's how I understand it, yeah. We still do have some very high risk strategies we could implement, like solar shielding to reduce total light reaching the earth, or bioengineering plants that suck up carbon super efficiently, but it's hard to say what the impacts of those would be
I wouldn't consider solar shielding high risk, since it would be easy to design fail-safe, but I totally wouldn't trust bioengineering methods, since life uhh... finds a way.
Too bad there’s a lag time of about 40 years on emissions. We’re only feeling the effects of what was emitted in the early 80s. Imagine how bad it’ll be in 20 years time.
Sure. Essentially what happens is the ocean absorbs much of the CO2 that’s released by us. If you’ve ever heard the term “ocean acidification” that’s what causes it.
Water and the oceans change on a much more gradual scale than the atmosphere, so it takes decades for the CO2 to be released back into the air. For example, if you bring a pot of water to an open flame it still takes time for the water to reach the temperature to boil, it’s not instantaneous.
The ocean is far more massive than our atmosphere. It’ll take time for the changes to take effect, especially a noticeable one on our end. But if you take a look at the ph levels of the oceans over the last century it becomes abundantly clear we’re messing things up big time.
At least the "medieval warm period" which gets cited a lot, was a regional phenomenon and global temperatures are higher today. The Wikipedia page seems to suggest the same for the Roman warm period.
The Roman warm period was about 2 degrees F warmer than today when you're measuring global average temperatures, not just in europe, although it was more pronounced in europe. At current rates though, we'll break that bar in 40 years or so though
You act like you use the word Paleoscene like you know when it was.
I don't.
I did however hear on the BBC News Podcast that Nerds are saying we should change the name of the period we're in now to be the "Time of Man" and I realised that I have no idea what Epoch we are currently in.
So I thought I'd ask you. Then I'll memorise your answer and be less dumb.
Please help.
Edit: I know how to use Google but this way is more fun sometimes.
Paleocene was the time right around when the dinosaurs died, so about 65 million years ago. you've heard of Jurassic, and maybe you've even heard of cretaceous, this is the one that comes right after those two. Right now we're in the Holocene. The reason I mentioned it though is because (as far as we can tell) it was the hottest period in earth's history, with average temperatures 8 degrees Celsius higher than today (which is a ton, the fact that it's an average makes it seem less insane than it actually is). we're nowhere close to getting as warm as it was then, but even if we got half that hot in a relatively fast amount of time (like we are) it could still cause mass extinction.
Holocene is the current geological time it cover from now to a out 11,000 years ago from the last glacial period... The Paleoscene was about 66-56 million years ago.
And just a week ago I was talking to these boomers that were explaining me how "we should all stop being so attached to climate fear" and that "everything will just sort itself out and we'll live just fine".
It won't decimate the planet, but it will make the planet a lot less habitable for humans.
So yes depending on where they live they will be just fine, but a lot of people will die. Because of this there will be huge migrations and struggels with having enough resources...
And that is already happening in a small scale. All those natural disasters that are happening all over the world. And especially the poorer country's on the south half of the globe are struggling with stuff like wood fires, smaller harvests because of the heat. And it's all just going to get worse.
I hate humanity.
My parents' go-to is that everyone was freaking out about an incoming ice age in the 60s (they weren't), and thus climate experts are all completely clueless and have no clue what they're talking about.
I think, as individuals; we all need to pick up our game and do our part in polluting and destroying the planet more. We can't let the corporations do all the heavy lifting after all.
Edit: I don't think I came across properly here, given the replies. This was sarcasm saying we need to fuck up the planet more to keep pace with the rate the corporations do.
Yes. Our 12% will really make a difference vs corporations' 80%. And we can get to that 12% if so 8 billion of us work together. I'm doing my 0.0000001% part!
But we are. According to the USDA, food waste makes up 22% of the food industries 26% CO2 emissions. And don't forget the diseases food waste produces.
Mine aren't quite dead yet, but I've used them for over a day now. I should throw them out and buy some more just in case, I don't know how accurate that little meter on the battery saying it's still at 90% is.
Honestly corporations are only producing what consume. We are using corporations as scapegoats. If we don't realize this soon and don't change it ways...
There are more efficient, greener ways to go about producing pretty much everything we use that doesn’t destroy the earth. Problem is is that it’s not as profitable for share holders.
For most categories, yes, but when it comes to something like meat production mentioned in the title here, that's not really the case. Meat production is massively inefficient in its best case. We are going to have to reduce production which means having changes in consumption in one way or another
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?
The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
If it was so efficient, why are not everyone doing it and building it? If it was so efficient, why are energy prices increasing? If it is more efficient, then it would be also more profitable but you say the opposite.
It requires a front-loaded investment in infrastructure, which means lower returns for a few quarters.
Most companies wanted people to use horses for as long as possible because that meant they had to adapt, change, and invest. Why do something that’s difficult when you can just do the same thing? This works out when you don’t really have competition because the cost to enter the market is so high due to decades of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating all means of production and materials to a select-few companies.
If you haven't seen it, The Good Place is a great show and they discuss this basically. Should we be responsible for tracking the output of every company before we buy any product?
(The answer is: of course not. We don't have enough time in the world for that. The correct solution is regulation and taxing for negative externalities during the production process. If the cost of negative externalities is built into the cost of the product, then it will be less benificial to purchase a product with a dirty supply chain.)
Not sure how to edit a post but will add this. I agree with you. We absolutely should be adding the cost of externalities. The only way to do this effectively is to add that cost at the consumption level. We should pay twice the cost for conventional fuel at the pumps. Heating your home should be far more expensive. Something that would also encourage people to take on roommates and fix housing issues. Taxing only or corporations simply means Russia or Saudia Arabia will increase their output while they laugh at us.
How do you tax Saudi Arabia corporations? How do you tax Russian corporations? They just make up the difference we don't produce. Is it wise to send all that money to those countries because we won't stop consuming? How is taxing our corporations helping them be competitive on the world market? We give everyone else a free pass but bill our corporations.
Well, we kind of have to get basic necessities, so often buying stuff from corporations is necessary. Yes, we shouldn't buy useless shit, but why are we making useless shit in the first place?
I do agree that we as inviduals should take some responsibility, such as not littering and trying to minimise our waste, but we have to hold corporations accountable for their actions.
Also there are a lot of more ethical and responsible ways for corporations to produce their goods, but they choose to not to. Why? Because it would take more money, and they don't give a shit about anything else than their money.
Thanks humanity, I'm sure that this will cause no long term issues and we can just keep using the same economic and political systems while not worrying about it at all.
They emit a lot, but they transport ... a very lot. Trucks are higher emitters per comodity.
Still both should be powered by something else like hydrogen (more interesting for ships I guess) or batteries...
And cruise ships should be IMHO taxed so high (the tax should probably directly go to countermeasures), such that only very rich people are able to (not that I grant them the fun, but they should finance this climate disaster in every possible way...)
Based on what a reasonable carbon price should be, I don't think you would need to tax them to oblivion. They would just need to pay their fair share.
This website suggests that it is about 0.4 tonne of CO2 per passenger per day. Canada's current carbon tax is $65 per tonne. So a 7 day cruise would be $182 per passenger in carbon pricing. This is just ballpark and yes you can argue that carbon prices should be higher.
For whom though? I think if your product is going to be very expensive because of that you,ll try to find ways (less carbon emissive) to make it cheaper, and for others, who have low emissions already, they get an advantage. Also rich people generally emit much more carbon than poor people.
I'm a little bit tired of the argument, that everything gets expensive, like the money just goes to nirvana, it's a tax and a tax should steer industries (mostly) to do the right thing (in this case emit less CO2). The money can go directly to people e.g. in the form of a universal basic income.
For the ability to produce enough food. It's not the tax that's the issue it's that the climate will make industrial food production unviable. We will rapidly exit the conditions that underpin the viability of the modern economy. The only work of value will be making food and related tools in a volatile climatic environment. The bill will not be payable in money, is my point. That is, a tax will be woefully inadequate.
Certainly, it will be really "interesting" how to produce food for ~10 billion people in this uncertain future. But if we finally learn to accept that e.g. cattle isn't the way forward, I think it may be possible with plant-based food. Although something like vertical farming etc. is definitely not viable today, it may be in the future. And at least currently it's totally possible to sustainably produce enough (plant-based) food.
I think we'll learn to adapt, that much I trust in agricultural-technological advancement etc.
But it will be "meaty" for most people and conflicts will arise (as they already are, see e.g. the conflict in Sudan that is indirectly related to climate change already, similarly as Syria previously (there were quite a few droughts the years before))
I looked into carbon offsets of shipping containers from China to the US as part of my job. I was shocked at how little was emitted per container - Probably cost around $40 of offsets for one 45 footer.
Like you said, the bigger issue is the trucks needed for last mile / between distribution centers.
Sure it is, but I think that's still better than if every individual needs to drive their own car through half the country to buy coffee. Shipping needs to happen in any way. Sure we could order less stuff from the internet, so individual house door shipping would be less, but that's a drop in the ocean, compared to the other named factors
Lol, trash reasoning. "Extremists" that want to start building communities that dont require you to drive everywhere. Just because evs are slightly better then gas doesnt mean its good to keep making cars a centralizing point we build our society around.
lower parking availability, increase public transport availability and frequency.
Low density places:
They need their cars, they can keep them.
Remove zoning restrictions, and parking requirements
so there is more mixture of commercial and residential places shortening transport distance, allowing for even avoiding public transport and just walking/biking replacing this.
More biking infraestructure.
Fair taxes to car owners,
that means, othe people not having to support the huge car projects that cost more than they can get from the taxes they do on cars.
Also regulations on environmental design of cars, basically gaining back the progress we had done on car efficiency that was taken back by everyone wanting an SUV instead of a turismo.
Really not a choice, carbon emissiosn have to stop. EVs dont do that. Urban trees are not going to revese climate change. Wow, you're saying people need to keep lowering denisity.
Realistically, EVs are useful as a stopgap solution. They could be used to cover the transition as we expand public transit like EV busses, trains, subways, etc.
Yeah, it’s been in the news 😩 We broke the global average temperature record something like 3 times last week. The graph that accompanies the articles is actually quite scary
How else are they supposed to assuage the feeling that they're not some immortal magical beings living some divine simulation/game as the chosen ones players?
Malthus was wrong about this too. It's not the population that's a problem, it's miles of strip malls, filled with cheap trash, and meat and dairy every meal of the day.
Scientists use climate proxy records like coral skeletons, tree rings, glacial ice cores, and sediment layers. For example, the levels of oxygen 16 in a layer of ocean debris and fossils go up as temperatures rise. So a high level of oxygen 16 in sediment from one layer tells scientists that the planet was hot and watery when the sediment was laid down.
those records aren't granular enough to say what day was or wasn't hotter. tree rings, sediment cores show things on a seasonal basis - and there's a lot of days in a season
The point is that they've established a relationship between o16 levels and temperature, so if you've got twice the o16 then say it was 25% warmer (made up ratio, I haven't read the study).
This doesn't tell us what the air temperature was, but it does tell us what it wasn't (IE upper and lower bounds).
When you have several of these proxies it helps narrow down the temperature range (think how your god works better when you have more satellites).
Now if you know that the last seven days are the hottest on record and you know from your proxies that you are outside of temperatures of the past 100k years then it's a pretty safe bet to state that we're at the hottest time in the past 100k years.
There is no melodrama or lying in this fact, unfortunately.
It seems the temperature has been slightly hotter about 6500 years ago for a period of around 2 centuries with temperature estimated between +0.8 and +1.8 °C compared to 19th century, but this is subject to debate, (see for example https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7).
Before that, we have to go back to a period where most Homo Sapiens were living in Africa about 125,000 years ago, where warming was likely +0.5 to +1.5°C compared to the same 19th century baseline.
Regardless if there was periods much hotter in the long past, the big difference with today's situation is the rate at which this warming is taking place.
For example, for the "6500 years ago" period, it took about 3000 years of warming to go from +0 to it's maximum (which is between +0.8 and +1.8 °C).
Today we are at about +1.1°C and it took us only 100 years, through fossil fuels burning and farming to reach that and most of which happened in the past 50 years.
The water remaining in the ocean develops increasingly higher concentration of heavy oxygen compared to the universal standard, and the ice develops a higher concentration of light oxygen. Thus, high concentrations of heavy oxygen in the ocean tell scientists that light oxygen was trapped in the ice sheets. The exact oxygen ratios can show how much ice covered the Earth.
Sources:
Meat industry is responsible for most of the farmland. If everyone was vegan we could reduce the amount of farmland we use by like 70%. Thermodynamics says its better to eat plants instead of feeding them to animals and eating animals.
Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[...]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?
The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
I guess this is supposed to be taken as a bleak joke but it won't be over soon. We all will likely experience a direct hit to our quality of life. If you're poor, your survival will get harder. If you have or want children they will have fundamentally worse lives, compared to what we experienced so far. This can go on for decades or centuries, depending on how much we can stsill fix and what tipping points occur.
So yeah, hope that is some motivation to change something. Or at least shout at some people. :)
One thing to note is that if everyone stops having children, it will create a demographic crisis with a lot of older people / pensioners not able to work and not a lot of working age people to support the aging population. Good for environment ofc but quite bad for the remainder of population.
Here we stand at this fork in the road,
We got no time to waste,
Oh which way shall we go?
This whole world’s spinning out of control,
Oh which way shall we go,
Which way shall we go?
I can’t believe this,
It makes me sick.
“Drones In The Valley” - Cage the Elephant
That's why we have tried to make the change between saying global warming and refer to it as climate change which is more accurate and leads to less "oh yeah but it was cold here" or whatever's. Just exacerbates temperature extremes
The company I work for makes power infrastructure for data centres and the like, 3 phase 400v conductors, the smallest we make is 1000 amp rated and we go up to 6000 amp rated, that is a hell of a lot of power and we run 24 hours a day 7 days a week pumping out miles of these to power the data centres that run the internet so we can be shitty to each other
Shipping can certainly be made much less impactful, if that's what you are thinking. A lot of shipping is overland trucking, and a lot of overland trucking can be replaced with trains, and a lot of trains can be replaced with electrified trains. That would make quite a bit of difference
bullshit, we should be ensure that the countries where a lot of childeren are being bourne, are being economicly lifted... you cannot tell people to have less childeren, if their future depends on it.
No need to single out meat production. There is so much farming going on that annihilates places like the Amazon. I have seen claims of those crazy huge shipping vessels that pollute more than all cars combined over the course of a year.
What they are farming in all that land is feed for livestock.
So yes, even though they’re growing plants there, those plants are being grown to feed the animals instead of feeding humans directly. Which thanks to trophic levels is a massive waste.
The amount of feed needed to rear one animal to kill for food is not even CLOSE to equivalent to how much we would get if we didn’t add the extra step in of feeding animals and just grew plants for ourselves instead.
The meat industry is a massive contributor to global warming, and we could drastically reduce our effects on climate change if we just stopped eating animals.
I mean, you're technically right but that also isn't a helpful mentality. No one individual can single-handedly stop climate change by living in a more environmentally conscious way, we have to come together and implement systemic solutions in order for things to change.
We got blamed for climate change for using plastic straws when when we go out to eat once a week and the companies causing the real destruction slipped under the radar.
I 100% believe the plastic straw thing was an intentional distraction to 1. get us to fight amongst ourselves, pointing the finger at one another rather than coming together to actually solve the problem, and 2. allow a few companies to solve an easy to solve problem by using PLA (corn-based plastic) or paper straws and then sniffing their own farts for it and ignore the real problem.
I absolutely agree about systematic change. But pointing at an oil company and saying "look this is the organisation responsible for climate change" is to misidentify the problem in my opinion. Setting aside for a moment the misinformation that the oil companies funded regarding climate change, which - yes - I would like to see people in prison for - the main problem, I think is that we are still very dependent on oil.
We'll remain dependent on oil until there is concerted government action. That action will require that we change our lifestyles and are probably a bit poorer, more constrained. No-one will vote those governments in. So, we'll sit here like boiled frogs
I might be erring on the naive side here, but I read the comment you replied to less as holier than thou and more as 'shout out to us all'.
Either that or they don't understand that even posting the comment involves using lots of petroleum products to create the magic box that browses lemmy. And the magic boxes that host the lemmy content. And the magic boxes that connect the previous two.
I'll never understand why some supermarkets choose to individually package stuff like eggplant or zucchini in plastic baggies. Or 'oh, you want some habaneros? here's their weight in packaging as well. you earned it!'
OK, now point me to the place I can give money for the food that doesn't pollute/throw it all away.
Slight inaccuracy, the data only goes back to 1979 and has not yet been verified by NOAA which has data going back to 1880.
It’s also worth noting that this is based on the Climate Reanalyzer which is intended for forecasting temperatures, not record keeping.
It would be more accurate to say it was the hottest day ever recorded by the Climate Reanalyzer.
Source: https://time.com/6292103/worlds-hottest-day-preliminary-record/
This. It's also not accurate to say it's the warmest we've been in the past 10,000 years, it was likely warmer during the roman warm period, and potentially a couple of other points. So we can only really say it's the warmest we've seen in the last couple hundred years.
That's not to say this isn't concerning, we're on track to smash the roman warm periods average temperatures within our lifetimes and make the earth the hottest it's been since the paleoscene, which would have massive ramifications. But we're not there yet, the problem is that we will likely get there in the next few decades.
I appreciate your optimism.
If you want some more optimism, we actually have slowed the rate of warming from what was predicted 20 years ago. The reality we are living in would have been considered an "optimistic prediction" at one point. We are still warming, things are still going in the wrong direction, but the changes that people have been making to mitigate global warming are making an impact. We might still be going over the cliff, but at least we're doing it with our brakes on instead of full speed ahead. So yes, I do think it will be decades before we truly break temperature records that have been seen by humans, maybe even several decades. That doesn't downplay the significance of the need to stop it though
From what I've heard about our current climate warming situation I'd downgrade the metaphor from using breaks to taking the foot off the pedal a bit.
You can slam the brakes on your Camry but there’s an oil tanker behind you and all they’re doing is laying on the horn and pointing at their green logo while shoving your car off the cliff.
That's what the oil industry likes to think, but they're actually with us in the Camry. There is only the Camry, we're all on the Camry together, good and bad.
Yeah, but the mega rich oil execs have ejector seats and parachutes.
What about tipping points? I hear about ice cover, ocean currents, and other systems where once we get past a tipping point, additional warming is self sustaining. At that point it doesn't matter if we have our brakes on, we've gone over the cliff right?
If we end up triggering a self-sustaining feedback loop, that's how I understand it, yeah. We still do have some very high risk strategies we could implement, like solar shielding to reduce total light reaching the earth, or bioengineering plants that suck up carbon super efficiently, but it's hard to say what the impacts of those would be
I don’t see either of those happening because there’s no short-term profit. Also, unintended consequences.
I wouldn't consider solar shielding high risk, since it would be easy to design fail-safe, but I totally wouldn't trust bioengineering methods, since life uhh... finds a way.
Too bad there’s a lag time of about 40 years on emissions. We’re only feeling the effects of what was emitted in the early 80s. Imagine how bad it’ll be in 20 years time.
Can you tell me more about this?
Sure. Essentially what happens is the ocean absorbs much of the CO2 that’s released by us. If you’ve ever heard the term “ocean acidification” that’s what causes it.
Water and the oceans change on a much more gradual scale than the atmosphere, so it takes decades for the CO2 to be released back into the air. For example, if you bring a pot of water to an open flame it still takes time for the water to reach the temperature to boil, it’s not instantaneous.
The ocean is far more massive than our atmosphere. It’ll take time for the changes to take effect, especially a noticeable one on our end. But if you take a look at the ph levels of the oceans over the last century it becomes abundantly clear we’re messing things up big time.
Oh that's crazy I didnt know about that. Does the water just absorb the CO2 somehow or does it have to do with algea?
At least the "medieval warm period" which gets cited a lot, was a regional phenomenon and global temperatures are higher today. The Wikipedia page seems to suggest the same for the Roman warm period.
The Roman warm period was about 2 degrees F warmer than today when you're measuring global average temperatures, not just in europe, although it was more pronounced in europe. At current rates though, we'll break that bar in 40 years or so though
Imma need some sources for that claim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_last_2,000_years
You act like you use the word Paleoscene like you know when it was.
I don't.
I did however hear on the BBC News Podcast that Nerds are saying we should change the name of the period we're in now to be the "Time of Man" and I realised that I have no idea what Epoch we are currently in.
So I thought I'd ask you. Then I'll memorise your answer and be less dumb.
Please help.
Edit: I know how to use Google but this way is more fun sometimes.
Paleocene was the time right around when the dinosaurs died, so about 65 million years ago. you've heard of Jurassic, and maybe you've even heard of cretaceous, this is the one that comes right after those two. Right now we're in the Holocene. The reason I mentioned it though is because (as far as we can tell) it was the hottest period in earth's history, with average temperatures 8 degrees Celsius higher than today (which is a ton, the fact that it's an average makes it seem less insane than it actually is). we're nowhere close to getting as warm as it was then, but even if we got half that hot in a relatively fast amount of time (like we are) it could still cause mass extinction.
Thanks. I have heard of all of these times I just had no idea where they are in relation to each other.
Holocene is the current geological time it cover from now to a out 11,000 years ago from the last glacial period... The Paleoscene was about 66-56 million years ago.
If I were to pick one, I'd call it the Menocene. Seems apt.
I did Google it though, if you want the actual answer.
There's a whole hot world outside of America who don't need to wait for its underfunded organizations to get around to validating the data.
But I get it. The news is dire. It's neat to cling to uncertainty in times like this unless you lived in Lytton
Welcome to the coldest summer for the rest of your life :)
Why would you do that?
😩
Thats a nice way to put it. Thank you.
And just a week ago I was talking to these boomers that were explaining me how "we should all stop being so attached to climate fear" and that "everything will just sort itself out and we'll live just fine".
Yea, no shit boomer
They meant that they'll live just fine. You see, they will be dead before climate change decimates our planet. 🤷♂️
Looks less likely every year, they're running out of time quick
It won't decimate the planet, but it will make the planet a lot less habitable for humans.
So yes depending on where they live they will be just fine, but a lot of people will die. Because of this there will be huge migrations and struggels with having enough resources...
And, unfortunately, for a wide range of other species.
And that is already happening in a small scale. All those natural disasters that are happening all over the world. And especially the poorer country's on the south half of the globe are struggling with stuff like wood fires, smaller harvests because of the heat. And it's all just going to get worse. I hate humanity.
Boomers: "We had hot days in the 60's and 70's as well and you didn't hear us complain"
My parents' go-to is that everyone was freaking out about an incoming ice age in the 60s (they weren't), and thus climate experts are all completely clueless and have no clue what they're talking about.
And they wonder why I visit less than before.
So far.
So true it burns.
literally...
Vermont just had flooding that was on par with Hurricane Irene.
They're calling it a 1000 year rarity. It happened 12 years ago. Only this time there was no hurricane.
There are ocean temperatures in the fucking 90s.
This hurricane season is gonna be batshit crazy, y'all.
The concept of seasons will also get super fucked. Already feeling it in North-East India - weather trends are not very predictable any more.
insurance companies are going to go under asap
I think, as individuals; we all need to pick up our game and do our part in polluting and destroying the planet more. We can't let the corporations do all the heavy lifting after all.
Edit: I don't think I came across properly here, given the replies. This was sarcasm saying we need to fuck up the planet more to keep pace with the rate the corporations do.
Yes. Our 12% will really make a difference vs corporations' 80%. And we can get to that 12% if so 8 billion of us work together. I'm doing my 0.0000001% part!
You know corporations build shit people buy, right? It's not like they pollute for the fun of it. They pollute because we give them money to do it...
Kinda orthogonal but I will say it's weird that we can still vote with our wallets.
But we are. According to the USDA, food waste makes up 22% of the food industries 26% CO2 emissions. And don't forget the diseases food waste produces.
That food waste is largely due to arbitrary date labels and grocery stores throwing out literal tons of perfectly good food instead of donating it.
And believe it or not, part of this is because people don't like to pick up the weird looking tomato, or the banana with a few peckles.
According to the USDA, again, the majority of food waste is at the household level.
Circling back to the arbitrary date labels
How can we sell more without an expiration date?!!! We need to please the profits and shorten expiration dates!
I personally plan on returning my rechargeable AA batteries and going single use from now on. it's the little things that help
Mine aren't quite dead yet, but I've used them for over a day now. I should throw them out and buy some more just in case, I don't know how accurate that little meter on the battery saying it's still at 90% is.
Honestly corporations are only producing what consume. We are using corporations as scapegoats. If we don't realize this soon and don't change it ways...
There are more efficient, greener ways to go about producing pretty much everything we use that doesn’t destroy the earth. Problem is is that it’s not as profitable for share holders.
For most categories, yes, but when it comes to something like meat production mentioned in the title here, that's not really the case. Meat production is massively inefficient in its best case. We are going to have to reduce production which means having changes in consumption in one way or another
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm
If it was so efficient, why are not everyone doing it and building it? If it was so efficient, why are energy prices increasing? If it is more efficient, then it would be also more profitable but you say the opposite.
It requires a front-loaded investment in infrastructure, which means lower returns for a few quarters.
Most companies wanted people to use horses for as long as possible because that meant they had to adapt, change, and invest. Why do something that’s difficult when you can just do the same thing? This works out when you don’t really have competition because the cost to enter the market is so high due to decades of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating all means of production and materials to a select-few companies.
If you haven't seen it, The Good Place is a great show and they discuss this basically. Should we be responsible for tracking the output of every company before we buy any product?
(The answer is: of course not. We don't have enough time in the world for that. The correct solution is regulation and taxing for negative externalities during the production process. If the cost of negative externalities is built into the cost of the product, then it will be less benificial to purchase a product with a dirty supply chain.)
Not sure how to edit a post but will add this. I agree with you. We absolutely should be adding the cost of externalities. The only way to do this effectively is to add that cost at the consumption level. We should pay twice the cost for conventional fuel at the pumps. Heating your home should be far more expensive. Something that would also encourage people to take on roommates and fix housing issues. Taxing only or corporations simply means Russia or Saudia Arabia will increase their output while they laugh at us.
How do you tax Saudi Arabia corporations? How do you tax Russian corporations? They just make up the difference we don't produce. Is it wise to send all that money to those countries because we won't stop consuming? How is taxing our corporations helping them be competitive on the world market? We give everyone else a free pass but bill our corporations.
Well, we kind of have to get basic necessities, so often buying stuff from corporations is necessary. Yes, we shouldn't buy useless shit, but why are we making useless shit in the first place?
I do agree that we as inviduals should take some responsibility, such as not littering and trying to minimise our waste, but we have to hold corporations accountable for their actions.
Also there are a lot of more ethical and responsible ways for corporations to produce their goods, but they choose to not to. Why? Because it would take more money, and they don't give a shit about anything else than their money.
Thanks humanity, I'm sure that this will cause no long term issues and we can just keep using the same economic and political systems while not worrying about it at all.
My fault. I like plastic straws in my scorpion bowls.
Damn, why'd you go and cause all of climate change? Not cool.
Nope, not cool, def hot! Getting hotter.
Shipping? Shipping is about 2 % of global CO
2emissions.Large ships emit a lot of sulphur oxides (SO
x). E.g. cruise ships emit more than all cars of Europe. SOxis not a greenhouse gas, but it’s a nasty pollutant nonetheless.They emit a lot, but they transport ... a very lot. Trucks are higher emitters per comodity.
Still both should be powered by something else like hydrogen (more interesting for ships I guess) or batteries...
And cruise ships should be IMHO taxed so high (the tax should probably directly go to countermeasures), such that only very rich people are able to (not that I grant them the fun, but they should finance this climate disaster in every possible way...)
Based on what a reasonable carbon price should be, I don't think you would need to tax them to oblivion. They would just need to pay their fair share.
This website suggests that it is about 0.4 tonne of CO2 per passenger per day. Canada's current carbon tax is $65 per tonne. So a 7 day cruise would be $182 per passenger in carbon pricing. This is just ballpark and yes you can argue that carbon prices should be higher.
We are quickly arriving at an unpayable bill.
For whom though? I think if your product is going to be very expensive because of that you,ll try to find ways (less carbon emissive) to make it cheaper, and for others, who have low emissions already, they get an advantage. Also rich people generally emit much more carbon than poor people.
I'm a little bit tired of the argument, that everything gets expensive, like the money just goes to nirvana, it's a tax and a tax should steer industries (mostly) to do the right thing (in this case emit less CO2). The money can go directly to people e.g. in the form of a universal basic income.
For the ability to produce enough food. It's not the tax that's the issue it's that the climate will make industrial food production unviable. We will rapidly exit the conditions that underpin the viability of the modern economy. The only work of value will be making food and related tools in a volatile climatic environment. The bill will not be payable in money, is my point. That is, a tax will be woefully inadequate.
Certainly, it will be really "interesting" how to produce food for ~10 billion people in this uncertain future. But if we finally learn to accept that e.g. cattle isn't the way forward, I think it may be possible with plant-based food. Although something like vertical farming etc. is definitely not viable today, it may be in the future. And at least currently it's totally possible to sustainably produce enough (plant-based) food. I think we'll learn to adapt, that much I trust in agricultural-technological advancement etc. But it will be "meaty" for most people and conflicts will arise (as they already are, see e.g. the conflict in Sudan that is indirectly related to climate change already, similarly as Syria previously (there were quite a few droughts the years before))
The odds that the adaption is rapid and doesn't cause extreme changes in the daily conditions of everyone are vanishing.
We are quickly arriving at an unpayable bill.
I looked into carbon offsets of shipping containers from China to the US as part of my job. I was shocked at how little was emitted per container - Probably cost around $40 of offsets for one 45 footer.
Like you said, the bigger issue is the trucks needed for last mile / between distribution centers.
With modern open-loop scrubbers large ships don't emit SOx anymore...
...instead they just dump it into the sea. Science!
shipping is also trucks dude.. and all the other nasty ways we move products around the world..
Sure it is, but I think that's still better than if every individual needs to drive their own car through half the country to buy coffee. Shipping needs to happen in any way. Sure we could order less stuff from the internet, so individual house door shipping would be less, but that's a drop in the ocean, compared to the other named factors
Could we carry the wright of a global logistics shipping systrm if everyonw else stopped driving gasoline based motor vehicles?
Lol, trash reasoning. "Extremists" that want to start building communities that dont require you to drive everywhere. Just because evs are slightly better then gas doesnt mean its good to keep making cars a centralizing point we build our society around.
It ain't that hard,
High density places:
lower parking availability, increase public transport availability and frequency.
Low density places:
They need their cars, they can keep them.
Remove zoning restrictions, and parking requirements
so there is more mixture of commercial and residential places shortening transport distance, allowing for even avoiding public transport and just walking/biking replacing this.
More biking infraestructure.
Fair taxes to car owners,
that means, othe people not having to support the huge car projects that cost more than they can get from the taxes they do on cars.
Also regulations on environmental design of cars, basically gaining back the progress we had done on car efficiency that was taken back by everyone wanting an SUV instead of a turismo.
:)
yea yea but you won't answer to me mate, loss of time to talk with u :)
Everyone walking or biking.
Really not a choice, carbon emissiosn have to stop. EVs dont do that. Urban trees are not going to revese climate change. Wow, you're saying people need to keep lowering denisity.
Realistically, EVs are useful as a stopgap solution. They could be used to cover the transition as we expand public transit like EV busses, trains, subways, etc.
more people the better yeah
The oil, meat and shipping industries: "It's called a streak, baby"
We can break this record, do like me, burn tires !
Wait, is this true?
Yeah, it’s been in the news 😩 We broke the global average temperature record something like 3 times last week. The graph that accompanies the articles is actually quite scary
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html
Here's a mirror to the chart you mentioned.
And here's a mirror to the article you mentioned.
You weren't kidding about that chart, it's mighty scary and depressing.
Especially seeing the part that we're not even at the typical hottest part of the year yet.
The real G right here
Fuck yeah setting records lads, high fives all round, good work, good work!!
Sadly, it is. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/11/uncharted-territory-un-declares-first-week-of-july-worlds-hottest-ever-recorded
Have you been living under a rock?
What kind of news are you following to be so so surprised about this?
Thanks, now I got the song stuck in my head. Could be worse though
bu... buut economic growth > everything else ...?
How else are they supposed to assuage the feeling that they're not some immortal magical beings living some divine simulation/game as the chosen
onesplayers?if a few billion people died off tomorrow things might improve.
overpopulation is the actual root cause
We can't deflate form 8 billion people and counting
Malthus was wrong about this too. It's not the population that's a problem, it's miles of strip malls, filled with cheap trash, and meat and dairy every meal of the day.
And why are those being built? Because the consumer population doesn't care and continues consuming the cheapest dirtiest shit imaginable.
Okay? That doesn't change the fact that it's the lifestyle of people in rich countries, not the number of people that is the problem.
Germany tried it once ... I mean twice
Don't forget about the Chinese. They tried too and they were much more efficient.
Don't forget steel. quick stats
Global temps can't melt steel beams...
Let's do a klimatekatastrophe any% speedrun
Curious: how do they know that? Recorded history is like 5k years right?
Scientists use climate proxy records like coral skeletons, tree rings, glacial ice cores, and sediment layers. For example, the levels of oxygen 16 in a layer of ocean debris and fossils go up as temperatures rise. So a high level of oxygen 16 in sediment from one layer tells scientists that the planet was hot and watery when the sediment was laid down.
those records aren't granular enough to say what day was or wasn't hotter. tree rings, sediment cores show things on a seasonal basis - and there's a lot of days in a season
The point is that they've established a relationship between o16 levels and temperature, so if you've got twice the o16 then say it was 25% warmer (made up ratio, I haven't read the study).
This doesn't tell us what the air temperature was, but it does tell us what it wasn't (IE upper and lower bounds).
When you have several of these proxies it helps narrow down the temperature range (think how your god works better when you have more satellites).
Now if you know that the last seven days are the hottest on record and you know from your proxies that you are outside of temperatures of the past 100k years then it's a pretty safe bet to state that we're at the hottest time in the past 100k years.
There is no melodrama or lying in this fact, unfortunately.
It seems the temperature has been slightly hotter about 6500 years ago for a period of around 2 centuries with temperature estimated between +0.8 and +1.8 °C compared to 19th century, but this is subject to debate, (see for example https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7).
Before that, we have to go back to a period where most Homo Sapiens were living in Africa about 125,000 years ago, where warming was likely +0.5 to +1.5°C compared to the same 19th century baseline.
Regardless if there was periods much hotter in the long past, the big difference with today's situation is the rate at which this warming is taking place. For example, for the "6500 years ago" period, it took about 3000 years of warming to go from +0 to it's maximum (which is between +0.8 and +1.8 °C). Today we are at about +1.1°C and it took us only 100 years, through fossil fuels burning and farming to reach that and most of which happened in the past 50 years.
Sources:
Also, about oxygen 16 and oxygen 18:
I'm waiting for the hot part of the year to start where I live, and I live in a tropical country! It will be so funny! 🫠
Don't just single out meat. All of industrialized agriculture is massively carbon and energy intensive and built on gradual topsoil depletion.
Meat industry is responsible for most of the farmland. If everyone was vegan we could reduce the amount of farmland we use by like 70%. Thermodynamics says its better to eat plants instead of feeding them to animals and eating animals.
Biology teachers when them teaching the 10 percent law for ecological efficiency to their class 5 years ago is actually useful
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
Ouch, too soon op, too soon...
Oh contraire - we're 20 years late
Au* contraire
Huh - the more you know, thanks
Make it 30
BoneAppleTea
Yeah, fair cop
So you're saying it's a cycle /s
Sure, it will cool down in a few million years. We’ll be fine.
Don't worry all of this will soon be over.
I guess this is supposed to be taken as a bleak joke but it won't be over soon. We all will likely experience a direct hit to our quality of life. If you're poor, your survival will get harder. If you have or want children they will have fundamentally worse lives, compared to what we experienced so far. This can go on for decades or centuries, depending on how much we can stsill fix and what tipping points occur.
So yeah, hope that is some motivation to change something. Or at least shout at some people. :)
The solution is not to have children. Everything else is pissing in the wind.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
One thing to note is that if everyone stops having children, it will create a demographic crisis with a lot of older people / pensioners not able to work and not a lot of working age people to support the aging population. Good for environment ofc but quite bad for the remainder of population.
Until we colonize other planets, downsizing is the only way humanity will survive.
Fully agreed. But harder to sell unfortunately :(
There are other fulfilling things to do with your life besides having kids. People need to realize this.
Yes. But you are arguing against lots of social programming, cultural expectations and religious backgrounds. It's hard.
I read this as olive oil and meat. LOL. Yum, steak!
Try avocado oil instead to avoid hot boxing your kitchen
I just discovered this my self.
Thanks for the tip. I like avocados as well.
Here we stand at this fork in the road, We got no time to waste, Oh which way shall we go? This whole world’s spinning out of control, Oh which way shall we go, Which way shall we go? I can’t believe this, It makes me sick. “Drones In The Valley” - Cage the Elephant
See?!?¡ This is proof that global warming doesn't exist!
Suck it, Libs.
That's why we have tried to make the change between saying global warming and refer to it as climate change which is more accurate and leads to less "oh yeah but it was cold here" or whatever's. Just exacerbates temperature extremes
Gotta love them for giving us nice warm weather
The company I work for makes power infrastructure for data centres and the like, 3 phase 400v conductors, the smallest we make is 1000 amp rated and we go up to 6000 amp rated, that is a hell of a lot of power and we run 24 hours a day 7 days a week pumping out miles of these to power the data centres that run the internet so we can be shitty to each other
One of the three is not like the other, in the way that it can never be eliminated. Let's play guess...
Shipping can certainly be made much less impactful, if that's what you are thinking. A lot of shipping is overland trucking, and a lot of overland trucking can be replaced with trains, and a lot of trains can be replaced with electrified trains. That would make quite a bit of difference
bullshit, we should be ensure that the countries where a lot of childeren are being bourne, are being economicly lifted... you cannot tell people to have less childeren, if their future depends on it.
Chat, is that true?!
Surprised by the casual climate change deniers in here. “Oh, but the data….”
No need to single out meat production. There is so much farming going on that annihilates places like the Amazon. I have seen claims of those crazy huge shipping vessels that pollute more than all cars combined over the course of a year.
What they are farming in all that land is feed for livestock.
So yes, even though they’re growing plants there, those plants are being grown to feed the animals instead of feeding humans directly. Which thanks to trophic levels is a massive waste.
The amount of feed needed to rear one animal to kill for food is not even CLOSE to equivalent to how much we would get if we didn’t add the extra step in of feeding animals and just grew plants for ourselves instead.
The meat industry is a massive contributor to global warming, and we could drastically reduce our effects on climate change if we just stopped eating animals.
I heard the production of palm oil contributed to the ongoing death of rainforests a lot too?
wow what are they farming in the (clearcut and burned) Amazon? why shouldn't we single out animal agriculture?
Shout out to all of us who buy anything shipped, any petroleum or oil-based products and those of us who aren’t vegan
I mean, you're technically right but that also isn't a helpful mentality. No one individual can single-handedly stop climate change by living in a more environmentally conscious way, we have to come together and implement systemic solutions in order for things to change.
Systemic problems require systematic changes
The whole "individual carbon footprint" thing is crazy when you look at the amount of emissions emitted by major corporations.
Hell the largest 16 cargo ships emit more CO2 than the all the cars in the world.
We got blamed for climate change for using plastic straws when when we go out to eat once a week and the companies causing the real destruction slipped under the radar.
I 100% believe the plastic straw thing was an intentional distraction to 1. get us to fight amongst ourselves, pointing the finger at one another rather than coming together to actually solve the problem, and 2. allow a few companies to solve an easy to solve problem by using PLA (corn-based plastic) or paper straws and then sniffing their own farts for it and ignore the real problem.
PLA isn’t biodegradable. Its also emits toxic fumes every reuse.
When I say reuse, I mean specifically during production when the PLA is being melted into place.
The last statement is debunked in the very link you shared, if you scroll down and open the summary and conclusions pdf.
That being said, compeltely agree with more accountability on corporate side.
I absolutely agree about systematic change. But pointing at an oil company and saying "look this is the organisation responsible for climate change" is to misidentify the problem in my opinion. Setting aside for a moment the misinformation that the oil companies funded regarding climate change, which - yes - I would like to see people in prison for - the main problem, I think is that we are still very dependent on oil.
We'll remain dependent on oil until there is concerted government action. That action will require that we change our lifestyles and are probably a bit poorer, more constrained. No-one will vote those governments in. So, we'll sit here like boiled frogs
government action will also require eradicating corruption as big oil will always try to influence legislation in their favor
Absolutely agreed again
I might be erring on the naive side here, but I read the comment you replied to less as holier than thou and more as 'shout out to us all'.
Either that or they don't understand that even posting the comment involves using lots of petroleum products to create the magic box that browses lemmy. And the magic boxes that host the lemmy content. And the magic boxes that connect the previous two.
I'll never understand why some supermarkets choose to individually package stuff like eggplant or zucchini in plastic baggies. Or 'oh, you want some habaneros? here's their weight in packaging as well. you earned it!'
Everything you buy is shipped in some capacity
Cool, I'll continue to get my life-saving medications shipped overnight and eat primarily a vegetarian-based diet and not feel bad about it.
WAT