AI and crypto didn’t help?
I blame NVIDIA 4090 gamers myself
Well when even the smaller cards require pallet delivery and a 4 man team to bring on site you know you fucked up
Plus the complete lack of effort on the part of any government anywhere… we are all so fucked.
US emissions have been decreasing since 2007. Not just on a per-capita basis, but on a total basis.
China’s emissions may have peaked this year. If not this year, soon.
Just because you don’t see effort, that doesn’t mean there is no effort. It just means you haven’t been looking.
The effort isn’t enough, and that’s the problem. U.S. emissions dropped 2.7% from 2023, that’s great, but that still means we pumped 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere (I don’t remember the exact phrasing your article used).
We’re still pumping too much in, and not taking any out, and we’re already hitting limits we needed to avoid. And based on that recent AMOC collapse report that came out, a lot of these climate models weren’t even taking that into account, so I highly doubt we see a reverse of course on climate change as it continues to expound on itself year over year.
The WWF reported a 69% average decline in all animal species populations on the planet since 1970.
We missed the exit, everything until the cliff is grifters trying to set themselves up for the inevitable collapse at your expense.
The effort is not enough…yet. As long as we don’t start backsliding, we’re seeing an increase in effort year over year.
the inevitable collapse
THIS is the grifter bullshit. “Don’t bother acting, it’s too late”. Fossil fuel doomer propaganda.
THIS is the grifter bullshit. “Don’t bother acting, it’s too late”. Fossil fuel doomer propaganda.
That’s not what I said, I said it’s too late, we missed the exit. Fossil fuel companies hid the research for decades, and I’ve heard nothing my entire life except how we need to act and change the ways we live and interact with the world.
I’m almost 30, and our dependency on fossil fuels hasn’t changed, I’ve yet to see a meaningful societal shift away from the consumerism that drives the majority of climate change.
And ok, we keep driving emissions down, what about biodiversity loss across the planet? How many plants and animals are currently on the brink of extinction?
Let’s bring up developing countries, who are increasing their use of fossil fuels. Where is the international agreement to help modernize these countries with renewable energies? Who’s going to pay for it? We can’t get the countries of the world to agree we’ve overfished the oceans and they’re on the brink of collapse, where’s the international agreement to reverse that?
I would argue I’m giving people a pessimistic reality of the future, sure, but at least it’s based in the current reality. Climate change extends far beyond the overall global temperature, and I’m sure climate and environmental scientists will be the first to say that there are a lot of pieces and variables we don’t fully understand, or haven’t even accounted for, because that’s just how science works.
our dependency on fossil fuels hasn’t changed
What is this crap? EVs are all over the place and so is renewable energy. Emmissions are falling. We haven’t opened a new coal plant in a generation.
And ok, we keep driving emissions down, what about biodiversity loss across the planet? How many plants and animals are currently on the brink of extinction?
Ok? It’s bad and we’re working to fix it. That’s very different than “we’re all doomed and should stop doing anything”.
Where is the international agreement to help modernize these countries with renewable energies? Who’s going to pay for it?
What is this crap? EVs are all over the place and so is renewable energy. Emmissions are falling. We haven’t opened a new coal plant in a generation.
Ok, and how environmentally friendly is it to dig up the minerals to make the batteries, ship them to the plants in massive container ships, process them through polluting means, put them into cars that were also built from resources ripped from the earth using machines billowing CO2, and then shipped across the globe in container ships that pollute more than all cars combined on Earth?
And ok, we haven’t opened a coal plant in a generation, maybe in the US. China is still building them, as are a good chunk of the world. In fact, the IEA estimates to China’s use of coal will be up about 6% total from 2023, while India’s is an increase of 10% of coal use. They estimate global coal use will be down next year, 2025, the first time since 2016, and it’s estimated to drop 0.3%.
Ok? It’s bad and we’re working to fix it. That’s very different than “we’re all doomed and should stop doing anything”.
Do you understand how biodiversity works? You can’t just run a population down to a handful of that species, and then they’ll make a comeback as if nothing ever happened. There is not enough genetic diversity for a healthy and sustainable population to grow and repair itself from that. 69% of all life on earth has been wiped out, bud, we’re not fixing that.
Lmfao, “a legally binding international agreement,” yeah, ok. That’s why a single President unilaterally removed us from the agreement, right? Because it’s legally binding? And that’s why all of these countries are taking it seriously and making huge efforts to reduce global emissions, right? They’ve only had since adopting them in 2015/2016 to start making progress, almost a decade, and… Omg… Omg you’re right!!! We’re doing it!!!
Just kidding, from September 2024:
None of the larger, industrialized countries or the European Union as a whole are currently on track to meet the 2° Celsius goal. African nations Nigeria, Ethiopia, Morocco and Kenya as well as Costa Rica and Nepal are named by the Climate Action Tracker to be on track to meet the 1.5° Celsius goal using a fair share approach, while Norway is predicted to meet the 2° Celsius goal. The website analyzed the climate policies of 35 countries and the EU.
Wow, so the countries that are supposed to be leading the charge aren’t even on track to stop 2°C temperature rise, nevermind the 1.5°C we’re supposed to be aiming for.
But we’ve got more electric cars, and we’re still consuming and ordering things from across the globe, so it’ll probably all work out if we just believe hard enough.
Edit: Switching to electric cars doesn’t prevent the pollution of microplastics from tires, btw, another massive part of climate change everyone seems to just be covering their eyes and pretending they can’t see. We found microplastics in the clouds, ffs, nevermind in our own blood and bodies.
Nor do electric cars stop the glaciers that have already retreated way further than they should from retreating further. Where’s all that methane gas, y’know, the more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, remind me, where is all that methane that was trapped in the ice going? Oh, right, it’s feeding into the climate cycle, making things rapidly worse while we twiddle our thumbs and tell ourselves science will fix this for us, nothing else needs to be done.
Forgive…i’ll stop eating beans…/s
We’ve broken records almost every year for the past few decades, but hopefully this is the end of it: https://www.vox.com/climate/24139383/climate-change-peak-greenhouse-gas-emissions-action
Next year is the year of lower emissions, maybe in two years. Who really knows? And time is such a funny thing… Oh look over there, solar panels! We’re fine! Buy more things, and make the line go up!
What the fuck are you even trying to say here? More solar panels increases greenhouse gasses??? Loony Tunes
I read it as criticizing consumerism culture and the idea that technology alone can save us without changing that system
Still dumb. Technology is actively saving us right now, as the link I posted shows.
We would’ve been saved using 1950s technology if oil companies weren’t so effective with using corporate entities like greenpeace to spread propaganda.
Greenpeace spreads propaganda? Are you referring to nuclear? Because I don’t think nuclear alone would have prevented this, there’s still transportation, industry, and developing nations that wouldn’t be able to use nuclear.
Yes greenpeace, the Exxon funded anti-green terrorist organization, spread massive amounts of propaganda written by oil companies, including anti nuclear propaganda.
To your second point, nickel-iron batteries by the 1950s had developed to a point where they could compete with ice vehicles (not that they couldn’t earlier as well) and would have made great electric cars and trucks given they were already the primary power source for trains (just in diesel electric form). EVs as we know them today would have been ubiquitous had Edison not been terrible with technology and science.
With that the primary use for petroleum oil would have been eliminated, and we’d need large amounts of cheap electricity by the 1950s, resulting in nuclear being the cheapest option per kWh.
You might ask why bring up green peace if I’m going a half century earlier to start this alternative history timeline… Because there was a revival of interest in EVs and alternatives to oil in the 1960s and 1970s when greenpeace was active. We could have made the switch then to EVs and nuclear plants to power them. 1970s cars were so inefficient that even the nearly century old at the time nickel iron batteries would have still been able to compete with ice engines.
But if we don’t have nuclear to power them, they’re not the environmentally friendly option in a time before efficient solar and wind power, so oils execs just needed to attack nuclear plants and hey, there just happens to be a group of confused hippies arguing against nuclear arms… If you could tie nuclear power to nuclear weapons and get the peace hippies convinced nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons proliferation and also convince them nuclear disasters are somehow worse than oil disasters (which even at the time was not true, it just felt that way due to biased, sponsored, media coverage) then you can convince the core audience of EVs that it’s not worth investing in that tech or nuclear.
To your point in developing nations, yes they can. Foreign owned and operated nuclear plants are incredibly popular at this time, Germany’s nuclear plants in Brazil being an example of nuclear being deployed to a particularly unstable developing country with minimal issues.
Minimizing uses for oil helps carve a path to eliminate it and other carbon based energy sources. Even if nuclear cannot eliminate all use in its own, it’s a cornerstone technology that enables others to land the killing blow.
how aren’t the oil co’s getting themselves and their ceo’s mansions carbombed
We’ve done nothing and we’re all out of ideas!
Remember, conservatives did this. If not for conservatives worldwide, normal people would be able to proactively address this.
When we are starving and potable water is scarce, be sure to aggressively thank a conservative neighbor for involuntarily sharing all their resources with the normal people.
Capitalism did this, conservatives simply defend capitalism as it’s the most effective form of feudalism.
And the liberals/democratic/centrist oppositions parties around the world are also complicit in maintaining the status quo.
Don’t worry, Earth will survive
