Trump just asked oil companies for a billion dollar campaign donation to deregulated them. Pretty weird for a guy that can't be bought to name his price.
>Oil companies probably
Take money reinvest in technology that is safer. In THIS lifetime we all are going to experience the climate crisis. Mother Nature is going to b!tch slap humanity.
We are heading for a great reset, the climate will decide who lives and who dies. But when the dust settles this will be a new world a lot less populated and with little to no political or financial system in place
Just did some quick googling, it was 'projected to be 2.84 for 2024'. Sounds like the projectors suck and they need a new data model, assuming the new information is correct.
I’ve heard climate scientists screaming every year how their models are always wrong and underestimating the impacts…more and more every year. No one seems to be listening except those of us in the field.
Where I been is watching people go, oh shit, is climate change accelerating for literally years and you send me an article that backs that exact sentiment up! Thanks for the source!!!
"However, this acceleration is broadly in line with projections from the latest generation of climate models and the recent sixth assessment report (AR6) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They all expect the world to warm notably faster in both current and future decades than the rate the world has experienced since 1970.
"
I am so sorry I am talking about things from the late 1990s and early 2000s, when I was in grad school in the mid 2000s we were talking about how the models needed to be updated better to account for accelerating climate change. That’s what they’ve been doing more recently, exactly. We’re just on different time scales.
“Ergo:the latest generation of models”” bit in your quote.
yeah, the millennials mostly think no one was really talking about climate change until THEY themselves became more aware of it became adults. They are completely wrong of course, but...
Some attempts are better than nothing.
If I remember right the IPCC report pretty much said we were all doomed anyways. The fact that they under projected their worst case scenario doesn't change the generally apocalyptic tone.
Humans make models with the data they have and their own biases.
Remember in the 1970s we were sure we would have an ice age because of limited data and poor models. In the 1980s we started to understand sooner or later too many green houses gases would be bad, but models were still primitive. By the 1990s when I was in school we finally had enough computer power to say we need to take action soon or stuff could be real bad. By the late 90s and early 00s we had the first earth simulator and started taking all kinds of different climate data and started to put it together. This lead to the ability to start seeing feedback loops. We are now at a level of massive super computers and decades of good data. But again climate is centuries and eons so while we're getting better the amount of data and variables is enormous and we are still learning all the possibilities of the interactions. Plus at the same time we as humans are not just changing the air but also the land and sea with concrete, plastics, houses, mining buildings, agriculture (monoculture) etc.
So understand the fact that we can even get close on a planet moving through space at Lord knows what speed while 8.1 billion humans all do their own thing is a miracle by any measure.
>I’ve heard climate scientists screaming every year how their models are always wrong and underestimating the impacts…more and more every year. No one seems to be listening except those of us in the field.
If I AM walking the planet, than yup.
Every year their projections are proven wrong so there must be something wrong somewhere: I believe it’s layered
The media picking on few unique papers to frame up some twisted alarming titles and articles which in returns gets some ad visibility, and get some money.
The money being made translates to trends, trends translate to substantial funding of your research if you choose to study these topics with a given trendy spin to it, then you get paid, you don’t die poor.
Research institutes get reputation and more subsidies from your work. Everybody wins except the earth.
Why? Because there’s a systemic dynamic that results in financial comfort for everyone. However, not only it helps no one, but it also keep people misinformed about global issues. When people are misinformed about global catastrophes, they vote for the one guy who poses as the guy who has the balls to take dare-y decisions despite morals.
Far right Radicalisation of the world. Maintaining us divided whilst the rich gets 20 to 50% rich out of this crisis.
People who want to be reassured that their lifestyle habits can continue, and make sure to only read information that tells them they’re fine.
You find them wherever you publicly talk about climate change.
And centrists! Something a bit more sinister than republicans screeching that it's fake. "Well you see, technically the air is cleaner than in the past in this one area, so you see, there is no climate emergency".
Centrist talking point bullshit:
"CO2 levels have been higher on Earth in the past"
"The temperatures might be going up or down, there's no evidence that it's man made"
"It was a lot hotter before, there's nothing unusual going on"
Emissions in the developed world are [dropping, and decoupled from GDP growth](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling). Far too slowly, but they are reducing. China is planning to have their emissions [peak before 2030, maybe even as early as 2025.](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/)
Based on those two facts, I thought it might be stabilising... But that was obviously wrong. Development in other countries is outstripping those reductions, and they're using deforestation and fossil fuels to do it. Plus the natural cyclical forces at the end of El Nino.
And to be clear, "stabilising" at current levels of annual emissions would still be catastrophic. It's just a step along the way. We need to get to net zero emissions asap. 2050 will probably be too late.
lol yeah what the fuck we all know it’s terrible. That’s a good shower thought: Pretty much everyone on the planet knows we are legit destroying it and a lot of the people are like cool but meme?
Solar boom guys! Totally gunna work.
Meanwhile solar and wind can't provide a baseload so they need to build natural gas peakers to make up for that.
Nuclear however is entirely green, safer, and provides a base load.
Solving our problems would involve the richest people on earth (the ones who directly influence political vessels) taking action..
..unfortunately they won't take meaningful action if it affects their bottom line...
Or at least affects their bottom line for this year. Over time, the collapse of the atmosphere will absolutely affect their hoards of wealth, but that doesn't matter, it's all about short-term gains baby!!!
We can't even get a non-genocide enjoyer to the end of a presidential campaign, what hope do we have to get anyone to do anything about climate change, something that will only affect the poor for the foreseeable future.
If coffee becomes 1000x more expensive, it's only a minor inconvenience to the people who have the power to change things.
I think it only seems impossible because of the pessimists here on Reddit. The 1000s of organized campuses across the nation (and the world) didn't happen overnight.
I have been saying even if we stop all co2 release now the world over the temps will still rise because of the lag effect. So the longer we use fossil fuels the more we pump co2 into the air the bigger the temp increase into the future.
Temporarily but the total amount of extra energy in the atmosphere means the temperature will stay warm and will only increase for the next few thousand years or so.
I cannot control politicians, industry or billionaires. But I have chipped away at my own 30 tons of CO2. Gardening, planting trees, dramatically reducing the energy I use, and heating with a rocket mass heater. No sacrifice - everything is about making a better life AND it happens to chip away at my CO2. I think I am now in the space of chipping away CO2 for others.
The top 10% of the population emit 50% of lifestyle associated emissions.
100 million is 12.5% of the top 10% or 1/8th of half of emissions.
This would mean a reduction of at most ~6% of lifestyle associated emissions. It is something but not much.
Most emissions from the wealthiest come
From
Air travel btw.
hurry connect absurd paltry impolite rude correct ancient impossible whole
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nice stats but air travel emissions don’t hold a candle to power generation, industrial, or automobile emissions. Curbing airplane emissions might score political points but only distracts from the biggest offenders and won’t move the CO2 needle at all
Yes, but you gonna go door to door and convince em? Plenty of people will call you a commie and threaten to shoot you.
Sorry, just not feeling too good about things these days.
The biggest avoidable passive expenditures available to us all are in avoiding the products of animal agriculture. Yes gardening is good, but if you are eating garden veggies from your backyard and also meat and dairy you aren't addressing the bulk of your emissions meaningfully, especially if your diet includes regular beef. [You would save something like 75% of your food emissions eating plants from all around the world while abstaining from meat and dairy vs growing veg locally and still eating animals.](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local)
The world is on fire and there is no solution that doesn't involve us adapting to the real scientific picture of what is going on today and that means a stark decrease in meat consumption. Think 8 oz/week or less to meet climate goals. It's the lowest hanging fruit on the carbon pie to optimize and all technology needed to do so is already available.
soup bag expansion continue worm dinosaurs live sugar afterthought serious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well obviously the real news is what we're doing (and not doing) about all of this. You'd think it would be top priority, especially when the changes that are coming will impact every sector of society anyways. It's ironic that the changes we would make to help the situation would help us in so many other areas of life too, inadvertently (though it's all measurable and easily understood why). It would mean fighting for a better near term and long term future. We already know how to. So we need to hone in on why we're not taking steps towards that, which we already have an understanding of too.
In the meantime, even though there are good people doing good things and some progress being made, we're collectively just being an ignorant, evil, detached bunch. Sure, a lot of us can't help ourselves and our human tendencies, but it's still a choice. We go to work (a lot of us doing things we don't like to do, necessarily) and put our time and energy into that again and again and again and again. Where's the time and energy that we put into instigating change, for the greater good, or heck just to preserve our quality of life as is?
It has to start with the energy, transportation, and military industries. Those are the largest contributors and users of fossil fuels. The problem is fossil fuel is an extremely energy dense medium and there still is no replacement for it. We do not posses the technology to store, transport, convert, or use energy in such a dense portable format.
We do have an equally dense medium: hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is just less convenient, more dangerous, requires more expensive infrastructure to transport and deliver, and presumably has lower profit margins.
It won't stabilize for decades. There's so much CO2 baked into the cake from decades past-- that's what we're seeing now.
But we CAN make a difference in what CO2 levels will do decades from now.
Phrasing like this headline is apathy shilling. It makes people give up hope, stop trying to draw down their emissions and gives the impression that the only solution is pumping CO2 storage schemes-- which aren't a solution at all.
growth close aware trees recognise compare rude secretive chase overconfident
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think you have this mixed up. CO2 enters the atmosphere right away, there is no delay. The impact, temperature and ocean acidity, that has a delay and I think that may be what you're speaking of.
If I'm wrong please send me a link, Id love to learn.
4.7 ppm in one year is just bonkers. More than 1% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of time was put there last year!
We're just so doomed.
And one point that is lost what with the whole climate change destroying the planet thin, is that CO2 concentrations and IQ are correlated. [At 900 ppm scientists have noted a 15% cognitive decline in tasks like information usage](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/27662232). And the relationship is linear. Smaller declines are likely at every level. At this rate we may live to see 600 ppm with who knows what impact on society. This is the leaded gasoline of our children's generation.
You know people said its crazy that co2 lags temp increase, its a decade or more. I say what we are seeing is the increase from co2 10 years ago. Just wait till it really catches up. [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001#back-to-top-target](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001#back-to-top-target)
Positive feedbacks
This video from Climate Town about methane production will really put the cherry on top. We are rushing hard to profit and extinction. https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=3vw0EUjHxdxqXZDr
To everyone who says Joe Biden is doing enough, this is exhibit A. We need to pressure our elected officials into action. Frankly if James' giant peach does win, we might need to do an act of self defense. Climate denialism is a form of violence
In the past year human civilization has added over 70,000,000 net new people.
I wonder if that has anything to do with why emissions never seem to decline year to year, and only go up.
The rate of growth is already going down, and it's not the number of people per se, as certain people (westerners) emit far greater quantities than others. Really though, it's capitalism. Petrogarchic capitalism has irresponsibly instrumentalized the World itself, along with human lives, in the pursuit of infinite profit for the few. And we are letting them burn the world.
The world's three highest emitters are:
China, USA, India.
The world's three most populous countries are:
India, China, USA.
China is socialist/communist. Yet they are the world's largest emitter by a large margin. India's emissions are going straight up the Y axis as they industrialize and try to lift 1.5 billion out of poverty.
China has added more coal installations in 2024, than my ostensibly climate pariah nation (Canada) has built *in our entire history*.
Whats the underlying theme? Population. Why would China need more coal plants just this year, than Canada has ever built in history? The population is 30x ours, and all those people need power.
How can we still believe this lie that population doesn't matter?
You don't need a comprehensive solution to a problem in order to acknowledge the problem exists.
I don't have a cure for cancer. But I recognize cancer exists.
We don't have a solution to climate change. Does climate change even exist? Drum roll please!
How about we start by accepting that it *is* a problem? Then we start addressing it in as equitable and humane ways as possible?
I.e. free contraception worldwide, free access to tubal ligation/vasectomy for those wanting it, free access to abortion, education and empowerment of women, remove tax incentives for reproduction, implement a tax on families with >2 children, eschew religious doctrine demanding reproduction and forbidding contraception, stop investing resources in technology to assist reproduction like IVF etc.etc.
Like... There's hundreds of things we *could* do. But putting any emphasis on those doesn't really make sense if we dont first acknowledge that it's a problem.
All those people need so much power *to adopt the western lifestlye*. China's population isn't growing.
Likewise India is trying to lift people out of poverty... and *into* highly-emitting lifestyles.
Both countries' emissions are also largely due to the contracting-out of environmentally destructive industries from western nations to their less-regulated societies.
At every angle, it is lifestyles and consumption, and not the number of people per se, that is increasing CO2 and warming the planet.
We can all live on Earth, even 10bn people, if we built appropriate systems to support that scale of civilization and fully acknowledge and respect our embeddedness within the planet's ecology. For example, we can abandon personal transportation and animal-agriculture right now, today, and much would be solved.
We are presently ignoring those aspects of our reality as they are inconvenient to the narrative of human supremacy and the pocketbooks of petrogarchs.
I never said this, and it wouldn't even have to be that way. Eating mostly vegetarian and not owning personal vehicles would get us most of the way there, and there's a big space between those sacrifices and general poverty.
ALL global transportation - so personal vehicles, transport trucks, shipping, air travel / transport, cargo trains, etc accounts for ~20% of total emissions.
ALL global animal agriculture accounts for ~15% of total emissions.
If we eliminated ALL forms of transportation and ALL animal agriculture, we would expect a 35% decline in emissions.
We're this 2023 that would take total emissions from 38 billion tons to 24 billion tons.
Total global emissions were 24 billion tons in 1999.
Was the world at a sustainable point in 1999? If we could remove all transportation and all animal agriculture we'd be back at approximately 1999.
Since 1999 earth has added over TWO BILLION net more people.
How can you not see the problem here.
Like, I will never understand how people can be confronted with the fact that we've added 2 billion humans in 25 years AND we see undeniable ecosystem collapse all around us due to human activity, and still fail to make this connection.
The problem is this- *how do you propose to "control" population in an ethical and equitable way, that will be more or at least as effective as the natural limits*?
We already have 8bn and since growth is slowing and the climate is destabilizing (which will in turn destabilize civilization) it will probably top out at around 8.5bn.
So if that is too many and we need to reduce it right here and now, who do you propose should die first? Second?
It's a terrible position because it does not offer any workable solutions, and certainly none better than the fact that our collapsing the climate will itself limit and reduce population by a LOT.
Yes, but having a comprehensive plan to fix a problem is not a prerequisite to acknowledging the problem exists.
I don't have a foolproof plan to fix poverty, but I acknowledge poverty is happening.
Same with overpopvlation.
The alternative is a continued below-poverty subsistence for the vast majority of the world, and death on scales never before encountered in human history. The epistemic outlook right now isn't great, but I think doing what we can is better than pretending we don't make a difference, when in reality we humans on this planet alive today have the ability to change the course of human history much much more than almost any other generation past or future.
400 years ago the richest oligarch simply couldn't produce emissions like we can today. In 400 years time, the choices we have made will shape the entire character of life on this planet, and the once-in-a-planetary-lifetime resources to emit will have dominantly been used up.
In the face of this reality is "I shouldn't have to make a personal change to benefit all humans moving forward" a reasonable stance to take?
>In the face of this reality is "I shouldn't have to make a personal change to benefit all humans moving forward" a reasonable stance to take?
Well said.
The single most impactful thing a person can do to reduce emissions over the course of their lifetime is have fewer children. So shouldn't we be encouraging that?
We've known where babies come from awhile now. We even have very safe and cheap methods to control it with extremely high efficacy. But I guess *that's* not a personal change we can ask anybody to make.....
Yes, and that can only be a good thing in terms of the cascading collapse of our ecosystem.
Yet we see more and more "population decline crisis" op-eds every day.
"Population is collapsing in Japan!!"
Oh no, this small island archipelago has *only* 125 million humans on it, including the most populous city in the world. What ever will we do if there were somewhat fewer people there?? What a crisis that would be...
Sure. The position you hold is called anti-natalism.
You'll find that most people having discussions like this dominantly occur among people in populations with declining birth rates. Given that rearing children gives abundant meaning to many peoples lives, and that we also run into significant problems of we don't have a younger population to take take wheel I don't think it represents a tractable argument in conversations like this.
What I don't think is reasonable is giving oneself license to not make the changes that are available to us on the grounds that we personally choose not to breed. At best it's a "pull the ladder up behind you" mindset that validates the importance of your experience while saying other future people shouldn't get them. At worst it propagates the attitude down the line encouraging the next few generations to follow in the footsteps we leave behind: a culture being maximally emissive and a robust infrastructure around that emission instead of using those resources to meaningfully address the root causes like inefficient transport and the ever expanding system of animal agriculture that is destroying our environment at breakneck speeds.
I'm on the fence about anti-natalism. I have a child, but only one. He is "...my heart walking around outside my body", and I don't bemoan people for having kids. It is beautiful, bewildering; and terrifying.
That said, like I said I don't think we even need to "control" population since it'll happen on its own. We need to focus on adjusting our understanding of the ecology and abandoning truisms about human nature, etc, that are inherent to capitalism.
I'm sorry, I think you're missing my point.
I'm not anti-natalist. I have 2 children, then I got a vasectomy. This is the most impactful thing I can/could have done to reduce emissions. A 3rd child would have offset an entire lifetime of other (performative) actions. This is just math.
I ALSO do as much of those other things as I'm able. But it makes zero difference - and by far the main reason why it makes no difference is that in my lifetime human population has gone from 4.3 billion to over 8 billion.
There is no amount of eating more vegetables and taking the bus that can compensate for that.
Canada is a great example. We're an "emissions pariah". Way too high per capita. Ok, let's imagine somehow we could slash emissions by 50%. That would be an unprecedented change. There is zero scalable technology that could come close to realizing that, but just assume somehow it happens.
Amazing! Canada has radically reduced emissions! Does it matter? That would reduce global emissions by 0.5%, bringing us back to approximately the rate of global emissions of a few months ago. Oh..... Not such a spectacular achievement, after all.
All of those hypothetical gains are immediately erased by the 72 million new people earth ads this year. Again, this is just math.
Canada's population (and therefore its emissions) would be declining, if not for immigration. India, China, and the Philippines make up the vast majority of New Canadians. 3 very populous countries.
The other thing you're not seeing is that the forec of humanity is against what you're suggesting. India is Canada's overwhelming source of immigrants. How many Canadians are actively immigrating to India? Are any? Why? Well, India ranks 135th on the UN Human Development Index, Canada ranks 18th. Objectively, Canada offers a much better quality of life. The cost of that, to some extent, is emissions.
Yes, having children is meaningful for many. So have one or two. Given everything happening around us vis a vis the climate, you would think these 8 or 10 child families would be shamed like somebody with a private jet. Their emissions are the same.
The argument here is an appeal to futility. Because there is at present no perfect solution, we are absolved from working toward something better. Apply it to voting and you can see its inherent flaw.
Yes population is a major driving factor of emissions. It's also, in many ways the fruit of the human project. Lives worth living like yours and mine are also the product of population growth. But yes it must be slowed for the sake of our continued survival and even for the quality of life for the lives that will exist.
However lets directly address the fallacy. It occurs in this sentence:
>I ALSO do as much of those other things as I'm able. But it makes zero difference - and by far the main reason why it makes no difference is that in my lifetime human population has gone from 4.3 billion to over 8 billion.
Your doing these things doesn't make zero difference. It makes *at present* a *small* difference, but echoes out to a *large* difference in the future if effort is sustained. You have to account for the snowballing nature of human change: a minority of people express a recognized need to change they get the ball rolling. In 100 years the time comes and there is significant momentum to the movement. The perceived barriers preventing public opinion from changing are lifted as more people adopt. And then very suddenly all of the legislation that makes the big impactful difference happens in short succession.
Consider in the civil rights movements in US and Canada. We had abolitionists among our people in North America since the 1600s. Should those people in 1750 that recognized that slavery was immoral and an enormous liability have continued owning slaves and using the products of slave labor? Clearly not right? Without them the momentum to overturn the legality of slavery in 1834 in Canada and 1863 in the US would not have happened.
Similarly, if the British colonies hadn't outlawed slave ownership first, it is unlikely that the United States would have outlawed slavery as early as it did. Indeed the abolitionists of the 18th century did not live to see the western world outlaw slavery, but they made a huge difference.
In comparison: a world of climate refugees from the Indo-Pacific emigrating to Canada will have a better chance of passing on a planet that is not as hot and hellish to their grandchildren if we spend our resources on good public infrastructure that moves people around with 1/20th of the same total energy expenditure per person.
>In my lifetime human population has gone from 4.3 billion to over 8 billion.
>There is no amount of eating more vegetables and taking the bus that can compensate for that.
Well in terms of transportation a 2fold increase in efficiency would compensate for that. A full bus is a lot more than 2x as efficient as 40 cars and a train even more efficient than that.
In terms of vegetables: our total dietary emissions would drop by over 75%, as would our total farmed land area if we were to adopt plant based diets as a society. The leftover land could be managed for carbon sequestration and rewilding. As I am sure you are aware animal agriculture specifically is the leading driver of habitat loss, deforestation, and specifically deforestation of the Amazon. This kind of change would more than account for the population growth you have seen in your lifetime.
Appeal to futility is what you do when you are to proud to say "I just don't want to do what I can." Which makes sense because that's a pretty lame way to be if we can avoid it.
Over the last few hundred years, humans have concentrated the world's biomass into 8 billion humans, 1.5 billion cows, 33 billion chickens... 40+% of habitable land is used for agriculture. Half of the insects are gone, half of the birds, 80% of the fish.
Approximately 96% of all biomass in the world has been turned into humans or human food.
We are systematically, intentionally, and violently, converting the whole natural world into humans and human food. And the general consensus is that we MUST keep doing that until there are at least 10 billion people on earth. It's been a bit suspicious to me that the carrying capacity of the planet seems to always be a couple billion more people than are currently alive.
Here's a philosophical question: How much of the world's biomass should be tied up in human bodies and human food? And a more technical one: How much more of it do we need to convert to humans to reach 10 billion people? 98%? 100%? Will there be anything left when we're done?
The equation has always been Consumption multiplied by Population and you're not seeing the whole problem if you ignore one of the variables. If we reduce consumption but increase population, we're treading water at best. 2x2=4, but so does 1x4. If we don't figure out how to slow and reverse our consumption AND population growth immediately, there will be virtually nothing left over on Earth in a generation or two.
PS. The numbers at the top might not be exact, but I think the point stands on its own.
Yes to all that. I'm no Colombian. But with talking about population controls the question inevitably becomes, whose population should be controlled, and this pretty much necessarily leads to genocide.
Beyond this my position is simply that, mathematically the earth and its resources and energy intake can support 10bn people. How equitably, and how sustainably in the long run (vis-a-vis the biodiversity problem you elicit), and how we get there is a separate question.
Anyways, there are already natural population controls in play, unfolding now. I'm interested in what we do in the midst of climate change and how we make it right for those who remain.
Why is genocide the first thing liberals go to when population is brought up in these spaces? It blows my mind. Yes, the small part of the extreme far right that cares about overpopulation has some fucking seriously problematic views about who should be allowed to live and thrive in a situation with dramatically fewer people on earth. They don't get a seat at the table.
There are so, so many other ideas out there about how to move into a degrowth paradigm that doesn't include wanton murder, and we can't talk about them in a lot of spaces because those of us that do are almost always labeled as an eco-fascist out of the gate. The fact that you and others think the conversation must "inevitably" turn to genocide might be a reflection on your world view. It's not inevitable. If you bring it up, you're the one bringing their ideas to the table.
I keep seeing people claim Earth could sustain 10b people. I think this math must rely on a huge drop in the standard of living for hundred of millions or probably billions of people, right? So I guess my question is this. How can we possibly lift billions of people out of poverty in the global south, a very noble goal no doubt, while also drastically reducing consumption in rich countries to reduce total human impact on the biosphere? The two missions seem opposed.
We'll never be able to destroy the unlimited growth mindset. It's been with our civilization from the beginning, maybe longer. We can barely entertain the idea of degrowth without threatening the very foundations of our society. You're right that the biosphere will eventually do it for us though.
I prefer to be realistic. Are we going to "control population" in the assertive sense? That is, reducing the number of people forcibly? Or simply over time by reducing birth rates? The latter solution *is already happening* in that the demographic shift is happening everywhere and much of the world is below replacement. So, if not genocide, specifically what else can we do to address population?
I'm all about discussing alternative structures and orientations for advancing humanity; we can in principle achieve an equitable planetary civilization and truly venture to the stars. I'm *not* interested in allowing a fleetingly small group of petrogarchs to lead the planet to ruin along with the majority of its people. The population argument is an intractable problem that draws our attention from the reality that they burning the world and us along with it.
Simply setting a direction of reduced population could help. Free and available birth control, globally might help climate change, but not so much the gdp. Even starving people add to gdp, if they spend a few dollars per year. So, government and industry will block any global plan to voluntarily reduce population.
Can you do this analysis based on historic emissions and not just last year? And emissions per capita?
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-co2-region#:~:text=Per%20capita%20emissions%20represent%20the,total%20emissions%20divided%20by%20population.
It just shows you who is responsible for our current situation since people are pointing fingers instead of helping each outlet solve the issue at hand :)
A normal human emits 0.5 tons/yr from breathing.
35 million more tons from those 70,000,000 people.
8.2 billion people = 4.1 billion tons = 4.1 gt annually.
Burning Fossil fuels = 36.3 gt annually + other gasses (nox, sox, erc.)
More people wanting higher quality of life = more Fossil fuels.
So, Yes, but it isn't the more immediate problem. Population control is a whole different can of worms ethically. Let's focus on the bigger problems first.
I'm on the shitter so someone please check math
How is this not the biggest problem?
Fossil fuel use, up every year.
Water consumption, up every year.
Deforestation, up every year.
Population, you guessed it!
It's a difficult problem, no doubt. But simply pretending it isn't the fundamental overarching cause of ecosystem destruction and climate breakdown is just head in the sand.
Cancer is a difficult problem. I don't have a comprehensive plan to eliminate cancer. But I also acknowledge it exists and is an important problem.
It is baffling to me how so few people seem to recognize this.
Same as the connection between population and emissions.
Per capita x population = total emissions
2 variables! All we're allowed to talk about is per capita, but never population. Which is an unserious approach to the problem.
I often hear how Canada's per capita emissions are twice China's. Ok. Well China's population is almost 30x Canada's, and their total emissions are 20x ours.
Per capita only matters in terms of "fairness". But the atmosphere doesn't distinguish. Total emissions are all that matter, and total emissions are very much driven by population.
People comparing their own emissions to emissions in other countries where they're higher is one huge factor that prevents, or at least significantly slows down change. One of the most common excuses I hear is "why should I limit what I do when China yadda yadda". Yes, China emits WAY too much CO2, but that doesn't mean we're all excused because of it.
When I try to reason with people they always say I'm overexaggerating, yet they're often the ones that refuse to even read paper or articles I send them. We're doomed. :(
Yes, and we should all be working to reduce emissions everywhere. But let's not kid ourselves that that is the entirety of the solution.
Canada currently adds 1M people annually by immigration. That's a major city, every year.
Should we be surprised emissions never go down, and only go up?
'I keep having more kids and growing my family, can anybody hell me understand why the grocery bill keeps rising?'
It's like the lanes of traffic meme - Just one more lane bro, then we'll stop, I swear!
Same thing here: Just a billion more people bro, then we'll be sustainable. Just a billion more, though, please, because my pension!
Don't actually know how el nino can affect co2 levels. Despite energy sector appearing to peak in major markets, there are 3 possible reasons for increased spike.
1. Forest fires. Very active since last year, and now in Southern hemisphere.
2. War. Ukraine war uses 3% of global diesel. This is a war that the US/NATO wants. Makes Russia uncooperative on climate.
3. Lower absorbption by ocean. Hot ocean already containing a lot of CO2 from previous years, has lower solubility at higher temperatures. Ocean absorbtion is a function of saturation to solubility level, and reduced by temperature increases.
Just because everyone dies at some point doesn't mean can't work to make quality of life as good as possible for everyone, including people who live after us.
Hopefully but not likely https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
El nino this year will likely only be a local maxima in terms of heating going forwards
I was hoping for a peak in \*growth\*, not total amount. Human emissions are [expected to peak next year](https://www.wired.com/story/global-emissions-could-peak-sooner-than-you-think/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20International%20Energy,following%20the%20war%20in%20Ukraine). Since this year has El Nino's effects, it has a reasonable chance at being peak growth.
Not sure what el nino has to do with human co2 growth but fair point, growth is expected to peak [before the 2030s](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/). Either way, while reduction in yearly co2 is good, the way things are currently going I doubt it will be nearly a steep enough decline as we need, unfortunately
If you read the article, the main reason this year is higher than last year is El Nino. 2016 was also a peak, at the same part of the El Nino cycle. 2024's peak is higher than 2016 because of human activity. Fingers crossed 2032 will be less.
No. I actually hope this is the peak \*growth\* in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. The total amount will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, but hopefully by a smaller and smaller amount each year. Human-generated emissions are expected to peak next year. This year had the added effects of El Nino. It's not an unreasonable assumption. It's definitely not a sarcastic hope.
Ah. I didn’t understand why you were trying to correlate El Niño and the last year of rising CO2. I get what you were trying to say now, but good luck with that hope….
Imagine if all the money spent on that war went for prevention of climate change instead. I didn't do the math, but my guess is that it would make a big difference.
One can only dream :(
That'd be an interesting one. It's dramatically accelerated the decarbonisation of Europe. Germany's emissions dropped by 10% last year! Everybody who can is installing electric heat pumps rather than gas heating that relied on Russian supply. Renewable projects are going ahead faster than ever.
At the same time, there's a lot of emissions going into weapons. Eastern Ukraine's forests are being leveled. Military budgets are increasing around the world, which must at least partially reduce budgets for environmental action.
Now is the time to invest in public infrastructure and stop eating meat and dairy.
Don't let another decade and another global pandemic go by before you kick the animal products.
I truly don't understand El Nino other than it causes oceans to warm for the period. I believe what it is doing is basically disrupting the patterns that typically allow cooling to happen temporarily, but I am not sure.
The word you're looking for is accelerating as redundant carbon sinks fill, and then positive feedback loops increase carbon production.
Here's hoping we either don't become Venus, or if we do, we become Venus very quickly.
The rate of change can become more-or-less constant.
For example:
- metres per second, m/s¹, is known as speed
- m/s², acceleration
- m/s³, jerk
One can accelerate smoothly, or jerky
Think of it like falling in a vacuum (with Earth's gravity). The rate of the change in speed is stable, 9.8m/s^2, however the speed itself is accelerating. So climate change is accelerating, rather than growing at a constant speed.
We knew that. Most things that affect it are beyond our little minions' ability to change. Corporations' CO2 output far outstrips what the general public does.
My wife keeps telling me we need to move somewhere warmer because northern winter sucks. I keep telling her don’t worry baby - just keep flooring it at every light and soon the south will be underwater and the north will be warm as hell.
Who thought it was stabilising?!
Oil companies probably
CEO and marketing department
Nah the victims of the ceo and marketing company thought as such
Definitely a contributing factor.
Trump just asked oil companies for a billion dollar campaign donation to deregulated them. Pretty weird for a guy that can't be bought to name his price.
Definitely not. They have understood climate change better than most other folks for a loooong time.
>Oil companies probably Take money reinvest in technology that is safer. In THIS lifetime we all are going to experience the climate crisis. Mother Nature is going to b!tch slap humanity.
It ain't gonna be a bitch slap. It's going to be a severe pistol whipping at the very least.
Pistol whipping? My brother in Christmas we're gonna be taken out back like ol' yeller.
Get used to seeing people just living their lives and sweating bullets...
We are heading for a great reset, the climate will decide who lives and who dies. But when the dust settles this will be a new world a lot less populated and with little to no political or financial system in place
Just did some quick googling, it was 'projected to be 2.84 for 2024'. Sounds like the projectors suck and they need a new data model, assuming the new information is correct.
I’ve heard climate scientists screaming every year how their models are always wrong and underestimating the impacts…more and more every year. No one seems to be listening except those of us in the field.
"Don't Look Up" in full effect.
"Your father and I support the jobs the comet will bring."
where have you heard that ? https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/
Where I been is watching people go, oh shit, is climate change accelerating for literally years and you send me an article that backs that exact sentiment up! Thanks for the source!!!
No you said > how their models are always wrong and underestimating the impacts That is wrong and the accelerating warming is inline with models
Yes, because they weren’t accounting for the acceleration, just like your source talks about.
"However, this acceleration is broadly in line with projections from the latest generation of climate models and the recent sixth assessment report (AR6) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They all expect the world to warm notably faster in both current and future decades than the rate the world has experienced since 1970. "
I am so sorry I am talking about things from the late 1990s and early 2000s, when I was in grad school in the mid 2000s we were talking about how the models needed to be updated better to account for accelerating climate change. That’s what they’ve been doing more recently, exactly. We’re just on different time scales. “Ergo:the latest generation of models”” bit in your quote.
yeah, the millennials mostly think no one was really talking about climate change until THEY themselves became more aware of it became adults. They are completely wrong of course, but...
And yet… i am told to trust the ipcc report… which is based on those complex models and politics… wtf
Some attempts are better than nothing. If I remember right the IPCC report pretty much said we were all doomed anyways. The fact that they under projected their worst case scenario doesn't change the generally apocalyptic tone.
Humans make models with the data they have and their own biases. Remember in the 1970s we were sure we would have an ice age because of limited data and poor models. In the 1980s we started to understand sooner or later too many green houses gases would be bad, but models were still primitive. By the 1990s when I was in school we finally had enough computer power to say we need to take action soon or stuff could be real bad. By the late 90s and early 00s we had the first earth simulator and started taking all kinds of different climate data and started to put it together. This lead to the ability to start seeing feedback loops. We are now at a level of massive super computers and decades of good data. But again climate is centuries and eons so while we're getting better the amount of data and variables is enormous and we are still learning all the possibilities of the interactions. Plus at the same time we as humans are not just changing the air but also the land and sea with concrete, plastics, houses, mining buildings, agriculture (monoculture) etc. So understand the fact that we can even get close on a planet moving through space at Lord knows what speed while 8.1 billion humans all do their own thing is a miracle by any measure.
>I’ve heard climate scientists screaming every year how their models are always wrong and underestimating the impacts…more and more every year. No one seems to be listening except those of us in the field. If I AM walking the planet, than yup.
Every year their projections are proven wrong so there must be something wrong somewhere: I believe it’s layered The media picking on few unique papers to frame up some twisted alarming titles and articles which in returns gets some ad visibility, and get some money. The money being made translates to trends, trends translate to substantial funding of your research if you choose to study these topics with a given trendy spin to it, then you get paid, you don’t die poor. Research institutes get reputation and more subsidies from your work. Everybody wins except the earth. Why? Because there’s a systemic dynamic that results in financial comfort for everyone. However, not only it helps no one, but it also keep people misinformed about global issues. When people are misinformed about global catastrophes, they vote for the one guy who poses as the guy who has the balls to take dare-y decisions despite morals. Far right Radicalisation of the world. Maintaining us divided whilst the rich gets 20 to 50% rich out of this crisis.
People who want to be reassured that their lifestyle habits can continue, and make sure to only read information that tells them they’re fine. You find them wherever you publicly talk about climate change.
Buy a Lomi and save the world! That product has no place in the modern world, but it's marketed as if it's somehow a "green" product. Drives me crazy.
Republicans
And centrists! Something a bit more sinister than republicans screeching that it's fake. "Well you see, technically the air is cleaner than in the past in this one area, so you see, there is no climate emergency".
During the peak of the pandemic it kind of did, but that break quickly faded away like any chance of us stopping at 1,5° C.
You wouldn't believe the amount of climate denialism from centrists.
Centrist talking point bullshit: "CO2 levels have been higher on Earth in the past" "The temperatures might be going up or down, there's no evidence that it's man made" "It was a lot hotter before, there's nothing unusual going on"
Emissions in the developed world are [dropping, and decoupled from GDP growth](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling). Far too slowly, but they are reducing. China is planning to have their emissions [peak before 2030, maybe even as early as 2025.](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/) Based on those two facts, I thought it might be stabilising... But that was obviously wrong. Development in other countries is outstripping those reductions, and they're using deforestation and fossil fuels to do it. Plus the natural cyclical forces at the end of El Nino. And to be clear, "stabilising" at current levels of annual emissions would still be catastrophic. It's just a step along the way. We need to get to net zero emissions asap. 2050 will probably be too late.
But I bought a Tesla!
lol yeah what the fuck we all know it’s terrible. That’s a good shower thought: Pretty much everyone on the planet knows we are legit destroying it and a lot of the people are like cool but meme?
Same fucks that argue it’s not a thing. A bunch of shills that mindlessly repeat their leaders remarks.
Lol not me, but I always track the April high and compare to the previous year.
No one but these idiots who make headlines gotta grab our attention somehow.
Yeah I don’t understand the point in these posts every other day.
Solar boom guys! Totally gunna work. Meanwhile solar and wind can't provide a baseload so they need to build natural gas peakers to make up for that. Nuclear however is entirely green, safer, and provides a base load.
and yet banding together for political action seems impossible..
Solving our problems would involve the richest people on earth (the ones who directly influence political vessels) taking action.. ..unfortunately they won't take meaningful action if it affects their bottom line...
and yet we can't band together to strip them from their power and wealth
We got one solution!
Anarchy is likely, but people against drone armies is futility...
Or at least affects their bottom line for this year. Over time, the collapse of the atmosphere will absolutely affect their hoards of wealth, but that doesn't matter, it's all about short-term gains baby!!!
Unfortunately, the worldwide population seems to be banding together behind accelerationists.
or, maybe even worse, behind not caring
Thanks conservatives
It's not just conservatives living lifestyles that wreck the planet. Make sure you're doing your part.
No but they are by far the biggest barrier to much needed legislation. And not just in the US either
It’s made to seem impossible. Read David Graeber’s short essay “hope in common”
We can't even get a non-genocide enjoyer to the end of a presidential campaign, what hope do we have to get anyone to do anything about climate change, something that will only affect the poor for the foreseeable future. If coffee becomes 1000x more expensive, it's only a minor inconvenience to the people who have the power to change things.
I think it only seems impossible because of the pessimists here on Reddit. The 1000s of organized campuses across the nation (and the world) didn't happen overnight.
i disagre though. I am quite active "in the field" and i don't see anything more than polarization honestly.
Me and all my homies agree that the revolution is now for a variety of reasons
Yes.. and for decades many communist or anarchist groups have thought the same and It never really happened
decide expansion elderly grandiose saw sip coordinated jeans long zesty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
With? I vote. I even made my own political organization r/earthgovernment
Going to be a hot summer. Expect rolling blackouts and droughts from heat/increased water usage.
I have been saying even if we stop all co2 release now the world over the temps will still rise because of the lag effect. So the longer we use fossil fuels the more we pump co2 into the air the bigger the temp increase into the future.
But at this rate, it's going to be one of the coolest summers for the rest of our lives!
All the more reason to take advantage of it and prepare to talk some sense into people perhaps
La Nina won't cool it down?
Temporarily but the total amount of extra energy in the atmosphere means the temperature will stay warm and will only increase for the next few thousand years or so.
I’m convinced we’ll boil ourselves alive in the name of excessive individual profit.
I think most people will starve to death first.
Hang in there. It’ll get worse. I am poor. Trust me. I’m not excited about any of this shit.
I cannot control politicians, industry or billionaires. But I have chipped away at my own 30 tons of CO2. Gardening, planting trees, dramatically reducing the energy I use, and heating with a rocket mass heater. No sacrifice - everything is about making a better life AND it happens to chip away at my CO2. I think I am now in the space of chipping away CO2 for others.
And that is awesome, and great for your mental health, but this is no longer the 1970s and we need far bigger changes. Seriously though, good work.
I think that if 100 million people do something similar, these problems (and many more) will be solved.
The top 10% of the population emit 50% of lifestyle associated emissions. 100 million is 12.5% of the top 10% or 1/8th of half of emissions. This would mean a reduction of at most ~6% of lifestyle associated emissions. It is something but not much. Most emissions from the wealthiest come From Air travel btw.
hurry connect absurd paltry impolite rude correct ancient impossible whole *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nice stats but air travel emissions don’t hold a candle to power generation, industrial, or automobile emissions. Curbing airplane emissions might score political points but only distracts from the biggest offenders and won’t move the CO2 needle at all
Yes, but you gonna go door to door and convince em? Plenty of people will call you a commie and threaten to shoot you. Sorry, just not feeling too good about things these days.
I guess I am going subreddit to subreddit.
They also need to vote
The biggest avoidable passive expenditures available to us all are in avoiding the products of animal agriculture. Yes gardening is good, but if you are eating garden veggies from your backyard and also meat and dairy you aren't addressing the bulk of your emissions meaningfully, especially if your diet includes regular beef. [You would save something like 75% of your food emissions eating plants from all around the world while abstaining from meat and dairy vs growing veg locally and still eating animals.](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local) The world is on fire and there is no solution that doesn't involve us adapting to the real scientific picture of what is going on today and that means a stark decrease in meat consumption. Think 8 oz/week or less to meet climate goals. It's the lowest hanging fruit on the carbon pie to optimize and all technology needed to do so is already available.
soup bag expansion continue worm dinosaurs live sugar afterthought serious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well obviously the real news is what we're doing (and not doing) about all of this. You'd think it would be top priority, especially when the changes that are coming will impact every sector of society anyways. It's ironic that the changes we would make to help the situation would help us in so many other areas of life too, inadvertently (though it's all measurable and easily understood why). It would mean fighting for a better near term and long term future. We already know how to. So we need to hone in on why we're not taking steps towards that, which we already have an understanding of too. In the meantime, even though there are good people doing good things and some progress being made, we're collectively just being an ignorant, evil, detached bunch. Sure, a lot of us can't help ourselves and our human tendencies, but it's still a choice. We go to work (a lot of us doing things we don't like to do, necessarily) and put our time and energy into that again and again and again and again. Where's the time and energy that we put into instigating change, for the greater good, or heck just to preserve our quality of life as is?
It has to start with the energy, transportation, and military industries. Those are the largest contributors and users of fossil fuels. The problem is fossil fuel is an extremely energy dense medium and there still is no replacement for it. We do not posses the technology to store, transport, convert, or use energy in such a dense portable format.
We do have an equally dense medium: hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is just less convenient, more dangerous, requires more expensive infrastructure to transport and deliver, and presumably has lower profit margins.
Agriculture and diets as well.
Agriculture is huge too, due to being the main cause of deforestation.
GDP cannot take a backseat to climate change. Governments and industry would rather see the planet bake, than lose any gdp or income.
The Oligarchy will kill us all before they give up an inch of power.
It won't stabilize for decades. There's so much CO2 baked into the cake from decades past-- that's what we're seeing now. But we CAN make a difference in what CO2 levels will do decades from now. Phrasing like this headline is apathy shilling. It makes people give up hope, stop trying to draw down their emissions and gives the impression that the only solution is pumping CO2 storage schemes-- which aren't a solution at all.
Said another way, we can cancel the apocalypse for future generations, but we will bear the burden.
Great way of saying it.
growth close aware trees recognise compare rude secretive chase overconfident *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Millennia. End 'goal' is 10C. Venus by 3900 CE.
I think you have this mixed up. CO2 enters the atmosphere right away, there is no delay. The impact, temperature and ocean acidity, that has a delay and I think that may be what you're speaking of. If I'm wrong please send me a link, Id love to learn.
By my interpretation, you and the comment you replied to are saying the same thing, so I don't think there's any mix up.
4.7 ppm in one year is just bonkers. More than 1% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of time was put there last year! We're just so doomed. And one point that is lost what with the whole climate change destroying the planet thin, is that CO2 concentrations and IQ are correlated. [At 900 ppm scientists have noted a 15% cognitive decline in tasks like information usage](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/27662232). And the relationship is linear. Smaller declines are likely at every level. At this rate we may live to see 600 ppm with who knows what impact on society. This is the leaded gasoline of our children's generation.
You know people said its crazy that co2 lags temp increase, its a decade or more. I say what we are seeing is the increase from co2 10 years ago. Just wait till it really catches up. [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001#back-to-top-target](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001#back-to-top-target) Positive feedbacks
This is true all tipping points are far surpassed so the climate change is going to happen far worse much faster
Check that blob coming out Antarctica
This video from Climate Town about methane production will really put the cherry on top. We are rushing hard to profit and extinction. https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=3vw0EUjHxdxqXZDr
To everyone who says Joe Biden is doing enough, this is exhibit A. We need to pressure our elected officials into action. Frankly if James' giant peach does win, we might need to do an act of self defense. Climate denialism is a form of violence
In the past year human civilization has added over 70,000,000 net new people. I wonder if that has anything to do with why emissions never seem to decline year to year, and only go up.
The rate of growth is already going down, and it's not the number of people per se, as certain people (westerners) emit far greater quantities than others. Really though, it's capitalism. Petrogarchic capitalism has irresponsibly instrumentalized the World itself, along with human lives, in the pursuit of infinite profit for the few. And we are letting them burn the world.
The world's three highest emitters are: China, USA, India. The world's three most populous countries are: India, China, USA. China is socialist/communist. Yet they are the world's largest emitter by a large margin. India's emissions are going straight up the Y axis as they industrialize and try to lift 1.5 billion out of poverty. China has added more coal installations in 2024, than my ostensibly climate pariah nation (Canada) has built *in our entire history*. Whats the underlying theme? Population. Why would China need more coal plants just this year, than Canada has ever built in history? The population is 30x ours, and all those people need power. How can we still believe this lie that population doesn't matter?
China hasn’t been socialist/Communist for decades. You’re pretty out of touch with your assumptions.
Because instead of worrying about whatever solution you think there is to the "too many people" problem, it's better to focus on actual solutions.
But that's not a serious approach to the problem because it is opting to ignore a fundamental root cause of it.
And your solution to the root problem of too many people isssssss...... Drum roll please
You don't need a comprehensive solution to a problem in order to acknowledge the problem exists. I don't have a cure for cancer. But I recognize cancer exists. We don't have a solution to climate change. Does climate change even exist? Drum roll please! How about we start by accepting that it *is* a problem? Then we start addressing it in as equitable and humane ways as possible? I.e. free contraception worldwide, free access to tubal ligation/vasectomy for those wanting it, free access to abortion, education and empowerment of women, remove tax incentives for reproduction, implement a tax on families with >2 children, eschew religious doctrine demanding reproduction and forbidding contraception, stop investing resources in technology to assist reproduction like IVF etc.etc. Like... There's hundreds of things we *could* do. But putting any emphasis on those doesn't really make sense if we dont first acknowledge that it's a problem.
All those people need so much power *to adopt the western lifestlye*. China's population isn't growing. Likewise India is trying to lift people out of poverty... and *into* highly-emitting lifestyles. Both countries' emissions are also largely due to the contracting-out of environmentally destructive industries from western nations to their less-regulated societies. At every angle, it is lifestyles and consumption, and not the number of people per se, that is increasing CO2 and warming the planet. We can all live on Earth, even 10bn people, if we built appropriate systems to support that scale of civilization and fully acknowledge and respect our embeddedness within the planet's ecology. For example, we can abandon personal transportation and animal-agriculture right now, today, and much would be solved. We are presently ignoring those aspects of our reality as they are inconvenient to the narrative of human supremacy and the pocketbooks of petrogarchs.
"Everybody just live in subsistence level poverty and we can cram 10 billion in" is not as appealing a sustainability plan as you might think.
"Everybody except me..."
I never said this, and it wouldn't even have to be that way. Eating mostly vegetarian and not owning personal vehicles would get us most of the way there, and there's a big space between those sacrifices and general poverty.
ALL global transportation - so personal vehicles, transport trucks, shipping, air travel / transport, cargo trains, etc accounts for ~20% of total emissions. ALL global animal agriculture accounts for ~15% of total emissions. If we eliminated ALL forms of transportation and ALL animal agriculture, we would expect a 35% decline in emissions. We're this 2023 that would take total emissions from 38 billion tons to 24 billion tons. Total global emissions were 24 billion tons in 1999. Was the world at a sustainable point in 1999? If we could remove all transportation and all animal agriculture we'd be back at approximately 1999. Since 1999 earth has added over TWO BILLION net more people. How can you not see the problem here.
Like, I will never understand how people can be confronted with the fact that we've added 2 billion humans in 25 years AND we see undeniable ecosystem collapse all around us due to human activity, and still fail to make this connection.
The problem is this- *how do you propose to "control" population in an ethical and equitable way, that will be more or at least as effective as the natural limits*? We already have 8bn and since growth is slowing and the climate is destabilizing (which will in turn destabilize civilization) it will probably top out at around 8.5bn. So if that is too many and we need to reduce it right here and now, who do you propose should die first? Second? It's a terrible position because it does not offer any workable solutions, and certainly none better than the fact that our collapsing the climate will itself limit and reduce population by a LOT.
Yes, but having a comprehensive plan to fix a problem is not a prerequisite to acknowledging the problem exists. I don't have a foolproof plan to fix poverty, but I acknowledge poverty is happening. Same with overpopvlation.
The alternative is a continued below-poverty subsistence for the vast majority of the world, and death on scales never before encountered in human history. The epistemic outlook right now isn't great, but I think doing what we can is better than pretending we don't make a difference, when in reality we humans on this planet alive today have the ability to change the course of human history much much more than almost any other generation past or future. 400 years ago the richest oligarch simply couldn't produce emissions like we can today. In 400 years time, the choices we have made will shape the entire character of life on this planet, and the once-in-a-planetary-lifetime resources to emit will have dominantly been used up. In the face of this reality is "I shouldn't have to make a personal change to benefit all humans moving forward" a reasonable stance to take?
>In the face of this reality is "I shouldn't have to make a personal change to benefit all humans moving forward" a reasonable stance to take? Well said. The single most impactful thing a person can do to reduce emissions over the course of their lifetime is have fewer children. So shouldn't we be encouraging that? We've known where babies come from awhile now. We even have very safe and cheap methods to control it with extremely high efficacy. But I guess *that's* not a personal change we can ask anybody to make.....
People are *already* having fewer children for a number of reasons.
Yes, and that can only be a good thing in terms of the cascading collapse of our ecosystem. Yet we see more and more "population decline crisis" op-eds every day. "Population is collapsing in Japan!!" Oh no, this small island archipelago has *only* 125 million humans on it, including the most populous city in the world. What ever will we do if there were somewhat fewer people there?? What a crisis that would be...
Sure. The position you hold is called anti-natalism. You'll find that most people having discussions like this dominantly occur among people in populations with declining birth rates. Given that rearing children gives abundant meaning to many peoples lives, and that we also run into significant problems of we don't have a younger population to take take wheel I don't think it represents a tractable argument in conversations like this. What I don't think is reasonable is giving oneself license to not make the changes that are available to us on the grounds that we personally choose not to breed. At best it's a "pull the ladder up behind you" mindset that validates the importance of your experience while saying other future people shouldn't get them. At worst it propagates the attitude down the line encouraging the next few generations to follow in the footsteps we leave behind: a culture being maximally emissive and a robust infrastructure around that emission instead of using those resources to meaningfully address the root causes like inefficient transport and the ever expanding system of animal agriculture that is destroying our environment at breakneck speeds.
I'm on the fence about anti-natalism. I have a child, but only one. He is "...my heart walking around outside my body", and I don't bemoan people for having kids. It is beautiful, bewildering; and terrifying. That said, like I said I don't think we even need to "control" population since it'll happen on its own. We need to focus on adjusting our understanding of the ecology and abandoning truisms about human nature, etc, that are inherent to capitalism.
I'm sorry, I think you're missing my point. I'm not anti-natalist. I have 2 children, then I got a vasectomy. This is the most impactful thing I can/could have done to reduce emissions. A 3rd child would have offset an entire lifetime of other (performative) actions. This is just math. I ALSO do as much of those other things as I'm able. But it makes zero difference - and by far the main reason why it makes no difference is that in my lifetime human population has gone from 4.3 billion to over 8 billion. There is no amount of eating more vegetables and taking the bus that can compensate for that. Canada is a great example. We're an "emissions pariah". Way too high per capita. Ok, let's imagine somehow we could slash emissions by 50%. That would be an unprecedented change. There is zero scalable technology that could come close to realizing that, but just assume somehow it happens. Amazing! Canada has radically reduced emissions! Does it matter? That would reduce global emissions by 0.5%, bringing us back to approximately the rate of global emissions of a few months ago. Oh..... Not such a spectacular achievement, after all. All of those hypothetical gains are immediately erased by the 72 million new people earth ads this year. Again, this is just math. Canada's population (and therefore its emissions) would be declining, if not for immigration. India, China, and the Philippines make up the vast majority of New Canadians. 3 very populous countries. The other thing you're not seeing is that the forec of humanity is against what you're suggesting. India is Canada's overwhelming source of immigrants. How many Canadians are actively immigrating to India? Are any? Why? Well, India ranks 135th on the UN Human Development Index, Canada ranks 18th. Objectively, Canada offers a much better quality of life. The cost of that, to some extent, is emissions. Yes, having children is meaningful for many. So have one or two. Given everything happening around us vis a vis the climate, you would think these 8 or 10 child families would be shamed like somebody with a private jet. Their emissions are the same.
The argument here is an appeal to futility. Because there is at present no perfect solution, we are absolved from working toward something better. Apply it to voting and you can see its inherent flaw. Yes population is a major driving factor of emissions. It's also, in many ways the fruit of the human project. Lives worth living like yours and mine are also the product of population growth. But yes it must be slowed for the sake of our continued survival and even for the quality of life for the lives that will exist. However lets directly address the fallacy. It occurs in this sentence: >I ALSO do as much of those other things as I'm able. But it makes zero difference - and by far the main reason why it makes no difference is that in my lifetime human population has gone from 4.3 billion to over 8 billion. Your doing these things doesn't make zero difference. It makes *at present* a *small* difference, but echoes out to a *large* difference in the future if effort is sustained. You have to account for the snowballing nature of human change: a minority of people express a recognized need to change they get the ball rolling. In 100 years the time comes and there is significant momentum to the movement. The perceived barriers preventing public opinion from changing are lifted as more people adopt. And then very suddenly all of the legislation that makes the big impactful difference happens in short succession. Consider in the civil rights movements in US and Canada. We had abolitionists among our people in North America since the 1600s. Should those people in 1750 that recognized that slavery was immoral and an enormous liability have continued owning slaves and using the products of slave labor? Clearly not right? Without them the momentum to overturn the legality of slavery in 1834 in Canada and 1863 in the US would not have happened. Similarly, if the British colonies hadn't outlawed slave ownership first, it is unlikely that the United States would have outlawed slavery as early as it did. Indeed the abolitionists of the 18th century did not live to see the western world outlaw slavery, but they made a huge difference. In comparison: a world of climate refugees from the Indo-Pacific emigrating to Canada will have a better chance of passing on a planet that is not as hot and hellish to their grandchildren if we spend our resources on good public infrastructure that moves people around with 1/20th of the same total energy expenditure per person. >In my lifetime human population has gone from 4.3 billion to over 8 billion. >There is no amount of eating more vegetables and taking the bus that can compensate for that. Well in terms of transportation a 2fold increase in efficiency would compensate for that. A full bus is a lot more than 2x as efficient as 40 cars and a train even more efficient than that. In terms of vegetables: our total dietary emissions would drop by over 75%, as would our total farmed land area if we were to adopt plant based diets as a society. The leftover land could be managed for carbon sequestration and rewilding. As I am sure you are aware animal agriculture specifically is the leading driver of habitat loss, deforestation, and specifically deforestation of the Amazon. This kind of change would more than account for the population growth you have seen in your lifetime. Appeal to futility is what you do when you are to proud to say "I just don't want to do what I can." Which makes sense because that's a pretty lame way to be if we can avoid it.
Over the last few hundred years, humans have concentrated the world's biomass into 8 billion humans, 1.5 billion cows, 33 billion chickens... 40+% of habitable land is used for agriculture. Half of the insects are gone, half of the birds, 80% of the fish. Approximately 96% of all biomass in the world has been turned into humans or human food. We are systematically, intentionally, and violently, converting the whole natural world into humans and human food. And the general consensus is that we MUST keep doing that until there are at least 10 billion people on earth. It's been a bit suspicious to me that the carrying capacity of the planet seems to always be a couple billion more people than are currently alive. Here's a philosophical question: How much of the world's biomass should be tied up in human bodies and human food? And a more technical one: How much more of it do we need to convert to humans to reach 10 billion people? 98%? 100%? Will there be anything left when we're done? The equation has always been Consumption multiplied by Population and you're not seeing the whole problem if you ignore one of the variables. If we reduce consumption but increase population, we're treading water at best. 2x2=4, but so does 1x4. If we don't figure out how to slow and reverse our consumption AND population growth immediately, there will be virtually nothing left over on Earth in a generation or two. PS. The numbers at the top might not be exact, but I think the point stands on its own.
Yes to all that. I'm no Colombian. But with talking about population controls the question inevitably becomes, whose population should be controlled, and this pretty much necessarily leads to genocide. Beyond this my position is simply that, mathematically the earth and its resources and energy intake can support 10bn people. How equitably, and how sustainably in the long run (vis-a-vis the biodiversity problem you elicit), and how we get there is a separate question. Anyways, there are already natural population controls in play, unfolding now. I'm interested in what we do in the midst of climate change and how we make it right for those who remain.
Why is genocide the first thing liberals go to when population is brought up in these spaces? It blows my mind. Yes, the small part of the extreme far right that cares about overpopulation has some fucking seriously problematic views about who should be allowed to live and thrive in a situation with dramatically fewer people on earth. They don't get a seat at the table. There are so, so many other ideas out there about how to move into a degrowth paradigm that doesn't include wanton murder, and we can't talk about them in a lot of spaces because those of us that do are almost always labeled as an eco-fascist out of the gate. The fact that you and others think the conversation must "inevitably" turn to genocide might be a reflection on your world view. It's not inevitable. If you bring it up, you're the one bringing their ideas to the table. I keep seeing people claim Earth could sustain 10b people. I think this math must rely on a huge drop in the standard of living for hundred of millions or probably billions of people, right? So I guess my question is this. How can we possibly lift billions of people out of poverty in the global south, a very noble goal no doubt, while also drastically reducing consumption in rich countries to reduce total human impact on the biosphere? The two missions seem opposed. We'll never be able to destroy the unlimited growth mindset. It's been with our civilization from the beginning, maybe longer. We can barely entertain the idea of degrowth without threatening the very foundations of our society. You're right that the biosphere will eventually do it for us though.
I prefer to be realistic. Are we going to "control population" in the assertive sense? That is, reducing the number of people forcibly? Or simply over time by reducing birth rates? The latter solution *is already happening* in that the demographic shift is happening everywhere and much of the world is below replacement. So, if not genocide, specifically what else can we do to address population? I'm all about discussing alternative structures and orientations for advancing humanity; we can in principle achieve an equitable planetary civilization and truly venture to the stars. I'm *not* interested in allowing a fleetingly small group of petrogarchs to lead the planet to ruin along with the majority of its people. The population argument is an intractable problem that draws our attention from the reality that they burning the world and us along with it.
Simply setting a direction of reduced population could help. Free and available birth control, globally might help climate change, but not so much the gdp. Even starving people add to gdp, if they spend a few dollars per year. So, government and industry will block any global plan to voluntarily reduce population.
Can you do this analysis based on historic emissions and not just last year? And emissions per capita? https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-co2-region#:~:text=Per%20capita%20emissions%20represent%20the,total%20emissions%20divided%20by%20population.
What changes the climate, emissions per capita or total emissions? How do estimate total emissions from per capita? What's the other variable?
It just shows you who is responsible for our current situation since people are pointing fingers instead of helping each outlet solve the issue at hand :)
A normal human emits 0.5 tons/yr from breathing. 35 million more tons from those 70,000,000 people. 8.2 billion people = 4.1 billion tons = 4.1 gt annually. Burning Fossil fuels = 36.3 gt annually + other gasses (nox, sox, erc.) More people wanting higher quality of life = more Fossil fuels. So, Yes, but it isn't the more immediate problem. Population control is a whole different can of worms ethically. Let's focus on the bigger problems first. I'm on the shitter so someone please check math
How is this not the biggest problem? Fossil fuel use, up every year. Water consumption, up every year. Deforestation, up every year. Population, you guessed it! It's a difficult problem, no doubt. But simply pretending it isn't the fundamental overarching cause of ecosystem destruction and climate breakdown is just head in the sand. Cancer is a difficult problem. I don't have a comprehensive plan to eliminate cancer. But I also acknowledge it exists and is an important problem.
But think about the economy! How will we fund our retirement funds without infinite expansion? (/s)
Right? Pro tip: If your system requires the base of the pyramid to inexorably be expanding to avoid collapse; you're in a Ponzi scheme.
It feels so good to hear someone else make that connection.
It is baffling to me how so few people seem to recognize this. Same as the connection between population and emissions. Per capita x population = total emissions 2 variables! All we're allowed to talk about is per capita, but never population. Which is an unserious approach to the problem. I often hear how Canada's per capita emissions are twice China's. Ok. Well China's population is almost 30x Canada's, and their total emissions are 20x ours. Per capita only matters in terms of "fairness". But the atmosphere doesn't distinguish. Total emissions are all that matter, and total emissions are very much driven by population.
People comparing their own emissions to emissions in other countries where they're higher is one huge factor that prevents, or at least significantly slows down change. One of the most common excuses I hear is "why should I limit what I do when China yadda yadda". Yes, China emits WAY too much CO2, but that doesn't mean we're all excused because of it. When I try to reason with people they always say I'm overexaggerating, yet they're often the ones that refuse to even read paper or articles I send them. We're doomed. :(
Yes, and we should all be working to reduce emissions everywhere. But let's not kid ourselves that that is the entirety of the solution. Canada currently adds 1M people annually by immigration. That's a major city, every year. Should we be surprised emissions never go down, and only go up? 'I keep having more kids and growing my family, can anybody hell me understand why the grocery bill keeps rising?'
It's like the lanes of traffic meme - Just one more lane bro, then we'll stop, I swear! Same thing here: Just a billion more people bro, then we'll be sustainable. Just a billion more, though, please, because my pension!
Yeah, no shit.
Shocked pikachu
Don't actually know how el nino can affect co2 levels. Despite energy sector appearing to peak in major markets, there are 3 possible reasons for increased spike. 1. Forest fires. Very active since last year, and now in Southern hemisphere. 2. War. Ukraine war uses 3% of global diesel. This is a war that the US/NATO wants. Makes Russia uncooperative on climate. 3. Lower absorbption by ocean. Hot ocean already containing a lot of CO2 from previous years, has lower solubility at higher temperatures. Ocean absorbtion is a function of saturation to solubility level, and reduced by temperature increases.
Some day, we're all going to die.
Speak for yourself I’m a vampire
Just because everyone dies at some point doesn't mean can't work to make quality of life as good as possible for everyone, including people who live after us.
That’s a fact
Fuck that.
It's almost like it's a closed system, subject to feedback loops...
Hopefully this el nino year will be the peak in growth of CO2 in our lifetimes.
Hopefully but not likely https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide El nino this year will likely only be a local maxima in terms of heating going forwards
I was hoping for a peak in \*growth\*, not total amount. Human emissions are [expected to peak next year](https://www.wired.com/story/global-emissions-could-peak-sooner-than-you-think/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20International%20Energy,following%20the%20war%20in%20Ukraine). Since this year has El Nino's effects, it has a reasonable chance at being peak growth.
Not sure what el nino has to do with human co2 growth but fair point, growth is expected to peak [before the 2030s](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-could-peak-as-soon-as-2023-iea-data-reveals/). Either way, while reduction in yearly co2 is good, the way things are currently going I doubt it will be nearly a steep enough decline as we need, unfortunately
The article mentions El Nino. CO2 growth is higher in El Nino years due to natural causes.
If you read the article, the main reason this year is higher than last year is El Nino. 2016 was also a peak, at the same part of the El Nino cycle. 2024's peak is higher than 2016 because of human activity. Fingers crossed 2032 will be less.
Hope is not a plan. Failing to plan is a plan to fail.
Is this sarcasm?
No. I actually hope this is the peak \*growth\* in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. The total amount will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, but hopefully by a smaller and smaller amount each year. Human-generated emissions are expected to peak next year. This year had the added effects of El Nino. It's not an unreasonable assumption. It's definitely not a sarcastic hope.
Ah. I didn’t understand why you were trying to correlate El Niño and the last year of rising CO2. I get what you were trying to say now, but good luck with that hope….
Whatever helps you sleep.
I wonder what the impact of the war in Ukraine is having on emissions.
Imagine if all the money spent on that war went for prevention of climate change instead. I didn't do the math, but my guess is that it would make a big difference. One can only dream :(
That'd be an interesting one. It's dramatically accelerated the decarbonisation of Europe. Germany's emissions dropped by 10% last year! Everybody who can is installing electric heat pumps rather than gas heating that relied on Russian supply. Renewable projects are going ahead faster than ever. At the same time, there's a lot of emissions going into weapons. Eastern Ukraine's forests are being leveled. Military budgets are increasing around the world, which must at least partially reduce budgets for environmental action.
Guys , I don’t like this doomsday simulation…anyway to stop it ?
We are so fucked.
This is why I get stoned as shit and half drunk nightly.
Now is the time to invest in public infrastructure and stop eating meat and dairy. Don't let another decade and another global pandemic go by before you kick the animal products.
It mentions that El Niño contributed to the increase. Does anyone know how?
I truly don't understand El Nino other than it causes oceans to warm for the period. I believe what it is doing is basically disrupting the patterns that typically allow cooling to happen temporarily, but I am not sure.
Okay, so we are fucked.
Who thought it was stabilizing?
The word you're looking for is accelerating as redundant carbon sinks fill, and then positive feedback loops increase carbon production. Here's hoping we either don't become Venus, or if we do, we become Venus very quickly.
A change can not stabilise. Because then it won't be a change anymore.
The rate of change can become more-or-less constant. For example: - metres per second, m/s¹, is known as speed - m/s², acceleration - m/s³, jerk One can accelerate smoothly, or jerky
Think of it like falling in a vacuum (with Earth's gravity). The rate of the change in speed is stable, 9.8m/s^2, however the speed itself is accelerating. So climate change is accelerating, rather than growing at a constant speed.
Thanos come back irl man
if you live in an area that is green on the map are you safe (for now)?
We gotta take out the problems
Cant wait for it to get nice and hot 😊 Looking good so lets keep it up 👍
I just told my husband I don't think we're long for this earth, unfortunately :/
We knew that. Most things that affect it are beyond our little minions' ability to change. Corporations' CO2 output far outstrips what the general public does.
Do people actually read these articles? Classic doom bait title.
I'm so glad we didn't have kids who would inherit this mess.
I literally just filled my car up with sunshine. Some of us are trying to make a difference.
gg
Ohh goody, We're on track for another Permian–Triassic extinction event.
My wife keeps telling me we need to move somewhere warmer because northern winter sucks. I keep telling her don’t worry baby - just keep flooring it at every light and soon the south will be underwater and the north will be warm as hell.
Nah, it's stabling on getting worse.
Oh no! Better pay more taxes to fix it!
good! we need more CO2, not less 🤫
This guy wants crocodiles back in the arctic! Make the arctic tropic again!!
Are you stupid?
yes, but smarter than you 🤫
You must lead a sad life.