UN: Global warming cannot be stopped in the next 30 years

[PunkTheFunk 125,733]

6 hours ago, flyaway said:

Do you guys genuinely think we're gonna make it? 

I mean, this is getting sh*tty, but is there any chances we don't destroy this planet? I would like to be optimistic but this has me being the most pessimistic person I know, and I don't like that 

There needs to be a COMPLETE overhaul of our economy and the way we live, travel, eat, shop, etc. within the next decade or so in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change. I don't see such a massive shift happening in our society on such a short timescale.

We can barely get people to stay at home and get a vaccine. I don't know how we're going to pull off such a feat, especially when there is a massive incentive for large oil and gas companies to keep things the way they are.

[Economy 53,079]

10 hours ago, Healed My Heart said:

I feel so numb around climate change at this point tbh. More and more devastating news about it and still nothing meaningfully changes. It's incredibly sad.

Meanwhile, big oil is wining and dining our politicians and lining their pockets.

Thats not exactly true

 

Big oil has faced huge opposition, blocked projects, carbon taxes, divestments, investor pressure to decarbonize and invest more heavily in renewables from remaining investors etc

 

Oil companies are not even close to what they were. Their stocks are even trading below the earning multiples of most other stocks om stock market on pessimism about their future. Last time oil was at $70/barrel and they made the cashflow they do now their values were way higher

 

But the thing is global warming is a lot bigger than Oil or Electric cars. Oil companies get the popular attention because its a well known industry that historically has had so much lobbying power and has been a big political factor globaly also but theres industries that are a bigger source of warming gases than Oil (like Coal, Modern Farming) that arent getting talked about half as much

[GagaSuperfan1 383]

11 hours ago, alsemanche said:

Capitalism? Destroying the planet and not caring about it?

 

Precisely!! I feel like capitalism & monopolizing the market so no one else can have gain is just pure theft, & the consequence where the poor work for the rich, & rich profit off the poor, it might as well be slavely. The rich work so hard to monopolize everything there’s literally nothing left for anyone else, they are monopolizing the planet to the point of our extinction. To me this is a crime against humanity where they should lock & throw away the key for anyone apart of it & no one should have the power to kill the human race, & there should be a way to overthrow it. On the bright side rich people make good tinder, they’ll get their comeuppance. 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

There needs to be a COMPLETE overhaul of our economy and the way we live, travel, eat, shop, etc. within the next decade or so in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change. I don't see such a massive shift happening in our society on such a short timescale.

We can barely get people to stay at home and get a vaccine. I don't know how we're going to pull off such a feat, especially when there is a massive incentive for large oil and gas companies to keep things the way they are.

What gives me hope are societal tipping points. They exist in ways like Greta Thunberg suddenly appeared and she suddenly brought climate change as a hard-to-put, far-away concern to a much nearer place connected with emotions so many people could relate to that it became the most talked about issue in 2018-19. There are more of these tipping points in society and I really hope that looking at the weather events we are experiencing now that societies in more and more countries reach a point where climate change naturally becomes the main force that drives politics. The more countries are concerned by that the more pressure there is internationally that forces other political leaders to act.

[sarahb 17,245]

I hate fear-mongering. 'Everything is doomed!' helps no one

 

 

 

[Fresco 1,688]

There was an interesting documentary called Who Killed the Electric Car. Documented the short life of GM's 1997 electric car. I'll try to summarize from memories. Correct me if I'm wrong. ... GM largely killed it from within GM. They refused to sell the cars, instead they leased them and then destroyed every car. The dealers hated them because the cars did not have to come in for oil and air filter changes. Dealers got far less repair revenue. The electric car unit was not allowed to advertise the benefits of electric cars because they would be competing with the GM huge low mileage gas guzzlers that were high margin and actually designed to be safer. The car company plan was to get people into high profit high maintenance vehicles in whatever way they can.  It also seems that the Bush oilman administration favored hydrogen cars, but then no car company made any consumer hydrogen vehicle. It was just another ruse to kill the electric cars. Lack of a charging network was bad too. But there were definitely people that wanted electrics in 1997. We needed a company like Tesla that did not have to sell gas cars along with the electrics. 

Every republican administration comes in and rolls back environmental protections and green programs put in place by democratic administrations. 

[PunkTheFunk 125,733]

47 minutes ago, sarahb said:

I hate fear-mongering. 'Everything is doomed!' helps no one

 

 

 

He forgot to mention that just 20 companies are responsible for emitting a third of all emissions. If they refuse to do anything then what else are we supposed to do but have a defeatist attitude?

[Florian 20,017]

26 minutes ago, Fresco said:

There was an interesting documentary called Who Killed the Electric Car. Documented the short life of GM's 1997 electric car. I'll try to summarize from memories. Correct me if I'm wrong. ... GM largely killed it from within GM. They refused to sell the cars, instead they leased them and then destroyed every car. The dealers hated them because the cars did not have to come in for oil and air filter changes. Dealers got far less repair revenue. The electric car unit was not allowed to advertise the benefits of electric cars because they would be competing with the GM huge low mileage gas guzzlers that were high margin and actually designed to be safer. The car company plan was to get people into high profit high maintenance vehicles in whatever way they can.  It also seems that the Bush oilman administration favored hydrogen cars, but then no car company made any consumer hydrogen vehicle. It was just another ruse to kill the electric cars. Lack of a charging network was bad too. But there were definitely people that wanted electrics in 1997. We needed a company like Tesla that did not have to sell gas cars along with the electrics. 

Every republican administration comes in and rolls back environmental protections and green programs put in place by democratic administrations. 

A full network of electric cars isn't possible now and was definitelly not possible back then. Why ? Because electric car requires électricity. The more car you add to the network the more electricity you need.

Even today we struggle to have a clean power mix (and I blame anti-nuclear protesters for that). In 1997 the electricity required would have been produced using oil, gas and coal. If tomorrow everyone was buying an electric car we would still have the same issue.

Some people were talking about hydrogen too in this thread. Yes we've known how to use hydrogen for cars and planes for decades. That's not the problem. The problem is that we don't know how to produce hydrogen massively without oil or electricity (and once again comes the issue of how to produce a clean electricity)

[Fresco 1,688]

52 minutes ago, Florian said:

A full network of electric cars isn't possible now and was definitelly not possible back then. Why ? Because electric car requires électricity. The more car you add to the network the more electricity you need.

Even today we struggle to have a clean power mix (and I blame anti-nuclear protesters for that). In 1997 the electricity required would have been produced using oil, gas and coal. If tomorrow everyone was buying an electric car we would still have the same issue.

Some people were talking about hydrogen too in this thread. Yes we've known how to use hydrogen for cars and planes for decades. That's not the problem. The problem is that we don't know how to produce hydrogen massively without oil or electricity (and once again comes the issue of how to produce a clean electricity)

Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and hopefully new forms yet to be mass produced. Just because the grid isn't big enough for everyone to use electric cars today, doesn't mean we shouldn't start today.  

The drought has caused a hydro plant to shut down, Edward Hyatt Power Plant at Lake Oroville. Too bad we can't harness the energy in the massive forest fires for power. Canada burns and Minnesota gets asthma attacks. Frankly, I would have preferred the forests to be harvested and used as energy instead of all the huge wildfires we have now. And that will not be a popular opinion. 

 

[Mr Ricky 9,089]

They should have started ages ago on building solar system in the Sahara desert. But money. 

[Chromatican 4,046]

I was reading YouTube comments sections about this topic, and the comments made me feel so numb. Everyone (or a large percentage at least) is just being so obtuse about climate change and it's clear people just don't want to think about it.

[monster4life231 4,304]

21 hours ago, Not The Real Gaga said:

 

They only produce what we consume. In other words: we are to blame.

 

14 hours ago, Not The Real Gaga said:

 

There are many alternatives that are greener that people simply choose not to buy because they are more expensive or consume more time. In many cases, it's still about the choices we make. 

I had this exact conversation with my dad last night. I agree with you. If we want businesses to change, then we need to change too. Consumer behaviour will inevitably shape business behaviour. It will be difficult (and even expensive for some), but it can be done. For example, if there's bananas in a shop, one which is wrapped in plastic and one which is not, then it it best to choose the non-plastic option (even though the price may be slightly higher). If more people make these changes it will send signals to businesses that consumers are changing, therefore they need to change in order to reflect the change in the market.

(Side not here - I am not a capitalist. I campaign for democratic socialism, but I recognise that the status quo is capitalist right now, so it's probably best to play them at their own game while capitalist are in control, then when the chance is given via elections, push for a radical alternative).

Although I doubt it will make significant differences, it is a step forward to some positive change. I don't think there's a simple solution to any of this, but instead there must be a range of techniques used to produce change: changing consumer behaviour, raising awareness, joining campaigns, voting for politicans that commit to comprehensive climate change policies, etc.

[monster4life231 4,304]

3 hours ago, Chromatican said:

I was reading YouTube comments sections about this topic, and the comments made me feel so numb. Everyone (or a large percentage at least) is just being so obtuse about climate change and it's clear people just don't want to think about it.

Some YouTube commenters are bots, or just more vocal ignorant people. Although, there is a significant proportion of people that either 1) understand what's happening, but don't care 2) is skeptical of the science behind climate change 3) completely denies climate change. I'm not sure how to tackle these people.