At the end of each snippet is a t.co link with a /{tweet id} at the end. You'll have to click on it and copy the status/tweet id from the url after the "%2Fstatus%" part. Paste that number into an embed link:
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=16763153424...
The people that like cheap meat won't like that, a lot.
Ag lobbies are powerful enough no one in the US would dare propose anything like that. Even in climate conscious EU a much more modest, roundabout way of addressing part of the problem of ag emissions (nitrate levels) has been met with massive farmer protests.
Oil+gas companies, and fertilizer producers, are deep in the supply chain and are thus embedded in the governing bodies (because no country is very good at preventing corruption). Things only change when those companies let them change.
This, combined with the energy crunch in Europe due to the war in Ukraine, may be another strong signal we have less runway to get off of fossil fuel than we thought.
Meanwhile China is going to ban exports of rare earth.
This is going to get painful really quick if the US doesn't have alternative energy options.
Oil dependency is a national security issue, and the clowns who ignore or downplay that fact are indistinguishable from enemy agents (courtesy of gray's law [1])
When Virgin Orbit was spun off, Virgin Atlantic was still operating a dozen Boeing 747-400s. Perhaps before they were phased out early because of COVID the plan was to retire those to Virgin Orbit or use them for replacement parts?
The comparisons between the AR5 and AR6 are alarming. Now, under no emission scenarios other than low and very low which we are not tracking close to, we reach +2C at or just before 2050. Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration: https://sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-...
> Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration
I wonder what it'll feel like looking back at that point. There isn't anything that I alone can do right now to prevent this from happening, it has to be a collective action but still, we've been warned for decades, over and over, we knew what would happen. Will we regret not having mobilized more, joined every protest out there, not having written our representatives more than we did, not having made more sustainable choices than we did? I know the effect of personal choices and actions is marginal but still, I'm sure we'll feel lots and lots of regret.
Our descendants will rightfully conclude that we were a generation of comfortable cowards. Truly unforgivable. Yet we understandably don't know what to do as individuals. The scale of the tragedy is almost inconceivable.
> I wonder what it'll feel like looking back at that point.
It will feel like nothing, because everyone will have conveniently forgotten about these sorts of reports and predictions when the world stubbornly refuses to end. Just like everyone conveniently forgot that in the 50s and 60s scientists were writing to the US President to tell him that the consensus of scientists was that the world was entering a new ice age, and that he should prepare agriculture and industry for the transition.
What a fun page. Not sure how honest it is though.
> Possible 'adverse health impacts in Australia from climate change' by 2020.
From Climate Commission's 'The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health' report, quote: "We need to act now. Decisions we make from now to 2020 will determine the severity of climate change health risks that our children and grandchildren will experience. The longer we wait, the more serious the consequences. [...] Figure 8: Possible timeline of some future adverse health impacts in Australia from climate change". Graphic showing: "Extreme weather events: deaths, hospital admissions, mental health disorders", "Dengue fever", and "Gastroenteritis" to increase from 2010 to 2019 cited from an unpublished article by McMichael in 2011.
Many would say the wildfires in 2020 were one of the worst in history and definitely had adverse health impacts I would say, no? Yet the page says it didn't come true.
Many others don't consider that predictions were made waaaaay before we had the means to model the impact of climate change on a grand scale. Others are just silly, who cares what Prince Charles said. Well, I guess denialists made their point once again.
It's honest. You can just click through the stories to see for yourself. Of course you can try to find one you feel is weak, cherry pick it and then try to dismiss all the others, but all those false predictions are still there and won't go away.
W.R.T. the one you picked, the extinctionclock assessment is correct. The claims being made are about "deaths, hospital admissions and mental health disorders, dengue fever and gastroenteritis".
Deaths from extreme weather are down drastically over time. Very unclear why they predicted a rise in mental health disorders from climate change, but nobody outside the most extremist climate change fanatics are trying to claim a link there. Contemporary discussion about mental health problems focus on the effect of social media on teen girls.
2019 and 2020 were abnormal years for Australian wildfires. As you can see, 2021 reverted to the mean which is stable. There is no increasing trend in wildfires, just a couple of bad years that the media cherry-picked to try and make you think the world is burning.
You have to be so careful when listening to climatologists, because they love to engage in data truncation and cherry picking to make deceptive claims. This video shows the problem, and I linked you directly to the part about how they do the same with wildfire data in the USA. The full data shows that wildfires have been in steep decline in the 20th century in the USA, but that the data is being truncated when shown to policy makers to make it look like it's increasing:
If global warming caused more wildfires, then wildfires should have increased in the 20th century everywhere susceptible to them when emissions were ramping up so much, but they didn't. Thus the claim is falsified.
I would love to say this comes as a surprise, but it really does not. UN Secretary-General Guterres really foreshadowed that last year, and he did not mince his words. Really unusual for somebody that role, usually it is more of a diplomat-style position.
> Using bogus ‘net-zero’ pledges to cover up massive fossil fuel expansion is reprehensible.
All true, but as a reminder, more energy in a pseudo stable chaotic system means more extremes in both directions: more frequent floods, more frequent extreme snow events, etc., all across the globe.
Do people in capitals not understand or believe this? What do rich people (some of whom control large parts of the media) plan to do exactly? Die? Bunker? I mean seriously.
The problem is to gain political power you have to out compete others for money and votes.
Understanding a problem, and being able to hold on to power while making the hard decisions is a classic unsolved problem in politics.
But it's infinitely harder with very few (two!?!) high centralized litmus-tested groupthink political parties, incentivized to lock up power unilaterally, and marginalize the power of other parties, not skills conducive to governing.
And also infinitely harder with unlimited spending by corporations (who are not citizens, and don't share the interests of citizens), where tiny groups of executives get to leverage all their companies resources toward tilting the political field in their favor, in order to get massive bonuses for feeding insatiable shareholder demand. But without reflecting any of the decency that shareholders might actually have.
It's the moloch beast. The whole system is the problem, but it's near impossible to improve the system's design because it will fight that at every step.
It mindlessly cares about its own survival. Which is how it came to be.
Even if every single person in the system actually wants to do the hard things that will keep the planet in good shape.
What I don't understand is how not even environmentalists seem to believe it given their opposition to nuclear power. If a climate apocalypse were upon us, shouldnt we have been building nuclear power as fast as possible for the past decades? I really don't understand
What are the options, really? Option A is business as usual. Option B is a massive cut in energy consumption.
Option A implies at some point in the future, massive social unrest due to mass migration.
Option B implies massive social unrest today due to a large decline in standard of living. And no, it won’t be the “people in capitals” suffering here.
Option C is option A plus some geoengineering that will likely be undertaken when the situation is desperate enough.
Many Western nations have substantially reduced their emissions already. This did not result in catastrophic reductions in living standards. And these reductions happened before the current exponential cost improvements in renewables really began to cross the “knee”. At the same time there are fossil fuel interests and politicians who are trying to slow down renewables and promote more fossil drilling, even when it’s not economic. (And China is burning massive amounts of coal for reasons that make less economic sense every month.) This stuff is “set the controls for the heart of the sun” levels of suicidal. We won’t survive it.
As for geoengineering, good luck. While I also think this may be necessary, a precondition for spraying stuff into the sky is convincing people that this kind of intervention is necessary. Good luck doing that while enormous financial interests are trying to convince the world that it’s safe to keep digging up and burning fossil fuel deposits. They may not object to geoengineering itself, but they can’t afford to permit the kind of consensus it would require to get geonengineering done, so they will throw resources at fighting that consensus until it’s too late.
Option D is hoping the mass social unrest will cause enough (of the right) people to die off or actively steering towards that. A final solution one might say.
They will be well enough. Maybe their mansions and yacht will be slightly smaller and they will need to find some new destination for tourism. But they will have their air conditioned and heated, homes, cars, shopping centres and so on.
Our first interstellar probes are unlikely to be able to destroy a fighter jet. They'll likely be similar to and just as fragile as the probes we use in our own solar system: https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3
I'm maxing out my 401K match and contributing as much as I can to my IRA. My target date funds are still for retiring at 65 but I would be surprised if by 2060 the age to qualify for Medicare and social security haven't been moved back to 70-ish in the USA. I'm a homeowner but in a state that will likely see water shortages and increased wildfires so I have a longish-term plan to get out before I lose my investment.
My plan is to make sure I retire somewhere in this country there is fresh water and hopefully some protection from food shortages. Probably near the Great Lakes.
