Let's Be Realistic - We're Not Going To Solve This Climate Problem....

[global1]

Why?

1. Too much money is at stake throughout our economy when you consider the oil companies and the infrastructure and all the things that that goes along with and rely on fossil fuels.

2. We can't even solve some easier problems - like homelessness; like poverty; like U.S. citizens starving because of lack of food; guns; racism; etc.

3. The American People are spoiled. They are too used to doing and having things that they do and have to want to give up; sacrifice or contribute to solving the climate problem. Hell - we can't even get them to agree about vaccinations and mask mandates.

[jcgoldie]

1. so what let the shit burn?

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. That's not what's being suggested, no.

[jimfields33]

2. We'd be better off to get China, Russia and India on board.

We’re doing way more for helping decrease climate change then those three huge climate destroyers. And they want 2070 for their target? Please. Ridiculous!

[madville]

16. Yeah, without the majority of the world on board

We are just putting ourselves at a further economic disadvantage against those that will continue to utilize cheaper and dirtier energy production methods along with their cheap labor.

[Mosby]

52. +1

[bullimiami]

3. Sadly. It will not be solved. A lot of the world will go to shit with a whole lot of suffering.

We are too stupid as a species to create any sort of proactive solutions to anything.
We are no more intelligent than yeast in a sugar solution.
Consume and breed until you poison your world.

When the population is back down to manageable levels the Earth will heal itself.

[Lancero]

28. That's the default solution, if we refuse to act.

Catastrophic for humanity, great for the planet. It's why we need to solve things, on our terms, while we still have a chance.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

4. Agree, and there's more ...

A LOT would have to be 'given up'. I really don't think most people understand the COSTS. People talk 'good green jobs' and that's fine, but 'jobs' don't offset 'massive amounts of energy in the form of high EROI liquid/portable fuels ... removed from the economy'. One is economic, the other is physics.

There's also the problem that there's no 'global government' capable of forcing any other country to comply.

We'd need to reduce the population by BILLIONS over the next 20-30, and massively reduce our expectations re: 'standard of living' ... to get anywhere close to 'solving' climate change.

[hunter]

10. Mother nature will be happy to reduce the human population by billions in her usual way...

... when things get too far out of balance.

One would think we humans would like to avoid that.

One problem is that our very wealthy and most powerful think they are the strongest and will survive when, in fact, they are the most delicate snowflakes of all, entirely dependent upon a very brittle economic system.

[jimfields33]

21. Problem is nobody is mentioning exactly what it will take

Giving up standard of living? I’m lower middle class. I am unsure what I should have to give up. We’re going to have to buy electric cars in 15 to 20 years. I recycle….god knows if it’s really recycled or not. But I do it anyway. I feel like I’ve given up enough. What more do you expect?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

27. Well, I was arguing that it's not going to happen, so ... you illustrate an example of why not (nt)

[Torchlight]

5. Even if only spitting in the wind, my household will keep trying

to reduce our footprint by a measurable amount. In 2021 alone, we've reduced meat consumption by 80% and gasoline consumption by almost 60%.

I can't make others change, but that recalcitrance reflects them, not me.

I'll keep trying.

[ret5hd]

18. This household is with you.

A constant constant constant eye to waste reduction/reuse/recycle and just “less”.

Sometimes the choice is only between “bad” and “less bad”. Usually the only good choice is “less”.

[canetoad]

23. Exactly

Think globally, act locally. If everyone did their bit it would make a big difference.

I wish each and every household would get a grip on waste, packaging, plastics, (don't get me started on bottled water); do some composting and growing if they can and generally reduce the crap that they buy.

Good on you for doing the right thing.

[Kaleva]

25. I'm concentrating on adapting to what's predicted to come in my area

[NewHendoLib]

6. I agree. we no longer have what it takes to solve huge problems

Everything gets immediately politicized. lies and truth carry equal weight.

some major flaws in our species are really showing in many arenas.

Mostly, it's about selfishness, greed, lust for power, ignorance and apathy.

[Dirty Socialist]

7. Not gonna happen in the US

Too many stupid fucks don’t even acknowledge the FACT of global warming.

[SoonerPride]

8. The best we can do is slow down the rate of increase marginally

The planet is fucked.

Future generations will inherit an unlivable world.

There will be mass death.

Oh well.

That's what the people wanted. That's what they will get.

[BlueJac]

9. Might as well torch everything then...

We are to stupid for democracy and climate change. Let her burn!

[SoCalDavidS]

11. Perhaps Thankfully, Some Of Us Won't Be Around To See The Worst Of It

We'll move closer over the next 30-40 years, at which point I'll be 95, if I'm still alive. We can't even manage a once in 100 year pandemic properly, there's ZERO chance of any real progress on climate change. We'll still be brushing it aside even when it's killing us and the planet down the road.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Thankfully for who?

I mean, I'm glad my parents won't have to deal with what's to come but that also means that the people chiefly responsible for lighting the fire that burned the house down never have to live with the consequences. Hard to feel good about that.

[rurallib]

12. We can't even face up to an imminent deadly disease

How can we even imagine we can face up to a a giant crisis looming a few years in the future?

And so many will expect some miracle from some gawd that will save our pathetic butts.

[Grasswire2]

15. Evangelical fundamentalists and Dominionists are a drag on doing anything about it, too.

They are breathlessly waiting for the Rapture and Jebus to return so they can all rule the earth for a thousand years.
This will come about with "fire and fury like the world has never known."

And they believe it to be a wonderful thing about to happen.

This sh*t is going to get more and more crazy as things warm up and shortages grow.

[rampartc]

17. "america's job creators" have had decades to study climate change

i can only assume that they have determined that 3C degrees means more profit for them.

we are not going to do a thing to solve this issue.

everything that we are asking : conservation, efficiency, innovation are merely american values and nowhere near as important as profit.

[Lancero]

29. No, they just know that they're not going to be alive when the consequences arrive.

The generation that makes up the bulk of political leadership in this nation knows they won't be the ones paying the price, so why bother?

This isn't to say that the younger generations are blameless either. I've seen quite a few in my own generation decide to eschew children for environmental reasons, and then stop giving any further care about the environment all together because "The damage ends with them". Deep down, they know they will be the final generation... So why shouldn't the enjoy themselves, as best they can?

The elder generations don't care because they know they won't be alive then. The younger generation revels in being the one that will give the deathblow.

[rampartc]

30. i suppose their religious eschatology comes into play as well

when jesus returns and "checks the oil" he will be disappointed if his people have not used it all.

[Xolodno]

19. It will get solved, when....

....insurance and reinsurance rates skyrocket out of control. Or perhaps, when they completely non-renew in large areas, forcing the state to offer coverage...at high rates and for very little.

Of course, most of the damage will be done and irreversible for awhile. When it hits the wallet, people suddenly pay attention.

[marie999]

20. 20% of the people are consuming 80% of the world's resources.

That 20% will not cut their style of living enough to make any difference. The world will not make any significant changes to slow down climate change. Either the world stops eating meat and using fossil fuels or the world population drops significantly those are the only 2 ways climate change is slowed down.

[jimfields33]

22. Giving up eating meat will solve everything? Doubtful

[marie999]

32. Not just the U.S. but the whole world and also stopping the use of fossil fuels

not just as a fuel but also in the making of most products it would slow down climate change. Of course, this won't happen so climate change will keep getting worse.

[jimfields33]

35. I agree. I still say until China, Russia and India get serious, we're screwed!

[marie999]

37. And they won't before it is too late if it isn't already.

But I don't see the U.S. and Europe getting serious yet either. I mean really serious.

[Torchlight]

38. Which is of course, never an excuse to surrender our obligations and duties.

If anything, it's an even greater clarion call to individual action to reduce, re-use and recycle.

[jimfields33]

39. Of course, but until those 3 super carbon users do something, it will make the

same difference as the world completely shutting down in 2020. Not much

[Torchlight]

41. Apply pressure certainly, but I never use someone else's failure as an excuse for my own

I can't make Beijing do anything. I can however, make myself do something positive, even if it lacks measure. I'll never use someone else as an excuse for my own inaction. Even if my actions only amount to 'not much'

[tavernier]

34. 60 percent of greenhouse gasses come from meat production.

So it would definitely go a long way.

[jimfields33]

42. That seems a bit exaggerated. 60 percent?

If that were the case then we wouldn’t be going through the trouble of electric cars. If meat was the major problem, we’d quit that and worry only about the left over 40 percent? We could end carbon by 2022.

[tavernier]

44. Link

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

[jimfields33]

45. I'm blown Away by that. Thank you for providing this.

I literally read the entire article. Quite a wake up. Please know I wasn’t calling you a liar of anything. I was just astonished by your post.

[tavernier]

47. As was I when I first saw it.

I didn’t take your post as a criticism. I should have provided a link sooner.

[The Revolution]

24. Can YOU fix climate change?

Kurzgesagt had an excellent video on this topic a while back. Does a really good job of explaining the problem, why fixing it is so hard, and what we can actually do. I'm not optimistic though.

[marie999]

33. The only way climate change will be stopped and the planet will be able to regenerate itself

is for the world's population to be greatly decreased.

[Kaleva]

26. Some of us have been suggesting individuals need to prepare

As the likeyhood of the world successfully migitating climate change is remote.

[Buckeyeblue]

31. Honestly humans are so despicable that we aren't with saving

Earth will eventually recover. Maybe there will be a more evolved form of humans that will do better. We--as a whole--are pretty much greedy fuck ups.

I realize that my attitude is nihilistic. But that's pretty much where I am.

[jcgoldie]

40. fucking nonsense.

[jeffreyi]

43. Here is what I am doing.

Not for everyone, and I live on a small farm in the country, so I have options not available to all. I'm retired, also, with an ok retirement income, and time to do this. I am composting all organic waste (my own included), a la Joe Jenkins https://humanurehandbook.com/. Making charcoal from invasive woodies and enriching it into biochar with the compost, incorporating this into the soil. Converting my place into perennial native grass for seed production, and using the grass stem residue for mulching. Reducing fuels on adjacent land by cutting and chipping and charcoaling invasive woodies, allowing relict and deteriorated plant communities (aspen; native hardwood shrub communities) to regenerate. My observations are that by feeding the soil, and improving its capability to capture and hang on to moisture, carbon capture and other good things follow. This means, basically, incorporate more organic matter, develop and feed soil organisms. The climate here has warmed considerably from when I first came here in 1978. The result is that the atmosphere is now a giant sucking moisture sponge, drying and stressing everything. I think about the only thing that helps with this is to increase effective soil moisture by incorporating organic matter. The deer and other wildlife like it here, too. Will this solve climate change? No, I'm one person, but it's fun to do and a step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned.

[pecosbob]

46. We're well past the point of no return...some of ya'll will be around for the great die-off

I'm over sixty and so I probably won't be around to see it. by 2060 New York, Houston and Miami will be under water, as will Jakarta, Bangladesh, Rotterdam and Venice. We're drowning in carcinogens the EPA ignores. Millions are already starving. Even sand is becoming a scarce and fought over resource as we seem bent on pouring concrete over the entire surface of the planet.

We're an adaptable species, but I don't think we can adapt fast enough for what is coming at us. At the moment it seems we're mostly content with driving off that cliff. Throw in a couple of new virus mutations and much of the human population may be toast.

[Silent3]

48. I think we will cut down on carbon emissions *some*, but not enough, because renewables...

...are becoming priced competitive.

It won't be enough to stave off a couple of degrees of warming, however. I really think our only hope (and this is the kind of thing responsible people don't count on, only hope for) is that we'll gain the ability to geo-engineer ourselves out of the worst of this.

As I'm 59 y/o now. I'll probably see things start to get bad toward the end of my likely lifespan, but probably not catastrophic in my lifetime.

No matter what, however, it's best to make as much of an effort we can (sadly limited though it might be, given the political will for it) because there are differing degrees of fucked up, and the less fucked up, the better, and the easier to fix if we become technologically capable of doing so.

[tavernier]

49. There might be a solution to over population.

Start the rumor that humans taste like bacon.

[hamsterjill]

51. Overpopulation was, at one point, a subject that was taken seriously.

Not sure what happened, but I grew up in the sixties in a small, conservative area. Overpopulation was addressed constantly in my public school education. Zero population growth. Two kids; no more.

Somewhere along the way, that became “you can’t tell someone how many children they can have!!” and the subject became divisive. I still to this day feel that people who have big families are being irresponsible. No, I can’t dictate how many kids they can have, but I can still understand that having too many isn’t a good thing!

[hunter]

50. We could quit fossil fuels in fifteen years or less if...

... we took on the problem with the same intensity we fought World War II.

Two things would have to happen first:

We'd have to convince the Republican Fascists that global warming is a clear and present danger.

We'd have to convince the Democratic Leftists that nuclear power is a necessity because their renewable energy schemes are not working and only increase our long term dependence on fossil fuels, especially natural gas.

Quitting fossil fuels is something the U.S.A. could accomplish alone. If we did that we'd be in a position to export our carbon-free and carbon-neutral energy technologies to the rest of the world.

I suspect mass produced small scale nuclear reactors could rapidly displace more expensive fossil fueled electric power. France accomplished that fairly rapidly and closed their last coal mine twenty years ago. Today nuclear power is a mature 70 year old technology so we could accomplish something similar fairly rapidly.

At the same time we could be designing and building nuclear plants dedicated to the synthesis of carbon-neutral liquid transportation fuels.

With a population approaching eight billion people the human race has worked itself into a tight corner. A large fraction of the population depends upon high density energy sources for its very survival. Currently fossil fuels provide the bulk of that energy.

If we don't quit fossil fuels billions of people will suffer and die.

If we quit fossil fuels without any viable alternative high density energy sources billions of people will suffer and die.

I used to be a radical anti-nuclear activist. I've always been a radical environmentalist. Most of all, I'm a humanist who doesn't want to see billions of people suffer and die. That's why I'm no longer an anti-nuclear activist.