There's signs of change, but it's still not nearly enough. More of the same. "So folks have a real reason to be deeply agitated and concerned about what we’re doing."
We need to be in the streets, screaming at out leaders. We need to be [redacted]. But we're too disorganized and therefore scared for our own safety. I've worked for years with people trying to make a difference, and acting at the appropriate scale feels impossible (so don't say "vote with your wallet"). HN commenters often show me things I've never heard of... is there anything going on that has a good chance of making a real difference in this existential crisis?
Sorry, but some people--maybe the majority--simply don't believe what you believe. Downvotes and temper tantrums don't change that. Time to face reality.
I don't... know what you're saying. Are you accusing me of throwing temper tantrums? Do you not believe that we're in a crisis? What is reality to you?
The only thing I know is working to effect systemic change. Go to climatebase.org and get a job there. Run for office. Harangue your politicians. Vote with your feet and move somewhere better.
India emits half the CO2 that the US does, and 1/8th the per capita amount that the US does. China emits twice the CO2 as the US, but 1/2 the per capita amount.
So they are both doing better than the US if you use per capita.
Even if you use the nonsensical per country measure India is doing better than the US.
Per country is nonsensical because the atmosphere and climate do not care about arbitrary human boundaries.
If you go per country, then even if we set the goal as merely holding emissions to the current levels the US would have to cut its per capita emissions down to the level of Bangladesh or Nigeria to get on track. Alternatively, to get on track without cutting how much CO2 each person uses, the US would have to cut its population to about 11 million.
Alternatively, the US could split up with each state becoming a separate country. The more populous states like California or Texas would then only have to cut their per capita to around Switzerland or Portugal levels to be on track. Or cut their populations to around 8 or 9 million without cutting per capita emissions.
Under per country, the EU's fair share of the world's CO2 budget would be 27 times that of the US, because they are 27 separate countries.
The logical endpoint of divvying up the CO2 budget per country is for high per capita emitters to split, and the newly formed countries to make treaties with each other to form EU-like structures to minimize the disruption of the splits.
But notice that each time a country splits, it lowers the CO2 budget of each existing country. After the biggest per capita emitters split enough it will bring other countries that were once under budget over. Then they split, and so on.
This converges to per capita. So we should just skip the per country nonsense and budget based on per capita without actually requiring every freaking country to split into dozens of tiny countries first.
USA, largest per capita contributor to global warming, for over a century responsible for emitting more CO2 than the rest of the planet combined, can't stand poor countries trying to be less poor. Stay poor please, and don't mention the past 100 years' data.
Yes, but that's history. This is about the future. You want to have your cake and eat it too. If you want the 3rd world to industrialize, welcome to missing your climate goals.
We're just going to have to deal with the climate changes like we have since life first sprang upon the earth. Like it or not, most people are not willing to dramatically alter their way of life over this.
> Like it or not, most people are not willing to dramatically alter their way of life over this
Frankly, it's up to people with influence to tell people what they want. I don't want this to be true, but we got here because influence-seeking entities (corporations) convinced people to buy a lifestyle that was unsustainable.
No, it's a badly explained take. I'm not supporting authoritarianism at all. I'm suggesting education, as well as corporate action, as well as systemic governmental change (like turning parking lots into train stations).
Willingness doesn't really factor into it. Everyone's way of life is going to change, regardless of if they want it to. That's what "dealing with it" like our ancestors refers to.
It's more so just a choice if we want to take actions now to attempt to steer things or let things happen and tackle whatever comes.
People have been predicting climate doom and gloom since what 1970? I'm not saying climate change isn't real, it just isn't a high enough priority for the masses to make real change.
Your life will be dramatically altered. Depending on where you are and how wealthy you are, perhaps your life will end. If the wet bulb temp is 38C, the power goes out, and your generator fails, what exactly do you think is going to happen? There are no non-radical futures.
This is fatalism. The way you "have to deal" with not having food to eat or working infrastructure is that you starve and die, or freeze and die, or get ill and die.
Yes, I should use Hanlon's razor, but some levels of damage should have malice involved.