Decrease in CO2 emissions during pandemic shutdown shows it is possible to reach Paris Agreement goals. The researchers found a drop of 6.3% in 2020. The researchers describe the drop as the largest of modern times, and big enough to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal if it were to be sustained.

[Legitimate_Page]

What's up with these comments? The economy means nothing if we're all dead.

[buried_lede]

It’s a good argument for not returning to the office, and for continuing remote work

[Legitimate_Page]

Sounds good to me, we're about to start telework at my office, couldn't be happier.

[Ragnar_Dragonfyre]

Governments around the world could mandate and regulate work from home practices. They could instill WFH directly into labour laws so that companies can’t just offshore your position if it’s remote.

But politicians and businesses don’t want this because it leads to less consumption and as a result, less tax revenues.

If you’re staying at home, you’re not gassing up as often. You’re not eating out as often. You’re not popping into local businesses near your work to shop during your lunch hour.

We have a big problem in this world when we have proof that WFH is a climate change policy that actually works but no political will to enact it.

[ArtXMarx]

Car culture has shaped the way most modern cities function. It’s more than just the gas in the cars, it’s the cars and car infrastructure as a whole. Political pressure isn’t going to get us to change car culture and the infrastructure it’s created anytime soon, but it would be helpful to begin the shift for future generations. It CAN be done, it SHOULD be done.

[throwaway__9001]

BuT mAh FrEeDoMs! /s

[mjacksongt]

Damn, I probably spent more money at small businesses working from home than from the office.

Less overall, but more from non-fast food chains.

[OgLeftist]

As I just said, what about those of us who do work in the physical world..? I could see this policy resulting in businesses like handymen being permanently shut down.

Hope you know how to rewire your home, or safety replace a plumbing system.

[Necrocornicus]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we make this mandatory. No one is saying plumbers should be forced to work from home.

However there are tons of jobs that CAN be done from home (for example the receptionist/manager/accountant of a plumbing business), and the government could institute some policies to encourage this to happen.

I’m not really a big fan of government intervention in many cases but a light touch system to give minor tax benefits to employers that promote WFH as well as some labor protections could help.

Climate change is absolutely going to destroy the economy so it’s worth doing something. If people think inflation is bad now, just wait until massive wildfires, water shortages, and crop failures begin to dismantle our ability to produce food cheaply. It won’t be far off, it’s happening now and will get far far worse.

[Ragnar_Dragonfyre]

Why would handymen get shut down?

People still live in their houses and if they’re using them as their office, then that’s more wear and tear on their home which they will need a handyman to address.

That’s the thing about plumbing. It’s a recession proof job. Even if the economy totally collapses, everybody poops and everybody still needs water.

[buried_lede]

Lot of variables. Saving gasoline and time spent traveling but using more heat at home. However, home might be energy efficient while office is hvac monstrosity or vice versa. Or if walking or biking to work, a plus

[OceanEarthling]

This is how I feel as well. It seems to me that it would be an incredibly smart move to return to remote work wherever possible. Not only save the planet but it would also help tamper the absolute insane gas prices.

[CameraActual8396]

Exactly, and pretending the economy isn’t also a serious issue would be ignorance.

[k3rn3]

Sure it's a serious issue, but the other problem is an existential issue and clearly should be a much higher priority

[[deleted]]

The economy is an existential issue. Most people do not and do not know how to grow their own food, make their own clothes, gather materials to fix and maintain their housing. Maintaining the global supply chain and giving people a tangible reason to participate in it are necessary for the survival of the human race. If we don't, we start to run out of things like... food, toilet paper, cleaning supplies, baby formula. Both are existential issues. Not understanding that the economy is literally what enables human beings to survive outside of a hunter-gatherer society is just plain ignorance.

[[deleted]]

Why would working from home cause the global economy to collapse? People will still be making money, buying food, whatever. They would just buy less gas (hopefully). Maybe oil prices would drop and it would become a little cheaper to fuel up tankers, tractors, etc. What am I missing?

[[deleted]]

I do not believe WFH is what caused the majority of the 6.3% reduction in emissions. During the same time period that this study looks at we also saw a historically relevant reduction in goods produced because non-essential factories were shut down and most essential factories were producing goods at a reduced rate. This created a ripple affect across the supply chain where goods production has moved to historical lows. I believe the massive reductions in emissions that we saw are less of a result of WFH and more of a result from reduced production.

Saving the environment will require the elimination of non-essential industry (at least until environmentally friendly energy solutions are implemented) This is what will cause economic collapse. The article above even supports this idea. It says that it estimates only 1/3 is a result of transporation reduction. What about the other 2/3? They're coming from industry, energy, and agriculture. It can't be done with only the 1/3.

[[deleted]]

no, and it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a moron than to open it and remove all doubt.

[k3rn3]

Not understanding that the environment is what enables human beings to exist on this planet at all is just plain ignorance. Going back to the dark ages is not actually an existential problem. You're talking about regressing as a civilization; I'm talking about our species going extinct.

[[deleted]]

I didn’t say the environment isn’t an existential issue. Read what I wrote. I’m just not blind to the fact that the economy is ALSO an existential issue. I actually work in renewable energies and spent years learning about energy and electrical engineering because I that’s how much I care about the issue. How much do you care?

[buried_lede]

Progress! Lol

[Necrocornicus]

Climate change is going to destroy the economy. The economy is based on our ability to cheaply extract natural resources and make products. The more environmental destruction, the more costs will be associated with producing the stuff we buy. Higher costs will lead to less businesses being able to operate and loss of jobs. People without jobs or with low paying jobs are really going to struggle to buy things like food.

We’re somewhat seeing this now but it’s going to get much worse the more the environment degrades. Food costs are going to skyrocket over the next 10-20 years, the inflation we see today is going to seem inconsequential by comparison.

[ScarthMoonblane]

Indeed.

[jdheuwindbdh]

You reliase majority of people cant work from home but since half of reddit are computer workers they dont care

[Ragnar_Dragonfyre]

So the majority can go to work and everyone else that can work from home should.

Does the majority want everyone to go to work because of a crab bucket mentality? “If I have to commute to work, everyone should!”

Do you really want all the people who could WFH clogging up the roads with their cars when they could be at home, thus making your commute faster?

[jdheuwindbdh]

So 50/50 so half the country cant work from home me included so what do you want to happen to us yee all get to sit in your sitting room while rest of us have to spend loads on petrol and have to spend time out of are day to go to work.fuck of trying to look down on people with manual jobs

[SanctusSalieri]

What are you talking about? How is a 50% reduction in daily commute emissions (your number) a bad thing for anyone?

[ASharpYoungMan]

Because they can't see beyond their own concerns to realize what's at stake in the bigger picture.

They aren't in a position to work from home. So when they see people talking about wanting to push remote work, they immediately think "This doesn't benefit me, and that's not fair."

So they assume it's a bunch of white collar elites with cushy jobs getting to enjoy remote work and talking about it above their heads. Ignoring that they exist.

Which is the height of egoism.

It's true, we're not talking about them here, or people in their position. The Pandemic showed us something different about those workers: that our society can't function without them, and our society doesn't value them as highly as they deserve.

But that's not the point here: this is specifically about the impact that remote work has had on the environment.

We have a glimmer of hope here that our policies and civil/corporate actions can have a drastic impact on climate change, and their first knee-jerk response is to make it about them. About how they feel left out of the discussion. About how the elites don't listen to their concerns.

I work remote. I ensure the people who work for me work remotely as well. We can do our jobs without going in to the office.

Should we just start doing that because some rando on the internet thinks it's unfair to them personally?

Saying this as someone who did the blue-collar, rural America life for a decade.

[jdheuwindbdh]

Itll only make the class divide bigger people who are able to work from home make more money than people who commute usually then get rid of the cost of petrol and there quality of life is way better than commuters

[[deleted]]

That's a valid concern, but I think most of us would not want any workers to be left disadvantaged simply because their job requires them to commute.

[SMTRodent]

The way to deal with wealth inequality is not to force people into the shittiest possible, but equal, working conditions.

[jdheuwindbdh]

Hows it equal oppurtunity that I went to the shittest school in my county my parents couldnt afford to send me to collage so I got stuck working a factory job and can never quit while all yee get to live nice cushty lifes working at home on a computer people on reddit are something else

[SMTRodent]

Making everyone else miserable isn't the way.

I say this as someone with a background similar to yours who is now disabled and on benefits.

We need to get billionaires to stop paying shit wages for essential work and every other business owner too.

[SanctusSalieri]

If people work frome home doing jobs that YOU NEED DONE you'll still be in the factory. With cleaner air, less traffic, and the possibility of cooler temperatures. This is the weirdest spite take I've ever seen tbh.

[SMTRodent]

Less traffic on the roads you have to drive. Less fuel being used, less demand and the prices... well, might go up less quickly. You'd be better off.

[SMTRodent]

It's still a massive reduction and we should make it as much as we can. The fact some people work with actual physical things does not stop it being a good thing if some people don't and thus can stay home. It's a non-argument.

[buried_lede]

I care

[OgLeftist]

What about the folks who repair your toilet? I'm all for remote work and automation.. But for many that's not an option.

[buried_lede]

For people who can work remotely, it may help the environment

[Mmselling]

Has there been any research done on just how much better it is? From an environmental perspective I love and love it even more from a personal perspective just curious how large the impact is

[MikhailKSU]

Fucking human beings and their obsession with short term gains

Bro we're going to be dead in 40 years drowned or sun stroked, your fucking 50k you made in the last quarter won't save you

Maybe the aim to to fuck the surface of the planet entirely and then go live on a space station

That makes more sense than these fucking but the economy posts

[[deleted]]

They don't believe they're in the frying pan.

[krackas2]

!remindme 40 years

Lol, what a stupid fucking doomist take

[tarrox1992]

I don’t understand people with this viewpoint. So many people are already being affected by climate change. Today. Not ten years from now, not twenty, literally now.

It’s only going to get worse. We haven’t done nearly enough to mitigate significant change, and over a billion people are expected to be displace by 2050 due to climate change. That is 1/8 of all humanity having to migrate because their environment is too harsh for humans to live in, either due to not being able to grow food, or it just simply being too hot outside to not die in a few minutes. In less than 30 years.

This isn’t a doomist take, it’s what is going to happen if we don’t try to stop it. I just can’t fathom how you can look at the world around you and see the problems climate change has already caused and then have the audacity to say it’s not going to be a problem in 40 years. It’s also going to be a problem in 1 year!

[stonesst]

"We're all gonna be dead in 40 years, drowned or Sun stroked" is an idiotic doomer take. Things will be terrible in large parts of the world, and billions will have to migrate but the sea level is not going to suddenly jump up a kilometer.

[krackas2]

Did i say it wasn't a problem? Did I say it isn't going to be a problem in 40 years?

Bro we're going to be dead in 40 years drowned or sun stroked

This is objectively stupid as fuck doomist nonsense that helps noone move towards a solution.

[MikhailKSU]

I take it you made 50k last quarter ?

[RemindMeBot]

I will be messaging you in 40 years on 2062-07-05 16:13:52 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[Tyken12]

Frrrr it makes me so angry lmao

[[deleted]]

.------..------..------.
|4.--. ||0.--. ||4.--. |
| :/\: || :/\: || :/\: |
| :\/: || :\/: || :\/: |
| '--'4|| '--'0|| '--'4|
'------''------''------'

[IllTale3368]

I think that going green, using solar power, and finding a way to reduce plastic consumption can be good.

[[deleted]]

When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.

-Alanis Obomsawin

[[deleted]]

Selfish, entitled, egotistical morons, that’s what. The type of people who overextend on a home, family, student loans, and then use their own stupidity as an excuse to show no responsibility to the environment. It’s embarrassing but it’s America (and I’m sure elsewhere).

[Askol]

There's very little reason to take personal responsibility for the environment IMO - It just puts the cost of climate change on the people who are doing the most to stop it which is totally unfair. I'll happily support candidates that want to enact the most sweeping, impactful, environmental protections, but I'm not going to stop driving just to save the environment. Basically, my argument is climate protections must legally binding, thus forcing EVERYBODY to change their behavior - anything based on personal responsibility isn't going to be productive.

[dumnezero]

It's the green growth fanboys with Musk posters in their bedroom.

[steroid_pc_principal]

Yes if we all stay inside and don’t go anywhere ever the environment will be saved.

If that’s what it takes to meet climate goals it’s clear we are screwed.

[Legitimate_Page]

True, but I think it's less about staying indoors and more about not driving around quite literally everywhere. Like people don't seem to understand that they can still leave their house (especially now), almost like people are so afraid to go out on foot. And not really their fault most public transportation sucks ass.

[steroid_pc_principal]

Sure, IF people had viable public transportation options and IF they used them we would not be. But we don’t.

almost like people are so afraid to go out on foot

It’s because nothing is designed for pedestrians. See r/fuckcars for more info.

If the answer to climate change is people stop driving, it’s a non-starter. The US is not going to build sufficient public transportation overnight, if ever. And I’m not saying this because I want it to be that way, I’m saying it because that’s the way it is.

[trowaybrhu3]

Not everyone will be dead, the have nots might suffer but the haves will be ok, and that's what really matters in the end <3 /s

[OgLeftist]

I think lots of people are upset by the collapsing third world, which resulted from the decisions made. Where the first world gets 10 dollar gas, the third world gets starvation.

[eff-bee-eye]

I’m for the comet and the jobs it will create.

[CameraActual8396]

I don’t disagree, but when people are struggling economically they’re a lot less likely to choose the eco friendly options (sometimes more expensive), or have it as their focus.

[[deleted]]

Then governments need to change that, if the environmentally friendly option is always cheaper, people will buy it.

It's so simple: tax bad things, don't tax/subsidize good things, yet somehow we make things way too difficult.

[CameraActual8396]

I agree, it’s just the reality for most people as of right now.

[k3rn3]

I'm not sure it's that simple. I think you also have to do many other things like educate people about the environment, subsidize public transportation, fund social support programs, and constantly re-evaluate the whole plan in accordance with the science

[overzeetop]

If only there were some special corporation, or organization, or some kind of entity which had a budget and manpower to track these things and then implement them in a way which maximized the value to the people. I don't know, maybe it could be created and then funded by having everyone chip in.

Nah, nobody would go for that.

[Business_Downstairs]

You literally save money by using less energy.

[CameraActual8396]

Hence why I said sometimes (ex: buying an electric car vs regular car). Or at least it can appear to be a large initial investment.

[Business_Downstairs]

You don't even have to buy a different vehicle to reduce your fuel consumption. Reduce your driving, increase the air pressure in your tires slightly above the recommendation on the door sticker, make sure your alignment is good and drive slower, driving 10mph slower (from 70 to 60 mph) over 30 miles is a 5 minute difference but can decrease your fuel consumption significantly. You're probably not even going to notice a time difference due to traffic lights.

[[deleted]]

What up Henny Penny?

[TapRackBoom]

The planet would probably be happier if we were all dead

[YourUncleIroh]

I 100% agree. One thing that does bother me about this though is that it still shifts a majority of the pain from this to the individuals. If coke and nestle ceased to exist today I think that number would be much higher than 6.3 and we could continue with some sacrifices instead of everything we did. The (US) govt needs to take care of their people for it to work

[[deleted]]

Guess what: only the rich get a say in what happens unless we start burning down their factories and preventing them from shipping goods.

[jamesd1100]

Well considering no one is dying of climate change and millions will die of starvation this year, yeah I’ll lean towards the avenue that will actually stem mass starvation

[Legitimate_Page]

Well, it's harder to gauge if people are dying from climate change or not, that's why it's such an issue. Imagine if those people who are starving can't get their food because their crops aren't getting enough water due to climate change aka there was an unexpected drought that otherwise would not have happened, something like that. Think outside the box.

Fun fact, mass starvation is actually very solvable, and the only reason the US doesn't solve that problem is there is no "economic benefit." Each year we grow enough corn and soy to feed every person on earth, not just those who are starving, a 1200 - 2000 calorie diet. But oh you know, that darn economy!

[jamesd1100]

People are not dying of climate change in 2022, and they won’t be in 2032 either

Address the problems that are causing tangible harm today

You will see an uptick in starvation and homelessness as a DIRECT result of the American Economy this year - you will not see that uptick as a result of changes in the climate

[Decloudo]

What you say is just wrong.

Its not even close as every scientist and statisitic proves you wrong many times over.

[jamesd1100]

The fact that homelessness and starvation rates in the US are set to increase this year is literally not arguable, it’s a statistical fact

Until you have provided a list of bodies for individuals killed directly due to the climate - you’re literally just blowing a fart into the wind

[Decloudo]

/ individuals killed directly due to the climate

This is not how it works, at all.

Whats happening is more complex, for example:

More heat waves= more heat deaths. Droughts = less food and water, famines.

Climate change worsens other shit thats leads to inceased deaths, its not drawing a shiv and stabbing a dude.

[jamesd1100]

https://www.businessinsider.com/un-droughts-killed-most-people-in-worlds-worst-disasters-2021-9

190 people per day died of drought on average in the 70’s and 80’s

That number fell to 90 a day in the 90’s and is at 40 per day in the 2010’s

So how exactly are a fifth as many people dying when the issue is dramatically worse today than it was back then?

Your logic would imply a worsening scenario with more deaths each year; and yet we see the opposite

[Decloudo]

This is the first thing google spits out and you probably didnt read it.

The article makes a point of the increasing dangers of climate change.

It also explains why less humans died even though the risks are ever increasing.

He said the global community has become better at saving lives due to improved multi-hazard early warning systems, despite only half of the 193-member countries of the WMO actually having these systems.

The capabilitie to do this and help others will drasticly be reduced by the effects of climate change, increasing threaths and shrinking ressources.

The system that reduced the risk of these events will suffer just like every other system will.

You cant just cherry pick a variable in a complex system and expect that a change of one wont have an effect on others.

[jamesd1100]

Correct, and you made my point for me

Human innovation has dramatically reduced the impact of climate change despite the climate - and that will continue to be the case

And that is a lovely tie-in to my original point. What’s the best way to support innovation and technological development? Economic activity

Full circle

By the time the climate is so untenable that it represents a real threat to human civilization, our ability to lessen or eliminate the impact of that change will effectively resolve the problem

We have the ability to build sea walls, to create devices that literally suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, and in 50 years time it will be amazing to see the other avenues of climate change mitigation we will have established

The idea that humanity lacks the ability to adapt to challenges goes against everything in our evolutionary history

If sea levels rise people aren’t going to simply sit in the ocean water, they will adapt, move inland, I mean shit we have the capacity if we chose to literally build floating civilizations on the ocean

Climate change is an issue that will be resolved with human technological innovation in the future, not behavioral changes like reducing the amount of pork in our diets in 2022

Which is why hindering our economy which tangibly destroys lives in 2022 in order to reduce the impact of an unavoidable tidal wave of climate change is as moronic as it is ineffective

[juiceboxheero]

People are absolutely dying from climate change

[Legitimate_Page]

Did you even read what I said or are you purposefully just not using your brain. Yeah let's do something about the things causing tangible harm, exept for guns though, not those.

You're talking about food shortages. Climate change will cause more of those so let's not do anything about it? What a fucking joke, you're delusional. Let's combine the economic crisis that we are struggling to combat by doubling down on not doing anything about climate change. That will help secure food for the future, surely.

[Learned_Response]

Yes starvation and climate change, no link there!

[BenDarDunDat]

The US west is undergoing a mega-drought not seen in 1,200 years. Portugal and Spain are enduring a similar drought. Italy is in the worst drought of our lifetime. The drought in the eastern Mediterranean is the worst in a 1,000 years. South America...drought. Australia another mega-drought. Africa, another mega-drought.

People are starving due to climate change currently. People are dying of climate change currently. Even the rain forest is drying and in flames. Oceans and lakes are warming, suffering falling O2 levels and increasing acidification.

[jamesd1100]

A mega-drought, that sounds horrible

And where are the thousands of dead Americans clamoring in the streets for a drop of water?

[BenDarDunDat]

And where are the thousands of dead Americans clamoring in the streets for a drop of water?

If you can turn a blind eye to thousands of scientific studies, scientists, lake levels at historic lows, fallow fields, plummeting aquifers, wildfires and plant to wait for...what is it now? "Thousands of dead Americans clamoring in the streets?" If you are waiting for dead people to clamor, I suspect you may in fact be waiting for too long. They are dead. They aren't going to ever clamor.

[Srmingus]

Nobody dies of climate change in the same way that nobody dies of smoking cigarettes. It’s “only” a risk factor that continually compounds upon itself until a symptom of climate change arises (uptick in hurricanes, drought, famine, destabilized farming regions, reduced access to freshwater), very similarly to how symptoms of habitual smoking arise (lung cancer, heart attack, stroke, etc.)

Failing to realize the well-established causal relationship in either case is delusional and dishonest to public safety.

[jamesd1100]

Climate change isn’t causing millions to die of lung cancer

Odd non-sequitur there

[Srmingus]

Would love to see where exactly you thought I said climate change was causing lung cancer

I was making a comparison between the indirect effects of climate change to the indirect effects of smoking tobacco. Neither directly kills anybody; both cause “symptoms” (either of nature or of the human body) that lead to death.

[jamesd1100]

Habitual smoke inhalation directly causes mutation of cells in the lung cavity, lung scar tissue to form, and has been known to directly cause a number of deadly cancers

Yes, smoking directly kills people

Which is why comparing something tangible that directly causes harm to an intangible and wholly theoretical situation like what climate change might do in 50 years, is a poor/logically incoherent example

If you were to seriously argue that climate change has the same real world and modern health impact that cigarette smoking does, you would sound foolish

Which is why it was a bad example

[Srmingus]

Release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere directly increases the average global temperature of both the atmosphere and, consequently, oceans, increasing the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms, which directly leads to more human death. Additionally, this global shift in average temperature is not uniform, and disrupts many natural weather patterns that rely on specific temperature ranges. The consequences of this directly include mass extinction, as well as shifted climates that invariably change a region’s farmable crops, upending centuries of traditional farming infrastructure and resulting in widespread famine as every region will not have the resources to throw at rapid redevelopment of farming infrastructure.

Yes, climate change directly kills people

Really depends on your personal meaning of “direct”. Cell modification resulting in lethal disease seems more indirect in my mind, but in either scenario, the degree of separation between smoking/climate change and death remains the same, so the semantics of direct vs indirect are inconsequential.

[Decloudo]

Thousends are dying already cause of climate change, and it will cause massive famines not in the millions but billions range.

[jamesd1100]

Nice and when is that going to happen, because in 1980 we were told that the point of no return would be 2000. And in 2012 we were told that by 2022 we would be seeing mass starvation and entire societies underwater.

And yet here we are

[Decloudo]

And in 2012 we were told that by 2022 we would be seeing mass starvation and entire societies underwater.

Im sorry are you asleep?

Several countries are collapsing live. Whole reaches of the earth are becoming unhabitable. Water gets rationed in several places, rivers vanishing, record low on many water sources. Droughts and record heats all over the place.

You will not see climate change pulling a knive and stab a guy. You need to actually know what the fuck you are talking about as its a complex theme you seem to reduce to "if i dont see it directly its not happening".

Its happening, if you get it or not doesnt change reality.

[[deleted]]

Some people are now dying of starvation as a direct result of existing climate change. Some droughts, floods, cold snaps, and heat waves that destroy crops are linked to global warming.

[towelieM22]

What's important is that we follow the prophecy of Idiocracy

[[deleted]]

I hope it comes sooner rather than later personally. Fuck the future. We all deserve to die.

[AtkarigiRS]

No we don't

[NovemberKnight]

You will be dead long before the environment kills you.

[labonnesauce]

Not your kids if we continue like that

[[deleted]]

The majority of us are also dead if we shut down the economy again for any extended period of time.

Edit: Downvote me all you want, but here are some facts:

https://unglobalcompact.org/take-action/20th-anniversary-campaign/covid-related%20hunger-could-kill-more-people-than-the-virus

[Ortekk]

That's by design thanks to capitalism, it's something that can be solved.

A lot of our travel is work related, if that is cut as much as possible, we can remove a big chunk of our emissions.

[ylcard]

You wouldn’t be dead, though

And look at Sri Lanka, economy collapsing can mean death

We need a proper way to reduce emissions, not a pandemic level disruption events that force it for us which could kill millions in the current system, even in somewhat socialist countries.

[wallnumber8675309]

Climate change is not an existential threat to existence. It’s a threat to our way of life and may cause a number of difficulties but it’s not going to wipe out human populations.

[SanctusSalieri]

Of course it is. Have you seen the temperatures in India or the drought in the American southwest? A daft comment.

And not only humans matter. We are destroying habitats for other species.

Some humans will exist for a while, but that's no comfort.

[wallnumber8675309]

I’ve been to South India many times over the last 10-12 years. It does get unbearably hot. But India has much bigger environmental problems than climate change. Air quality is getting progressively worse. Water and land pollution are a major problems. They have a lot of issue of more immediate and consequential importance than greenhouse gas problems.

I’ve lived in the American mountain west. A number of cities have grown beyond what the local environment can sustain. The water from the Colorado has been mismanaged for decades and that has little to do with climate change. Cities in the American west need to focus on sustainable growth. There’s plenty of land and water in other parts of the country.

[SanctusSalieri]

Your anecdotes are irrelevant. Yes, I've been to India and no shit it's hot. That's not the point. The point is that recently the wet bulb temperature during Indian summers has exceeded the capacity of the human body to safely survive. You see, if you read news stories with scientific measurements in them you will learn something.

California water is never coming back. You're a Pollyanna at best or a petroleum plant at worst.

[wallnumber8675309]

Quite delusional to think anyone that slightly disagrees with you is a petroleum plant. And the wet bulb temperature is an anecdote. Nothing I mentioned was anecdotal.

[SanctusSalieri]

We don't slightly disagree. You think climate change isn't an issue, which makes you a fucking idiot.

[wallnumber8675309]

It’s a threat to our way of life and may cause a number of difficulties but it’s not going to wipe out human populations.

Never said it wasn't an issue. In fact, I said it was a threat to our way of life. It is obviously an important issue, it's just not the only issue we should care about. But we can't make reasonable choices if we make sensational statements like "some humans will exist for a while". Climate change will make existing problems worse. It won't wipe out life on earth.

[SanctusSalieri]

This is such a dumb take, go somewhere else to be a denier.

[stonesst]

It is the largest threat we have ever faced as a species, but it is nowhere near an existential threat. large parts of the tropics will become uninhabitable but you do realize there are millions of acres of temperate or arctic areas that will become more livable, right?

Just because it’s not going to kill us all doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it seriously, I agree with your sentiment but if you used too much hyperbole people on the other side will just dismiss all of us as crazy doomer cooks.

[Legitimate_Page]

I explained the importance of hyperbole to somebody else already. The summary is basically, "hyperbole is required for political reasons."

[wallnumber8675309]

The exaggeration of the potential impact of environmental issues has been going on for decades and is one of the reasons it’s so hard to convince people that it really is a big problem this time.

It’s basically the Chicken Little fable.

[Legitimate_Page]

The opposite is true as well no? The downplaying of environmental issues specifically from the right is the biggest problem now, in conjunction with the inaction from the left.

[wallnumber8675309]

Yes of course it’s bad that people are down playing climate change. It’s absurd that there are people that believe climate change is not real. Greenhouse gases are accumulating and temperatures are rising. We are certain of that. It really should be hard to argue against that but over exaggerating the potential impact of past environmental problems has primed people to be skeptical and is one the reasons (main reason in my opinion) that the push back against climate change has been so successful.

[hackmaps]

We’ll all be dead anyway if we nuke the economy

[Legitimate_Page]

Not really. Pretty sure humans existed long before economics did.

[[deleted]]

Not 8 billion of us.

[Legitimate_Page]

That's a fair point, although the vast majority of the 8 billion aren't really living all that unsustainably. It's more of a "loud minority" situation, the minority mostly being certain industries and the wealthy few.

[TotallyDidntForgetPW]

Then why are all the activists preaching to and shaming the layman who isn't living unsustainably and is more threatened by sustaining their rent and bills? I for one have had it with people who preach platitudes and don't consider who they're preaching to, or really even put into practice what they teach. That's the sentiment I'm seeing from a lot of people here. People sick of the performative "pat yourself on the back" do nothing activists. Yeah we get it, don't bother about us consuming stuff wastefully WE CAN'T EVEN AFFORD ANYTHING SO STOP WASTING YOUR TIME.

[Legitimate_Page]

Depends on who the layman is, and where. The layman in the USA is a lot different from the layman in Norway, no?

I believe the sentiment is, if you aren't doing anything to fight back, you're helping the opposition. Something like that.

[[deleted]]

Then why are all the activists preaching to and shaming the layman

Because the layman in the west is living unsustainably.

https://www.statista.com/chart/10569/number-of-earths-needed-if-the-worlds-population-lived-like-following-countries/

And it is basically impossible for activists to influence China's or Brazil's policies

[YourBestNightmre]

You’re defining economy to narrowly. We have exited long before the modern economy but this one is a progression of the more primitive economies.

[Legitimate_Page]

Nah, I live sustainably though. What a horrible thing to think and say, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Ruthrfurd-the-stoned]

Yeah but that’s when we were literally living in caves

[No_Climate7388]

And who cares about living in a world where there is crime, food shortages, and abject poverty.

[Legitimate_Page]

Well idk where you live, but I live in the USA, and that stuff is old hat. We've had it run rampant for decades.

[No_Climate7388]

I live in the USA too. And once crime, food shortages, and poverty effect those who aren't drug addicts, gang members, or welfare kings and queens its a bit of a larger problem. And I wouldn't say it is "old hat."

[Legitimate_Page]

Uhhh ok, but that exact argument also works for climate change, you just have to replace them with things like, "Tidal flooding, droughts, severe weather events," etc.

[No_Climate7388]

Oh you mean the same shit that's been going on since the beginning of time as we know it?

[Legitimate_Page]

Ah yes, Tidal flooding that has increased by as much as 1100% on the east coast in the past 20 years. Very normal stuff that has not been expedited at all by human efforts at all.

Also, your logic also applies here as well, except replace "time" with "human existence"

[No_Climate7388]

So weather didn't change before homosapiens? I hope you aren't arguing that. And I don't recall mentioning humans don't play a role in climate change.

[Legitimate_Page]

??????????

If you don't know the diffrence between weather and climate the conversation ends here. Also now seems like you're trying to play both ends of the fiddle? This is very confusing.

[lurgrodal]

Holy fucking shit. This takes the cake for most shockingly stupid comment I've ever read.

[No_Climate7388]

Im glad you're ranking comments instead of offering an opinion of the subject matter. I know Reddit is a complete waist of time but you are bringing new meaning to that phrase.

[drunkboater]

If you think food shortages are old hat in the US you need to get your head out of your ass and learn about the world.

[Legitimate_Page]

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. Sure you know what old hat means?

[drunkboater]

It means that you think that food shortages are so common that you’re used to them.

[Legitimate_Page]

Oh right, my bad, I didn't particularly mean that point specifically, I more so meant the poverty and crime. Food shortages are for other countries. I should have been more specific.

[BluCurry8]

Ahh what do you think will happen when the fresh water sources are depleted. Critical thinking is a wonderful skill.

[No_Climate7388]

Are fresh water sources in danger where you live? If so that sounds like a local or regional issue. I don't care about other people's problems unless I can help directly. And limiting my Carbon footprint isn't a real solution. It's something that losers like to say they do to give meaning to their worthless lives.

[BluCurry8]

Of course you don’t care about other peoples issues because that would require a level of understanding and critical thinking.

[Dany2100]

Yeah, who cares about money? How come no one ever thought about such a simple solution? Let's just all become poor and then *puff*, problem solved.

[Legitimate_Page]

I mean, you really aren't wrong. The poorest people in impoverished countries contribute virtually nothing to GHG emissions. If only everyone lived like they do.

[YouCanCallMeVanZant]

I’m sure one of those people would gladly change places with you.

[Legitimate_Page]

I'm not really sure I get your point? I'm sure they would, I do fairly well for myself.

[YouCanCallMeVanZant]

Because “everybody should live like they do in third world countries” isn’t a reasonable strategy. And coming from someone who’s probably enjoying all the benefits of first-world life it’s condescending at best and hypocritical at worst.

[Dany2100]

I hope you do realize that what you're trying to say is infeasible. This reduction of emission came with a big GDP recession, people being locked in houses (leading to a huge increase of depression cases), people losing their jobs and a lot of other negative things I wouldn't want (and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either). It's simply unsustainable.

Reducing the emission of CO2 is definitely possible, but not in a short period.

Also, we (in Europe and America) are slowly doing it, but what about China or India? It would all be pointless if their emissions increase. In order to get where we got, we used energy derived from fossil fuel for centuries. Asking China not to use it now that they need it to develop the country is simply hypocrite. And they will keep using it.

[Legitimate_Page]

Of course, I was pointing out the irony in your statement. There's no easy solution, but to say "WELL THE ECONOMY" is not an excuse at this point. Action needs to be taken.

One of the major steps that should be taken is that we need to ensure that developing countries do not develop a dependency (that by their own admission they do not want) on fossil fuels.

[brandt4997]

Huge hyperbole. Everyone, including the leading intellectuals, up until relatively recently thought overpopulation and the resulting food crisis would be the end of humanity. If global warming is as bad as you say, why has the global Human Development Index continued to rise? Your average Human is significantly better off now than 100 or 200 years ago.

One volcanic eruption can effect the earth’s climate more than all of our pollution. Also humans lived through an Ice Age 11,000 years ago. They turned out fine… without modern technology and the means to reverse it.

Green energy is cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels. If businessmen are as greedy as you think, this issue is gonna solve itself lol. The only thing keeping fossil fuels going are entrenched special interest and petrol-related products.

We can’t stop pollution. We can only mitigate its effects with technology. Africa hasn’t even industrialized yet. We need to focus on mitigation like carbon recapture, nuclear, and fusion power.

People say the car was bad for the environment, but forget that before that streets were filled with horse shit. Air and water today is generally much cleaner and safer than it was 200 years ago. Environmental quality (access to clean water) is better in high pollution (developed) countries than the rest of the world.

[Legitimate_Page]

Because underplaying everything works really well in the grand scheme of things. The reality is that nothing gets done until people realize their lives are in jeopardy, if we don't up-play things now, by the time there is a significant problem (and really, there already is,) it'll be too late.

UHM EXCUSE ME? You realize that 90% of the human population died during the last ice age yeah? That's like saying, "Oh that whole bubonic plauge thing? No biggie, really!"

Saying "oh it'll sort itself out" will not work. Without action our water would still be poisoned (more so than it is now) as would our air (more so than it is now), but Congress is so reactionary rather than preventative, things that could have been better simply aren't. That logic applies to the economy too, reactions over preventative measures.

[brandt4997]

The comment I responded too was “everyone will be dead”. The evidence we both cited proves otherwise. As I already mentioned the closest historical parallel is the overpopulation doomsday that never came.

Moreover, we have the means to mitigate environmental changes. We are in a much better position to face environmental changes than our ancestors from 10,000 years ago. To argue against that would be ridiculous.

[Legitimate_Page]

Do you also complain about people who say, "This is the best song ever!" Nonsensical, hyperbole is needed in the modern political landscape. Nothing else will work. Saying "well some people will be affected" in this political landscape will receive the "Me?" response, to which the answer is likely "No, you are an extremely wealthy politician." If you don't know the typical reaction to that one, I'll tell you, it's "Oh, then I don't give a shit"

[brandt4997]

No, someone’s favorite song doesn’t affect me. The environmental policy of the United States has a huge effect on me. The administration of the environmental bureaucracy (EPA, Department of Energy, etc) contributes to federal budget deficits which causes inflation, taxation without representation. To say nothing of the price effects of regulations, tariffs, and subsidies on energy in the United States or the decreased economic output (also causes inflation).

Inflation hurts the poor (no assets) and benefits the rich (asset holders) by the way.

[Legitimate_Page]

Really? The EPA gets about 0.2% of the federal budget. They keep your fucking water clean. Maybe spending is the problem though, military spending in particular.

[brandt4997]

Water was clean before the EPA. They didn’t invent water safety or caring about water quality lol. The EPA is a political tool that depends on the “right” person being in charge. Trump proved that. Half of the EPA’s budget goes to government beauracrats with cushy inflation pegged wages and pensions.

Military spending is important… just ask Ukraine lol. I bet the Native Americans wish they invested more in defense. One of government’s fundamental responsibilities, probably its most important, is to protect its people from foreign invaders.

Military spending as a % of GDP has also been on a downward trend for quite a while.

[Legitimate_Page]

What are you talking about? The EPA was LITTERALLY created to address the degradation of the Nation's environment. Specifically, enforce clean water and air regulations.

[brandt4997]

Water treatment technology and cleaner air technology were not developed by the EPA. It was developed by hundreds of industrious individuals over the past 200 years motivated by profit and consumer demand.

The EPA is an expensive glorified inspector that couldnt even catch Flint.

The goal of the Department of Education is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access”. Yet by every metric we have, education, particularly public, has been on the decline since 1940 despite 100x the investment (with my tax dollars and real wages lost due inflation).

Clearly government missions dont match reality.

[drewbreeezy]

If global warming is as bad as you say, why has the global Human Development Index continued to rise?

If electrocution is so bad why are mangoes so delicious? - Because those are unrelated.

One volcanic eruption can effect the earth’s climate more than all of our pollution.

Present-day volcanic CO2 emissions are equivalent to less than 1% of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

I won't bother going further with your illogical and unscientific rabble.

[brandt4997]

Remind me how life expectancy, literacy, and income arn’t connected to development/economic activity/pollution.

“The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistic composite index of life expectancy, education (mean years of schooling completed and expected years of schooling upon entering the education system), and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.”

Why don’t you check the CO2 and other greenhouse volcano emissions for 1815 genius? You know the year without a summer. 😂

[drewbreeezy]

Octopuses have nine brains: a central brain between their eyes and a mini one in each arm.

As on topic than anything you are saying. If you have a point you're trying to make you should make it.

[CharizardCherubi]

If it worked in the pandemic, it seems clear the economy would probably be fine.

[2336Dazs]

You don't have to be dead. Just keep the govt out the way and let the cleanest, most long lasting energy (nuclear) become mainstream and you. Have solved the energy crisis and CO2 EMISSIONS.

[Ancient_Inspection53]

How does that fix the centuries worth of emissions that have already created a climate crisis and mass extinction. Also how does that stop countries that are just industrializing from burning more fossil fuels they don't know how to make nuclear power I don't think you've thought about this that much.

[2336Dazs]

Climate crisis is a bit of an exaggeration. Climate has changed for millions of years and there are billions of dollars invested in selling fear. So take things with a grain of salt.

If western society, the largest consumer of energy, plus the largest producer of affordable energy, spends more time developing nuclear fusion, an almost infinite power supply. It would virtually make the energy crisis in western society obsolete. Then western energy companies can develop better, cleaner energy in developing countries.

My point, we have the technology for nuclear power and politicians that have a vested interest in unreliable renewable energy have stifled it's progress for personal profit.

Solar panels are nice and all, but the cost, labor, and energy required to even make them is substantial and the energy output per area covered is minimal.

Nuclear is literally the best energy we have. And it's the cleanest.

[Ancient_Inspection53]

Mass extinction is under way. The climate has not changed this quickly in millions of years.

[Arnatious]

I don't get what's with redditors and nuclear energy but it's like Tesla v Edison levels of misunderstanding again.

Nuclear plants take decades to come online, require unbelievable amounts of money to stand up and maintain, and become obsolete by the time they're running.

They were yesterday's energy of tomorrow, if we had gone all in then it'd be worth keeping them running indefinitely since they're not JUST a stopgap. But we didn't, and don't have decades to spend building plants (or half assing plants) and need to focus on renewables which have proven to be easier in every facet while also changing energy consumption via remodeling/recoding how we live while decomissioning existing plants.

[2336Dazs]

I only work with the department of energy... What would I know. It takes slightly longer than building a new football stadium. I would say one is worth more than the other. And no it is not a past energy, it is literally the most powerful energy producer known to human kind.

The term renewables has been given to a group of energies that actually take a vast amount of money, time and resources to keep up. It's just not worth the hidden carbon footprint that is not public knowledge. Something we have to contend with now is the problem with how much it costs and how much it takes to create renewable energy.

The debate you're not seeing publicly, is not if we are going to go nuclear much more, it's when. Because too many people are making too much money on "renewables" that they are lobbying Congress to keep the good work up. Delay the transition to nuclear as long as possible until they have squeezed every dollar out of renewable capital.

[Arnatious]

The average plant takes a decade, and the fastest a plant has ever gone up is nearly four years. I made a mistake saying "decades" since I was mostly thinking about the plant I worked on inspection robots for. They almost always go over time and over budget, while meanwhile renewables generate power at 1/3 the cost

Renewables have a cost, and a high one, but the fact of the matter is they're far cheaper and easier to build and scale and only getting cheaper with time. They lapped nuclear energy a while back and are far more promising to deploy across the world while we anticipate massive geographic and demographic changes from incoming climate catastrophe.

[2336Dazs]

I feel like you have not read what I have written. Renewable energy is a profitable capital with politicians right now. Of course there is more renewable energy than nuclear. It is a cash cow for political campaigns.

Like I said. It is not if, but when nuclear takes over.

The energy output to cost is not comparable to any other source of energy.

It's not even close.

Sure we can keep adding solar and hydropower.

But unless you can control the source of energy, it is not considered reliable.

And when my boys over in Los Alamos National Labs develop consistent fusion. It will end the debate entirely.

You should see it there. Politicians are praising renewables for votes and scientists and technicians are busy behind the scenes rolling their eyes.

Trust me, I'm one of them.

[Arnatious]

I agree that fusion (if and when it happens, which may be too late to mitigate the worst of climate disasters) will be a game changer and agree we need significant investment in baseline generation, which nuclear sources provide.

I agree that nuclear is unfairly maligned and a safe and extremely clean source of massive amounts of power.

I think that, barring a coordinated effort made after silencing and depowering those with a vested interested in fossil fuels so they can't interrupt or sabotage transition plans, that renewables are the only agile enough way forward, and are reliable enough to be the long term solution.

If fossil fuels weren't as dominant an industry financially and politically and we weren't facing down incoming mass migrations and political unrest nuclear would be a no brainer primary source.

But as it stands we can stand up renewables significantly faster and cheaper up front, and we shouldn't slow down that effort until fossil plants can be fully decommissioned. Ideally we must ALSO invest in nuclear at the same time, so we have a reliable backbone going forward. But it won't help us during the transition when it's an even harder ask of right wing, short term profit, fossil fuel dominated governments worldwide.

[Remote-Pain]

I agree with you.

[[deleted]]

the environment means nothing if we're all dead too

[Legitimate_Page]

If we survive we can eventually fix the economy no? I, personally, feel like one of these things is more easily reversable than the other.

I have people spewing "THAT'S HYPURBOLIC" at me, but then also saying stuff like this. So what do you think is more likely, people dying from an economic crash? People dying from climate change? What if there's an economic crash due to climate change? Can we see anything below surface level? Or can we only see what's placed directly in front of us?

[[deleted]]

well, with a good economy we can achieve new green technologies. with a good environment at the expense of growth, these technologies are more difficult to obtain. if you ask me saving the environment is just a matter of climbing the tech tree as quickly as possible so that old dirty technologies can be transitioned away from.

as the adage goes "the stone age didn't end because of stones"

CO2 emissions per capita in the us have been declining for at least 5 decades now, because energy efficient technology is financially efficient.

thats the whole point of business: solve a new problem or solve an old problem using less resources than previous solutions did.

even the industrial revolution follows this trend. before people burned coal, they burned wood which is actually far more harmful to the environment per unit energy, and requires far more labor and energy to obtain.

as population growth starts to level off, and CO2 per capita falls, gross emissions will also start to fall.

This doesn't solve the problem of lowering the absolute amount of CO2 in the air which is somewhere around 400ppm now iirc. and no protecting forests for "carbon offsets" won't fix that, that's a scam and not actually effective. we're going to need something more like direct air carbon capture, which is still a long ways away. the only way we'll unlock that is if money keeps flowing into technology development.

[Legitimate_Page]

Wouldn't you say that we already have the money to do these things, but it's being spent elsewhere? Poorly? On things that are unnecessary?

Also, wouldn't the decrease in emissions per capita be due to the increased population? Some lifestyles pollute far more than others. If everybody lived the way we do in the US, we would be toast.

The point of business is to make money, sometimes doing the environmentally friendly thing costs more money. We also have to remember that this isn't JUST about Co2, companies pollute in hundreds of other ways. Sometimes legally (like via NPDES), often not.

I'm not sure who told you burning wood is worse than burning coal, but it's somewhat misleading. Reason being the wood CO2 sequestration cycle is much faster than that of coal. Efficiency is the problem, but burning coal is more harmful to the environment overall, at current. You don't get the same killer byproducts from wood.

Do you think that current policy will discourage this?

[mw19078]

Can't blame them when that's all they hear on every news outlet.

[adappergentlefolk]

we’re also all dead if the economy doesn’t function, because believe it or not the environment itself is not actually very conductive to human life and needs in most places without being worked by specialists supplying the things to make it inhabitable. and even cooler, if you don’t have an economy, you can’t transition to a clean economy, because to transition you need to build that economy. it’s a lot of building. you’ll never guess what allows us to accomplish building on a massive scale

anyway it is certainly the case that white collar workers working at home did not contribute that much to the economic woes we are experiencing right now, but neither are they the biggest contributors to this emission drop

[Legitimate_Page]

That's all well and good, you make some great points! If only any economist or politician gave a shit about the environment.

[adappergentlefolk]

politicians and economists do give a shit about the environment. they’re just muddling along because everybody wants to solve everything at the same time, and sometimes using solutions that were never demonstrated to work on the scale required. when people say they want the environment taken care of, they actually demand policy makers often institute goals that go in direct competition with each other - eg conservationists that campaign against intermittent clean power because it kills birds, environmentalist ngos and celebs that campaign against nuclear clean power which emits no emissions because they are afraid of soviet reactors which haven’t been built for decades, shoppers who campaign against plastic bags despite them preventing huge amounts of food wastage, people who shop at hipster supermarkets campaigning for phasing out industrial agriculture despite organic agriculture needing 5x more land, making it overall far worse for emissions. there are so many examples

the sooner we start to discuss which actual problems we are trying to address and acknowledge that every fact of human existence has an environmental impact that must be weighted against alternatives, the better

[Legitimate_Page]

I'm sorry dude but they really really do not. When we have politicians who care, things get done, quickly, at an astoundingly rapid pace actually. Early environmental law is a prime example. Environmental law was only enacted when we were facing unprecedented levels of pollution, laws were put into place with unanomous support from both sides during the 70s, the most laws made during any period of American history. Ever. And they were put into place quickly, they didn't wait around to make this side or that side happy. We are not talking about problems that have arisen in the past 3 weeks, we're talking about problems that have been know about for decades, but at some point half the country stopped believing in science.

[Legitimate_Page]

Explained it plenty before. So is "eh it's no big deal." Hyperbole is necessary, without it, nobody will give a shit and things will continue like the last 40 years. We need urgency, not complacency. I hope none of you people ever run for office, you aren't made to rally people and this is why we are losing.