“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the Global South,” one expert said.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    There is no ceiling. It might go up 6 or 7C. The people who have the power to change things do not give a shit if the rest of us die. They don’t care, and they won’t change anything. That’s the world we live in.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Not really. Economies started to slow down and crash when warming gets over 2°C and CO2 production crashes with it.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The problem is that feedback loops start to kick in above 2°C so it doesn’t matter if the economy crashes.

        In fact, in some cases that makes things even worse. One example is that without smokestacks and ships pumping out sulfur dioxide the albedo of the atmosphere will rapidly drop, which might cause immediate and rapid warming over a period of only a few years.

        We could be pushed past 2.5°C or even 3°C without industrial forces contributing at all.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Well, renewables seem to be saving our undeserving asses, just by virtue of finally getting cheap.

      • dgmib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes and no. Renewables are now cheaper than other forms of energy but cost isn’t the only issue.

        There are practical limits on how many renewables projects we can build and integrate at a time. We’re not even remotely close to building them fast enough to save anything. We can’t even build them fast enough to keep up with the ever increasing demand energy.

        Nuclear is expensive as fuck but we need to be building more of it as well as renewables because we can’t build enough renewables fast enough to avert the catastrophe, and that’s about the only other tech we have that can generate energy in the massive quantities needed without significant greenhouse gas emissions.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I don’t think that’s quite true. Where I live it has expanded from nothing to a major power source in just a few years. We’ll need grid storage of some kind to kick fossil fuels completely, but that seems surmountable. Worst case scenario we build pumped air and just eat some round trip losses.

          Nuclear plants take many years to get off the ground, so I’m not sure that’s actually an easier solution. Once they’re up and running at scale they’re actually really cheap per unit production, so I would have agreed with you a decade ago, but as it is solar and wind have just pulled ahead.

          • dgmib@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Don’t take my word for it. Look up the numbers for yourself and do the math.

            Search for “National GHG inventory {your country}”.

            You find a report listing (among a bunch of other things) the amount of electricity generated each year by each method, and the emissions from each. Look up the total TWh of electricity produced by fossil fuels.

            Then look at the total TWh from renewables, and rate it has been growing Y-o-Y and extrapolate until it reaches the number needed to eliminate fossil fuels.

            You’ll find it will take decades to build enough renewable capacity to replace fossil fuel based electricity generation.

            And that’s before you realize that only about 25% of fossil fuel combustion goes to electricity generation. As we start switching cars, homes, industries to electric we’re going to need 2x-3x more electricity generation.

            Yes it takes a long time to bring on a new nuclear plant, roughly 7-9 years. If it was remotely realistic that we could build enough renewable power generation in that time to replace all fossil fuel generation then I’d agree we don’t need nuclear. But we’re not anywhere close to that.

            It’s also helpful to note too just how much power a nuclear reactor generates. I live in Canada, our second smallest nuclear power plant in Pickering, generates almost 5 times more electricity annually than all of Canada’s solar farms combined. It will take 1000s or solar and wind farms covering and area larger than all of our major cities combined to replace fossil fuels…

            …or about 7 nuclear power stations the same size as Pickering.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Alright, I can’t seem to find useful numbers anywhere. We went from 50% coal to nil in just a few years, though, so big changes fast are possible. If you’re in Ontario, you also have to consider your local renewables penetration was really high to start with, because of those waterfalls.

              And yeah, like I said to the other person, exact growth pattern matters. It’s probably exponential-ish right now, not linear, because it’s just unambiguously cheaper to move to renewables, and so just getting ducks in order to do it is the bottleneck.

              • dgmib@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                I respect you for doing your own research. People need to understand the scope of the problem if there’s going to be meaningful action.

                The reason I’m passionate about nuclear in particular is that only about a quarter of all fossil fuel consumption is from electricity generation.

                Most of the rest is burned in transportation, buildings, commercial and residential applications. We have the tech already to switch most of these things to electricity, and eliminate their direct emissions, but that’s not much of a win if we’re burning fossil fuels generate that electricity. Which is what happens today when electricity demand is increased, we can’t just turn up the output of a solar/wind farm in periods of high demand, but we can burn more natural gas.

                Switching to electric everything (Car, trucks, ships, heat pumps, furnaces, etc) will increase electricity demand by 2-3x.

                Even if renewables growth is held to the exponential-ish curve it’s been so far (doubtful) we still need 15+ years just to get to the point of replacing current global fossil fuel electricity production in the most optimistic case, never mind enough to handle 2-3x demand.

                Massive quantities of new carbon free electricity generation is needed to “unlock” the electrification technologies we need to deploy if we going to avoid the worst of the disaster. If we wait until renewables alone get us there it’ll be too late.

                The more carbon free energy we can build in the next 20-30 years, the more options we have. Even if we can reach a place of excess capacity, there are a lot of things like DAC and CCS, that we could use it for that today result in more emissions from electricity generation than they sequester.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They (selfishly) believe that allowing the problem to flourish is what will get us to solve it.

      They’re not wrong. There’s just way better, more humane approaches.

      So you’re mostly right. Because they know they have the wealth to weather the discomfort in comfort. But it is accurate that humans historically are fucking aces at reacting and kinda piss poor at proacting.

      • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes, they are wrong. Because we don’t know if there are positive feedback loops that will take us beyond survivable temperatures once we’ve crossed an invisible line.
        Even the ultra-rich won’t survive +5C because the entire concept of “wealth” falls apart when society does.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s what I said a good 25 years ago when I learned about climate change. It went through a bunch of name changes, there have been multiple world meetings about it to see how much further we could push it up to sustain “our economies” and the few little suggestions that came out of that were completely ignored so that we could have the next world economic forum or whatever.

        If any politician would actually do something REAL, I’d support it. I have not seen anything beyond “well let’s try to change cars to electrical over a 20 year period but also dump nuclear power so effectively all electrical cars still run coal”. We. Need. To. Stop. Using. Cars. Car use needs to drop by 95%, THAT would make a difference. Start converting 90% of car infrastructure to park, bicycle infrastructure and public transportation like trains and busses. Convert cargo trucks to electrical, start investing like crazy in nuclear power plants. Push companies to either let employees work from home or pay tripple tax. Tax the shit out of anyone earning more than 10 times the average. Start adding sulfur solutions to kerosine so that airplanes can start spewing it in the atmosphere to lower temperatures… Any of those are solutions, I haven’t seen any of it.

        Nobody is going to do anything because politicians are dumb egocentric assholes that only care about their own reelection.

        We’re fucked in the next 30 years or so

        If Trump gets elected, we’ll be fucked within 10. I’m honestly thinking at this point that maybe we should just all vote for trump. Get it over with, kill this world, humanity is a failed experiment.

        • set_secret@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Stopping meat eating would have a bigger impact on climate change than removing cars, and that’s doable for everyone. Also EV cars do reduce the co2, and as grids get cleaner cars do too. Additionally many put solar on their houses to charge Evs.

          Whist i agree car numbers should definitely be reduced, people should work from home far more for example, but meat is a greater problem that we could all address immediately without dismantling infrastructure.

          • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, the “stop eating meat is doable” is not doable. Ppeoli simply won’t do it. What you can (should) do is increase taxes on meat. If meat becomes twice as expensive, people will eat it less. Use the extra tax income to subsidize meat alternatives, make those more attractive.

            We can do with a LOT less cars if we wanted to. Same as with meat, we don’t want it. Still, most car rides are under 3 miles, which can easily be done by bike but good luck being the politician pushing bikes. Or increased taxes on meat.

              • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                There is a big reason we can’t do any of that.

                The general public is dumb, and politicians happily watch the world burn if they can rule the ashes.

                Because of that, no politician will ever push for any of that.

  • Emmie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Global warming is funny in that there is a threshold at which runaway reaction evaporates all water on the planet and changes it into inhabitable wasteland akin to other sad space rocks.

    I don’t know what are the chances for that but I feel if it is anything above 0.1% then it is too fukin big of a chance.

    I don’t want to risk that the scientists completely missed the mark in some computer simulation or missed some vital, crucial info and this is the actual scenario, those things are awfully hard to model and predict. Maybe the rate of change is so meaningful that it kicks in some bad stuff that would not happen if the rate of change was hundred thousands years. Who knows at this point. Climatologists are fumbling around in confusion

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      That won’t happen, CO2 and warming has been much, MUCH higher than it is now or probably will ever be.

      What will happen is that loads of animals will die because they won’t be able to adapt quick enough. Thought that we had many extinctions now? Try a hundred times more.

      What will happen is mass crop failures due to extreme weather, and water shortages. Humans being the assholes that the are will not focus on an actual solution, they’ll just start wars over the scarce resources to make it even worse.

      Humanity actually might go extinct if we let it ge tbad enough.

      There are still many people out there claiming it’s all fake. Can we please just make them extinct?

      • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It begins with wiping out the brainwashed. Theoretically, this should allow democracy to correct the problems, but i suspect the owners will just stop pretending they operate within the bounds of democracy at that point and go all out authoritarian to prevent themselves from being dethroned. Then we wipe them out.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    People will be fleeing famine, uninhabitable areas, rising sea levels and wars. The areas that can support life will grow smaller, more valuable and crowded.

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Will we be assholes if when this happens we be like. WE FUCKING TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN, but y’all more concerned with arguing over pronouns and protests (I support both).

      • neo@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I get your frustration. I feel it myself. Still, I fear, calling people assholes won’t be helpful and prevent folks from admitting they did wrong. At the same time, it can always get worse (hotter) and I think it would be best to win as many people over as possible, to do the right thing.

        I don’t know. We’re fucked anyway, I guess.

          • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            mocking is pointless. most conservatives don’t care if you mock them. neutralizing their threat to democracy is the answer.

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I mean the ones that think that trans people shouldn’t have human rights also tend to be the ones who don’t believe in climate change so…

  • The_Tired_Horizon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    There was a powercut this week in a large part of Mexico (I know because of family from there). They’re getting rarer now as Mexico has really tried to get its grid uptogether. The downside of countries like this having more stable grids is more people and business installing aircon systems, which just means more energy used, more emissions.

    The funny thing is there are ways to passively cool areas. You can literally install shading over windows and walls that face the main sun. Last year in the UK we had a few days where it was over 35C. Nobody here has aircon. So that heat is a shock to us. But I managed to cover the outside of open windows with reflective bubble wrap insulation cut into sheets.

    I also installed a small solar system on our shed to run a fridge freezer out there. The funny thing is the half inch stand-offs actively created significant shading and the inside of the shed really cooled down to where we could sit in there and chill out or do tasks without melting. When I realised this I started looking online for research on solar power and shading and found agrovoltaics. Solar panels over farm crops such as fruit in hotter regions mean less watering needed… its more spread out than usual solar farms as it has to let the sun in a bit more to the food but its something that needs to be done more.

    I also read of people ignoring their energy policy for their home electric and installing grid-tie solar. They use sheds, stands in their garden, conservatory roofing etc, and usually just a few hundred watts of solar. Typically homes have a fuse rating of 30-50 amps. One 300w solar panel grid tied is not going to be anywhere near that, but will mean up to 300w of clean energy. Energy companies should just allow these systems, even provide them if its a problem or worry to them. You can buy this stuff off amazon for a few hundred quid.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      What do you mean no one has an aircon in the UK? I have. Plenty of my friends have them as well.

      • The_Tired_Horizon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I have a small unit too, but we’re the rare ones. “Nobody” means “majority” here or do I really have to be literal wth everyone on the internet???

  • riodoro1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I just hope im gonna be as excited to see this „civilization„ fall as I think I am. Humanity is just fucking disappointing.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Shit, do I get to choose? Than hell fucking no. But I don’t, do I?

        I hope I’ll have the balls to kill myself when all this shit collapses and our last breaths turn into wars.

        • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          if you’re going to kill yourself because you have nothing left to lose, why wouldn’t you take a few assholes that deserve it with you?