Or in other words, there’s no problem so bad we can’t make it worse!
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
385 points (98.2% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5808 readers
919 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Right. There is a "too late" to prevent any catastrophic climate change, and we're well beyond that. But there is no "too late" to making it less bad than it will be assuming we don't do something.
The plane is going down. We still have some control, and we can aim for a softer landing, but everyone needs to assume the crash position and stop pretending we didn't cause a crash.
Most importantly, people need to stop dying when a plane goes down. Just say no.
Actually, there is a limit to the amount of CO2 the atmosphere can hold. We'd be well and truly cooked by that point, but yeah. There is technically a point where we can't make it worse.
Saved by a technicality
While I believe this is absolutely true, there is also a very real point we have seen in virtually all of our studies where we're fucked pretty much no matter what. It's just a matter of how fucked at a certain point. But I guess that's the sentiment being expressed here, just much more gently.
No climate path is "pure", but every business-as-usual path is more evil than the one with less emissions.
what about tipping points though? the point where climate change accelerates itself? surely it's over then
Theoretically we could find a way to reverse things before we're all dead.
So we can achieve 3.95C instead of 4C. Big difference that'll make...
Yes, because those 0.05K might be the difference between certain disasters occurring or not. Certain disasters are so bad that we lose control over temperature because of something feedback loops.
We are already in feedback loop territory. The fact this is missed by so many people used to fill me with dread, but I've since learned to (cope by) accept reality. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.
It is important to note that high temperature increase will accelerate when feedback loops kick into action. Tim Lenton says that the right metaphor is not a chair falling over, as in, once we hit temperature X, then we doomed. If the chair falling over is used, then metaphorically it is falling through honey, the higher the temperature, the faster the fall and less time for finding solutions. Key takeaway: Never give up, always try to reduce emissions as they all have an impact on how much time we have.
when feedback loops kick into action
The feedback loop is already in action, that's the point they were trying to make. Polar ice caps are already in a runaway melt loop. We will not save them.
There is no situation in which we get climate change under control to a point where the entire earth's ecosphere doesn't change drastically in the next 100 years. That ship sailed ages ago. We can try to staunch the bleeding, and I think we should in any way that we can, but there is no realistic future in which we "recover" from this.
We'd be lucky to limit it that much. Instead we have decided slowing down fossil fuel extraction would hurt profits and we can't have that.
Well, we can achieve much better than either of those two if there's political will. But given 3.95C or 4C I know which I'd pick, and aren't many western conveniences I wouldn't trade for even that small improvement.
Some say it's black and white which it is not. White is over, we aim for light gray to avoid black on any cost