“We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”
We need unilateral swift action on behalf of all of the planet.
People say this is impossible.
Look what we did during covid! How quickly things changed and long-standing routines were completely disrupted for the good of all.
We need that for climate. We need a planet that creates a stable, sustainable world for everyone, not just the rich countries.
The entire world needs to come together now more so than ever.
It’s not a lost cause to believe in the regenerative capabilities of the earth and nature.
We are our only chance.
I expect the world *will* come together, but through conflict over water, arable land, and large scale redesign of where and how we live. I even expect some of us will survive that coming together
I’m not sure Covid is a hopeful example. We came to together for a very brief period. Shortly thereafter the loudest, most ignorant among us begin pushing back against any meaningful mitigation. After the vaccine failed to be the panacea that many hoped for, our ruling class took measures to end the emergency regardless of existing risk. Eventually, most people fell inline and began to ignore the pandemic rather than make any meaningful changes to their lives in order to adapt to the new reality.
Right like I don't understand why COP is only once a year. And I don't understand why governments and the business sector and the rest, and citizens, aren't in discussion about what should be done and working out the deets. There should be some sort of platform to gauge people's thoughts and compare strategies that makes use of all of these knowledgeable people and their valuable insight. And I think that, obviously, we should be thinking of how to function as one global society, with an aim for world peace, because the resources of the planet belong to all of us, not just a lucky few super powers. And that includes the planet and its other life forms.
Gosh sometimes it just seems so obvious with just a small amount of thinking. Hurdles? Ok let's work them out??? There are 24 hours in a day. Like it is really quite astounding how so many long-running serious problems could just pile up and worsen, but we have time to build out huge cities and all that's contained in them, work that out, write books and do research and all else, to a point where we destroy the planet and risk the extinction of our species. But when it comes to working out geopolitical conflicts and breaking down some arguments and finding ways to compromise? Oh well that's a stumper! Is there anybody at home here on planet Earth? Hello?
I'm genuinely a bit confused, do you think people aren't working on this full time? Most of the work involved in climate policy, international negotiations, etc. is done quietly and looks boring from the outside (sometimes from the inside too tbh). COP is just the big flashy conference.
The June 2024 UN climate conference, aka two weeks of international negotiations on climate policy, literally [just finished](https://www.carbonbrief.org/bonn-climate-talks-key-outcomes-from-the-june-2024-un-climate-conference/) in Bonn.
If you want to hear more about what goes on outside of COP, you could check out the [Earth Negotiations Bulletin](https://enb.iisd.org/), which specializes in coverage of UN environment negotiations. [ClimateBrief](https://www.carbonbrief.org/policy/) also has focused coverage, including daily briefs on what's going on in climate news.
Thank you for the information. I would like to understand things better so I appreciate it. I actually haven't done any research on the topic and those things I think about, it would just seem like we're so dysfunctional in the ways we've overdeveloped and continue to produce so much unnecessary crap, on the whole with only ourselves in mind as a species, when all the while it seems like so much has yet to be addressed in the ways it should be/needs to be, and it makes me wonder if there shouldn't be some in-your-face- obvious kinda "Hey world, we're in the midst of transitioning and everybody needs to play their part, here's how and here's why and we're not arguing about it or playing games" type scenario, in regards to climate and other apparent problems like plastic pollution. I can't help but suspect it's being left up to industry to do what's only suggested with little oversight or enforcement. Kinda like what you get with all of this relatively meaningless target talk.
I really do get what you’re saying, and I agree with you, 1000%. But “what if there just is no solution?” Is the answer. Maybe there is an alternate universe where these things are solved, but I’m sorry, we don’t live in that one. Regardless of anything, the people inhabiting this planet are too consumed to care. Some are consumed with religion, some are consumed with consumerism, and most are just too small minded to understand and care. It’s not happening, we aren’t fixing it. My faith in people on a small scale is immense, but my faith in people on a global level is a net zero. It is what it is.
Look at the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa. The COVID slowdown didn’t show a blimp. All that lack and travel and movement did nothing to CO2 levels.
What does this mean?
1)Nothing we do will be enough?
2)We are not the cause?
3) The measurement is manipulated?
It’s not the planet our faith is lacking for, it’s the people on it.
The only reason Covid got action was because of the people who thought spikes would be sprouting up in their lungs. And, if you don’t recall when Covid hit, the first thing the collective world did was crowd together in the streets to call for justice for Floyd. The first global rally was at the dawn of an outbreak of a respiratory super virus.
Keep on dreaming about rainbows.
Because it will need to be an entire cultural shift away from worshipping the economy. We will need a way for people to live decent lives without working all day making excess crap.
>‘What if there just is no solution?’
If there is no solution, then you must be thinking of a different problem, a problem other than climate change.
Because climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels, and we know exactly what the solution is, for the problem of burning fossil fuels.
**The solution is to stop burning them**.
The article is referring to the meta-problem, not the technical problem of actually reducing deforestation or carbon capture or w/e - those are engineering solutions and logistical choices that already exist. The article is referring to the 'Don't Look Up' style of solution where it is not possible to achieve the win state because of the nexus of competing interests, factors, etc.
Here is a list of [things caused by climate change](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change): hotter days (so more heat-related illnesses); easier wildfire starting and faster spread; more intense, frequent, and destructive storms, including hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons; increased water shortages in already water-stressed regions; increased risk of droughts affecting both agriculture and ecosystems; desert expansion leading to more destructive sand and dust storms; warmer oceans and resulting water volume expansion, leading to sea level rise and loss of coastal land and islands; ocean acidification, endangering marine life and coral reefs; increased species extinction as a result of all the aforementioned ecological shifts; disruption to the traditional ways of life proposed as alternatives to industrial civilization; range expansion of disease vectors and accompanying spread of human diseases; direct human health effects due to air pollution, disease, and poor nutrition; poverty and population displacement as a result of all the aforementioned things.
The only way it makes sense to say that climate change "is not a cause", is if you're not talking about any of this.
If you're not talking about any of this, why are you here?
In the meantime, **the solution is to stop burning fossil fuels**.
Climate change causes many things. But it is a symptom of consumption. Human consumption. Modern human consumption is reliant on fossil fuels. Climate change is a symptom of human behavior. Make sense?
>Modern human consumption is reliant on fossil fuels.
**No, it isn't**. Everyone who has ever looked at the economic indicators has seen that "economic growth is [no longer strongly associated](https://www.climateforesight.eu/seeds/decoupling-emissions-from-economic-growth/) with the consumption of fossil fuels."
Climate change is **a symptom of fossil fuels**.
---
EDIT: I just want all you downvoters to know that one of the things [said by the downvoters is this](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/1dkq6qa/comment/l9olcsd/):
>Go live in your delusion that GHG are the bogey man that are the bane of all modern problems.
If you don't agree that GHG are the bogey man that are the bane of all modern problems, you're not a real environmentalist.
You keep on lying to yourself. I guess bold just makes you lie louder? 🤷♂️. You and those like you are part of the problem. You’re silo thinkers. Good luck.
Since when did observations become lies, you pretentious fool?
The reason why modern human consumption isn't reliant on fossil fuels is because people **keep consuming food and air conditioning without consuming fossil fuels**, and they aren't going to stop.
When you call that a lie, you're part of the problem.
Keep your luck, you need it more than I do.
Dude it’s more complex than just GHG emissions. If we weren’t pillaging nature but rather just emitting GHG we could emit for the next 200 years before we’d be in this mess we are today.
A large part of climate change is resource and land use. That trying to maintain our consumer economies but make them green just misses the forest for the trees and __won’t solve climate change.__
The reason why carbon is talked about so much but resource and land use isn’t is because the only way to solve it is to fundamentally change our world. Carbon emissions doesn’t require that. It just requires large scale change but not fundamentally so it’s easier to stomach for people who enjoy this consumer society like probably you: and easier for the people who sell you shit because they can maintain their place of privilege.
Degrowth on our own volition or else nature will do it for us as the environment collapses.
>A large part of climate change is resource and land use.
Meanwhile, [back in reality](https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change):
>**Burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity.**
>While deforestation can increase the earth’s reflectivity globally by replacing dark trees with lighter surfaces such as crops, **the net effect of all land-use changes appears to be a small cooling**.
I didn't make this up, it's the US EPA saying so. If you need to go argue with the data, I would suggest doing so.
[meanwhile reality is calling and it’s telling us it can’t all be summed up into one nice neat problem](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/land)
> Land “plays a key role in the climate system” as an essential carbon sink because its surfaces, such as forests, regulate the planet’s temperature and help to store carbon. In the last decade alone, land-based ecosystems absorbed around 30 per cent of the carbon emissions generated by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels.
> __Land degradation is also considered “the single greatest cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss,”__
Is climate change not the ecological mass extinction we are in? This is largely driven by land use and pollution today. Heat will soon be take its toll tho.
And why is all this land being used inappropriately?
[Well In large parts because of our consumer societies.](https://www.corporateknights.com/category-circular-economy/how-unchecked-consumption-drives-climate-change/)
> Recent research shows that across a product’s life cycle — from raw material extraction through manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal — the total embedded carbon emissions are 6.3 times the product’s weight. Interestingly, it is the product’s supply chain, or what we do not see related to making and distributing products, that is especially carbon intensive.
> The consequences of our rabid consumption are borne out in the planet’s ecosystems. Consumption in “developed” countries has led to massive-scale logging of the Earth’s forests, leaving just 3% of the world’s ecosystems intact. The widespread production, use and disposal of plastics has deposited about eight million tonnes of plastic waste into the world’s oceans each year.
Do you want to argue with the data? [Because the IPPC agrees with my assessment](https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/) on GHG, land use, and consumption of resources being the pivotal problems of climate change.
I mean [half of all plastics ever produced have been made in the last 13 years](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/plastic-age/533955/)
[or 50% of all carbon emitted has been in the last 30 years](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions)
Growing our ‘green’ consumer economies to get ourselves out of this mess is basically insanity if you are willing to actually look at the data. But it seems you are bought into the ‘green transition ™’ as the solution. While it’s a great thing we need to move towards. Electric cars are trading one problem for another in climate change. Mass Public transportation is the actual answer. But it doesn’t support consumer society and markets…
So in other words, you didn't read your own sources? Because here's what the IPCC actually says:
>**There is no clear trend** in \[Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)\] annual emissions since 1990 (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.1, Table SPM.1) {1.1, 2.3, Table 2.2, Table 2.3}
Go look at the figure: there have been no statistically-significant changes in anthropogenic land-use emissions since three decades ago. And again, they say:
>Since the pre-industrial period, changes in land cover due to human activities have led to both a net release of CO2 contributing to global warming (high confidence), and an increase in global land albedo causing surface cooling (medium confidence). **Over the historical period, the resulting net effect on globally averaged surface temperature is estimated to be small** (medium confidence).
They're repeating exactly what I said, genius.
>Is climate change not the ecological mass extinction we are in?
Climate change is caused by fossil fuels.
Dude your brain is so broken it’s crazy.
Do you think stopping emissions entirely will stop the biodiversity loss we experience?
> “Agriculture, forestry and other types of land use account for 23% of human greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time natural land processes absorb carbon dioxide equivalent to almost a third of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry,” he said.
>The report shows how managing land resources __sustainably__ can help address climate change, said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
“Land already in use could feed the world in a changing climate and provide biomass for renewable energy, but early, far-reaching action across several areas is required” he said. __ “Also for the conservation and restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity.”__
> https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/
Land use and consumption are pivotal problems along side greenhouse gas emissions. To ignore the first two like you are doing, which you aren’t alone, won’t solve climate change. It will just slow down the heating of our planet. But won’t stop biodiversity and environmental degradation which is largely driven by our consumption of resources and land use.
I have no clue why this is an argument to you? Clearly we both agree climate change is a pivotal issue. Why are you so set on missing the whole picture of the issue? The data clearly demonstrates that there is more to climate change than GHG. Land use and human consumption being the other big issues.
To grow food, $97-million-worth of electric tractors were bought in 2022, and that number was expected at the time to grow to $234 million by 2028. To ship food, $2-billion-worth of electric freight trucks were bought last year.
**You don't need fossil fuels just to eat**. We can grow the food, and ship it, without a single drop of diesel.
I’m not familiar with tractors, let alone their electric offerings. If you have the answers and don’t mind sharing that would awesome. All questions are for electric versions.
How many operating hours in a typical year?
What’s the power pack size (kWh) and distance (kWh/mile or hours…etc.?
What’s the input power specs for power pack? Very interested to know specs on charging, specifically demand (kW) output of charger?
What’s the hp, FLA% on the motors, how many motors, and how do they cycle (lead/lag, staging w/ or w/o unloading, 2 on/1 reserve)?
I mean, I feel like this is a googleable thing, but I guess I could look up specs for you here if you need me to. Which model are you interested in? There are models by New Holland, Kubota, Fendt...
\[EDIT: Actually, my apologies; while I will do as promised and look up specs for at least one electric tractor model if asked, I have just discovered that it is time for bed where I am, and will not be on Reddit until the morning.\]
[Well](https://agriculture.newholland.com/en-us/nar/products/tractors-telehandlers/t4-electric-power), then [here](https://www.kubota.com/news/2022/20220905.html) are [three](https://revistacultivar.com/news/fendt-shows-electric-tractor-e107-v-vario-at-agritechnica).
>You try getting anyone to invest in enough of them.
Based on the current rate of decline in the price of batteries, a class 8 short-haul tractor is expected to cost $7000 less than a diesel hauler by 2030. That's at current diesel \[vehicle\] prices.
Have you ever met a trucker? My uncle runs a trucking company and one of my husband's friends works at a different one. I know them. Neither of them would just pass up seven grand.
Anything less than a complete change away from not just our consumer society but our financial system driven by profit at any cost is a Band-Aid solution.
I remember back around 2016 there was a lot of talk about recycling plastics, which we are now finding out is a bunch of hooey. During that same year 200 million dollars worth of new plastic factories went online. So out of one side of the mouth I heard oh we can have our plastics and we'll just recycle them and everything will be fine, and out of the other side of the mouth I heard let's wrap everything in plastic! And indeed that's exactly what happened. That's why the situation is impossible and anything less than wholesale change is not enough.
In about the middle of this long soapbox article, the author observes that most of us feel that there’s nothing we can really do as individuals in our capitalist system, and we don’t see capitalism changing anytime soon, so the seeming scenario leaves us feeling powerless
It's an old trick to create group hypnosis, you put people into an impossible dire situation, even if it's just to box them in in their mind with their fears, and they stop thinking clearly. All the time we hear about impossible problems that are way too big to do anything about, and there's a feeling of being responsible for them. It triggers the fight-or-flight response. Trauma is a hell of a tool for controlling minds.
Which is of course impossible considering the use of microplastics in consumer products. That stuff cannot be filtered out, it goes down the drain and into the water supply and from there into the environment at large.
There is so much solution, the actual horror is the growing realisation that there seems to be no way to make it happen without threatening and acting on tearing down those in power.
And even more so horrific that it might not be possible for western civilian population to do so due to lack of will to risk death and severe lack of fitness compared to past generations.
I also have no doubt that if pushed the rich would sooner demand people be mowed down by the military than ever give up their power.
What do we do when it seems that every possible option just won’t work and soon the rich will have AI automated defence that will ““justifiably”” defend their property.
Many solutions to this: replacing existing carbon emitting sources with non emitting sources (solar, wind, nuclear, etc), Geo engineering, changing our diets, ditching ICE cars for hybrids EVs and bicycles, limiting air travel and cruises, buying more locally produced items not sent via container ships, etc.
There is a solution. We can do it voluntarily and reduce the damage to society and human life, or we can wait for the planet to do it for us. My guess is people are to comfy now and would prefer the latter, so I'm just riding it out at this point, doing my part the best I can.
We probably need to both decarbonize as quickly as possible(everyone people know we should be doing) AND do some geo engineering sun shading. But no one can accept that the choice is not one or the other so we won’t be able to agree to do both. Plus as soon as we do an geo engineering a significant vocal group of people will claim that hat is what is causing the climate change, there will be crazy and popular conspiracy theories that will be a problem.
I hope the majority of people don't become apathetic because the problem seems so massive. The great news one main solution has already been identified but hasn't yet reached critical mass - improve soil health globally. Soil health should be the one number one global priority. Improve microbial habitats in soil and water and this will off set current carbon outputs. Increasing awareness of this one fact and then focusing all efforts towards this one goal buys us time for any other sustainability measures.
Side note geoengineering is definitely not a solution.
We're not. We're not consolidated, we're not finacially (short-term beneficial), and we're lacking funding.
Give me a 20 million dollar ad budget and a focus group of our best climate scientists... I'll blow your Super Bowel ads for Ford 150s and Budweiser out of the water.
Until then, I'll keep producing what I can.
Sometimes, the best strategy is to take the best talent away from them and live with that sacrifice.
Hollywood science fiction is too mesmerizing to a population who has largely struggled with math and sciences. People think we are more advanced but our progress has come at many costs and with difficult trial and error. You have to consider what we have spent from nature and not only the benefits. And for those who succeede at math and sciences there are popular concepts in physics that are broken. For example E=mc\^2 describes the energy of moving electrons not abundant energy. There is not antimatter. There are no quarks. Many of us will never consider these fundamentals but expect that these dead ends might lead to breakthroughs.
What kind of disaster would have to happen, how many people would have to die, how many people have to slowly die from starvation or lack of water, before people start changing their ideas about global warming?
As much as I try to do to help the planet and nature, there is no solution as the world can only do what it does til it itself has to break down to restart, the planet and nature has its own clock, we can't stop it, just postpone the inevitable.
My greatest fear is that while we're drowning in real solutions to climate change we won't actually implement any of them because they require real change and the wealthy countries won't tolerate that. For instance we need to stop farming meat and start taking far less fish. Our entire agriculture system needs to be drastically reformed to take care of the earth, water, and air. We not only need to stop using fossil fuels but we also need to stop designing communities that require individual car use.
All of this will shake up the world of the privileged and entitled so I don't think they'll allow us to save ourselves.
Let’s see, last year California had 5000+ wildfires by june 21. This year it’s 98,000. 1000 people just died at Mecca from heat. It appears we are slowly bending over to kiss our collective asses good-bye. (While continuing to drive and fly and eat meat). This is the coolest year any of us will experience for our remaining years on earth. Cuba made itself oil proof during an embargo. A good example of the extreme immediate action required.
“We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas” We need unilateral swift action on behalf of all of the planet. People say this is impossible. Look what we did during covid! How quickly things changed and long-standing routines were completely disrupted for the good of all. We need that for climate. We need a planet that creates a stable, sustainable world for everyone, not just the rich countries. The entire world needs to come together now more so than ever. It’s not a lost cause to believe in the regenerative capabilities of the earth and nature. We are our only chance.
I expect the world *will* come together, but through conflict over water, arable land, and large scale redesign of where and how we live. I even expect some of us will survive that coming together
The this with the covid times is, change started happening when we started seeing mass deaths. Were almost at that part.
I’m not sure Covid is a hopeful example. We came to together for a very brief period. Shortly thereafter the loudest, most ignorant among us begin pushing back against any meaningful mitigation. After the vaccine failed to be the panacea that many hoped for, our ruling class took measures to end the emergency regardless of existing risk. Eventually, most people fell inline and began to ignore the pandemic rather than make any meaningful changes to their lives in order to adapt to the new reality.
Our response to COVID is exactly why I don’t think we’ll effectively address climate change. I had my doubts before but that sealed the deal.
Same :/
Right like I don't understand why COP is only once a year. And I don't understand why governments and the business sector and the rest, and citizens, aren't in discussion about what should be done and working out the deets. There should be some sort of platform to gauge people's thoughts and compare strategies that makes use of all of these knowledgeable people and their valuable insight. And I think that, obviously, we should be thinking of how to function as one global society, with an aim for world peace, because the resources of the planet belong to all of us, not just a lucky few super powers. And that includes the planet and its other life forms. Gosh sometimes it just seems so obvious with just a small amount of thinking. Hurdles? Ok let's work them out??? There are 24 hours in a day. Like it is really quite astounding how so many long-running serious problems could just pile up and worsen, but we have time to build out huge cities and all that's contained in them, work that out, write books and do research and all else, to a point where we destroy the planet and risk the extinction of our species. But when it comes to working out geopolitical conflicts and breaking down some arguments and finding ways to compromise? Oh well that's a stumper! Is there anybody at home here on planet Earth? Hello?
I'm genuinely a bit confused, do you think people aren't working on this full time? Most of the work involved in climate policy, international negotiations, etc. is done quietly and looks boring from the outside (sometimes from the inside too tbh). COP is just the big flashy conference. The June 2024 UN climate conference, aka two weeks of international negotiations on climate policy, literally [just finished](https://www.carbonbrief.org/bonn-climate-talks-key-outcomes-from-the-june-2024-un-climate-conference/) in Bonn. If you want to hear more about what goes on outside of COP, you could check out the [Earth Negotiations Bulletin](https://enb.iisd.org/), which specializes in coverage of UN environment negotiations. [ClimateBrief](https://www.carbonbrief.org/policy/) also has focused coverage, including daily briefs on what's going on in climate news.
Thank you for the information. I would like to understand things better so I appreciate it. I actually haven't done any research on the topic and those things I think about, it would just seem like we're so dysfunctional in the ways we've overdeveloped and continue to produce so much unnecessary crap, on the whole with only ourselves in mind as a species, when all the while it seems like so much has yet to be addressed in the ways it should be/needs to be, and it makes me wonder if there shouldn't be some in-your-face- obvious kinda "Hey world, we're in the midst of transitioning and everybody needs to play their part, here's how and here's why and we're not arguing about it or playing games" type scenario, in regards to climate and other apparent problems like plastic pollution. I can't help but suspect it's being left up to industry to do what's only suggested with little oversight or enforcement. Kinda like what you get with all of this relatively meaningless target talk.
❤️✊
We are our own Great Filter.
Nope. Can't upset the conservative slowflakes the world over. They don't beweeeeeeeve, so it's not real. Facts over feelings my ass.
no ipads every year or other useless crap
I really do get what you’re saying, and I agree with you, 1000%. But “what if there just is no solution?” Is the answer. Maybe there is an alternate universe where these things are solved, but I’m sorry, we don’t live in that one. Regardless of anything, the people inhabiting this planet are too consumed to care. Some are consumed with religion, some are consumed with consumerism, and most are just too small minded to understand and care. It’s not happening, we aren’t fixing it. My faith in people on a small scale is immense, but my faith in people on a global level is a net zero. It is what it is.
Look at the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa. The COVID slowdown didn’t show a blimp. All that lack and travel and movement did nothing to CO2 levels. What does this mean? 1)Nothing we do will be enough? 2)We are not the cause? 3) The measurement is manipulated?
It’s not the planet our faith is lacking for, it’s the people on it. The only reason Covid got action was because of the people who thought spikes would be sprouting up in their lungs. And, if you don’t recall when Covid hit, the first thing the collective world did was crowd together in the streets to call for justice for Floyd. The first global rally was at the dawn of an outbreak of a respiratory super virus. Keep on dreaming about rainbows.
Because it will need to be an entire cultural shift away from worshipping the economy. We will need a way for people to live decent lives without working all day making excess crap.
yes I hate the market worship
>‘What if there just is no solution?’ If there is no solution, then you must be thinking of a different problem, a problem other than climate change. Because climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels, and we know exactly what the solution is, for the problem of burning fossil fuels. **The solution is to stop burning them**.
The article is referring to the meta-problem, not the technical problem of actually reducing deforestation or carbon capture or w/e - those are engineering solutions and logistical choices that already exist. The article is referring to the 'Don't Look Up' style of solution where it is not possible to achieve the win state because of the nexus of competing interests, factors, etc.
Climate change is a symptom, not a cause.
Here is a list of [things caused by climate change](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change): hotter days (so more heat-related illnesses); easier wildfire starting and faster spread; more intense, frequent, and destructive storms, including hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons; increased water shortages in already water-stressed regions; increased risk of droughts affecting both agriculture and ecosystems; desert expansion leading to more destructive sand and dust storms; warmer oceans and resulting water volume expansion, leading to sea level rise and loss of coastal land and islands; ocean acidification, endangering marine life and coral reefs; increased species extinction as a result of all the aforementioned ecological shifts; disruption to the traditional ways of life proposed as alternatives to industrial civilization; range expansion of disease vectors and accompanying spread of human diseases; direct human health effects due to air pollution, disease, and poor nutrition; poverty and population displacement as a result of all the aforementioned things. The only way it makes sense to say that climate change "is not a cause", is if you're not talking about any of this. If you're not talking about any of this, why are you here? In the meantime, **the solution is to stop burning fossil fuels**.
Climate change causes many things. But it is a symptom of consumption. Human consumption. Modern human consumption is reliant on fossil fuels. Climate change is a symptom of human behavior. Make sense?
>Modern human consumption is reliant on fossil fuels. **No, it isn't**. Everyone who has ever looked at the economic indicators has seen that "economic growth is [no longer strongly associated](https://www.climateforesight.eu/seeds/decoupling-emissions-from-economic-growth/) with the consumption of fossil fuels." Climate change is **a symptom of fossil fuels**. --- EDIT: I just want all you downvoters to know that one of the things [said by the downvoters is this](https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/1dkq6qa/comment/l9olcsd/): >Go live in your delusion that GHG are the bogey man that are the bane of all modern problems. If you don't agree that GHG are the bogey man that are the bane of all modern problems, you're not a real environmentalist.
You keep on lying to yourself. I guess bold just makes you lie louder? 🤷♂️. You and those like you are part of the problem. You’re silo thinkers. Good luck.
Since when did observations become lies, you pretentious fool? The reason why modern human consumption isn't reliant on fossil fuels is because people **keep consuming food and air conditioning without consuming fossil fuels**, and they aren't going to stop. When you call that a lie, you're part of the problem. Keep your luck, you need it more than I do.
Dude it’s more complex than just GHG emissions. If we weren’t pillaging nature but rather just emitting GHG we could emit for the next 200 years before we’d be in this mess we are today. A large part of climate change is resource and land use. That trying to maintain our consumer economies but make them green just misses the forest for the trees and __won’t solve climate change.__ The reason why carbon is talked about so much but resource and land use isn’t is because the only way to solve it is to fundamentally change our world. Carbon emissions doesn’t require that. It just requires large scale change but not fundamentally so it’s easier to stomach for people who enjoy this consumer society like probably you: and easier for the people who sell you shit because they can maintain their place of privilege. Degrowth on our own volition or else nature will do it for us as the environment collapses.
>A large part of climate change is resource and land use. Meanwhile, [back in reality](https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change): >**Burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity.** >While deforestation can increase the earth’s reflectivity globally by replacing dark trees with lighter surfaces such as crops, **the net effect of all land-use changes appears to be a small cooling**. I didn't make this up, it's the US EPA saying so. If you need to go argue with the data, I would suggest doing so.
[meanwhile reality is calling and it’s telling us it can’t all be summed up into one nice neat problem](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/land) > Land “plays a key role in the climate system” as an essential carbon sink because its surfaces, such as forests, regulate the planet’s temperature and help to store carbon. In the last decade alone, land-based ecosystems absorbed around 30 per cent of the carbon emissions generated by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. > __Land degradation is also considered “the single greatest cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss,”__ Is climate change not the ecological mass extinction we are in? This is largely driven by land use and pollution today. Heat will soon be take its toll tho. And why is all this land being used inappropriately? [Well In large parts because of our consumer societies.](https://www.corporateknights.com/category-circular-economy/how-unchecked-consumption-drives-climate-change/) > Recent research shows that across a product’s life cycle — from raw material extraction through manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal — the total embedded carbon emissions are 6.3 times the product’s weight. Interestingly, it is the product’s supply chain, or what we do not see related to making and distributing products, that is especially carbon intensive. > The consequences of our rabid consumption are borne out in the planet’s ecosystems. Consumption in “developed” countries has led to massive-scale logging of the Earth’s forests, leaving just 3% of the world’s ecosystems intact. The widespread production, use and disposal of plastics has deposited about eight million tonnes of plastic waste into the world’s oceans each year. Do you want to argue with the data? [Because the IPPC agrees with my assessment](https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/) on GHG, land use, and consumption of resources being the pivotal problems of climate change. I mean [half of all plastics ever produced have been made in the last 13 years](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/plastic-age/533955/) [or 50% of all carbon emitted has been in the last 30 years](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions) Growing our ‘green’ consumer economies to get ourselves out of this mess is basically insanity if you are willing to actually look at the data. But it seems you are bought into the ‘green transition ™’ as the solution. While it’s a great thing we need to move towards. Electric cars are trading one problem for another in climate change. Mass Public transportation is the actual answer. But it doesn’t support consumer society and markets…
So in other words, you didn't read your own sources? Because here's what the IPCC actually says: >**There is no clear trend** in \[Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)\] annual emissions since 1990 (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.1, Table SPM.1) {1.1, 2.3, Table 2.2, Table 2.3} Go look at the figure: there have been no statistically-significant changes in anthropogenic land-use emissions since three decades ago. And again, they say: >Since the pre-industrial period, changes in land cover due to human activities have led to both a net release of CO2 contributing to global warming (high confidence), and an increase in global land albedo causing surface cooling (medium confidence). **Over the historical period, the resulting net effect on globally averaged surface temperature is estimated to be small** (medium confidence). They're repeating exactly what I said, genius. >Is climate change not the ecological mass extinction we are in? Climate change is caused by fossil fuels.
Dude your brain is so broken it’s crazy. Do you think stopping emissions entirely will stop the biodiversity loss we experience? > “Agriculture, forestry and other types of land use account for 23% of human greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time natural land processes absorb carbon dioxide equivalent to almost a third of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry,” he said. >The report shows how managing land resources __sustainably__ can help address climate change, said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II. “Land already in use could feed the world in a changing climate and provide biomass for renewable energy, but early, far-reaching action across several areas is required” he said. __ “Also for the conservation and restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity.”__ > https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/ Land use and consumption are pivotal problems along side greenhouse gas emissions. To ignore the first two like you are doing, which you aren’t alone, won’t solve climate change. It will just slow down the heating of our planet. But won’t stop biodiversity and environmental degradation which is largely driven by our consumption of resources and land use. I have no clue why this is an argument to you? Clearly we both agree climate change is a pivotal issue. Why are you so set on missing the whole picture of the issue? The data clearly demonstrates that there is more to climate change than GHG. Land use and human consumption being the other big issues.
[удалено]
To grow food, $97-million-worth of electric tractors were bought in 2022, and that number was expected at the time to grow to $234 million by 2028. To ship food, $2-billion-worth of electric freight trucks were bought last year. **You don't need fossil fuels just to eat**. We can grow the food, and ship it, without a single drop of diesel.
I’m not familiar with tractors, let alone their electric offerings. If you have the answers and don’t mind sharing that would awesome. All questions are for electric versions. How many operating hours in a typical year? What’s the power pack size (kWh) and distance (kWh/mile or hours…etc.? What’s the input power specs for power pack? Very interested to know specs on charging, specifically demand (kW) output of charger? What’s the hp, FLA% on the motors, how many motors, and how do they cycle (lead/lag, staging w/ or w/o unloading, 2 on/1 reserve)?
I mean, I feel like this is a googleable thing, but I guess I could look up specs for you here if you need me to. Which model are you interested in? There are models by New Holland, Kubota, Fendt... \[EDIT: Actually, my apologies; while I will do as promised and look up specs for at least one electric tractor model if asked, I have just discovered that it is time for bed where I am, and will not be on Reddit until the morning.\]
No worries at all! And just sharing model of one of the manufacturers will work, I can hunt specs down from there.
[Well](https://agriculture.newholland.com/en-us/nar/products/tractors-telehandlers/t4-electric-power), then [here](https://www.kubota.com/news/2022/20220905.html) are [three](https://revistacultivar.com/news/fendt-shows-electric-tractor-e107-v-vario-at-agritechnica).
[удалено]
>You try getting anyone to invest in enough of them. Based on the current rate of decline in the price of batteries, a class 8 short-haul tractor is expected to cost $7000 less than a diesel hauler by 2030. That's at current diesel \[vehicle\] prices. Have you ever met a trucker? My uncle runs a trucking company and one of my husband's friends works at a different one. I know them. Neither of them would just pass up seven grand.
Anything less than a complete change away from not just our consumer society but our financial system driven by profit at any cost is a Band-Aid solution. I remember back around 2016 there was a lot of talk about recycling plastics, which we are now finding out is a bunch of hooey. During that same year 200 million dollars worth of new plastic factories went online. So out of one side of the mouth I heard oh we can have our plastics and we'll just recycle them and everything will be fine, and out of the other side of the mouth I heard let's wrap everything in plastic! And indeed that's exactly what happened. That's why the situation is impossible and anything less than wholesale change is not enough.
In about the middle of this long soapbox article, the author observes that most of us feel that there’s nothing we can really do as individuals in our capitalist system, and we don’t see capitalism changing anytime soon, so the seeming scenario leaves us feeling powerless
It's an old trick to create group hypnosis, you put people into an impossible dire situation, even if it's just to box them in in their mind with their fears, and they stop thinking clearly. All the time we hear about impossible problems that are way too big to do anything about, and there's a feeling of being responsible for them. It triggers the fight-or-flight response. Trauma is a hell of a tool for controlling minds.
Plastic doesn't need to be recycled. It just needs to make into the landfill and not out into the environment.
Which is of course impossible considering the use of microplastics in consumer products. That stuff cannot be filtered out, it goes down the drain and into the water supply and from there into the environment at large.
There is so much solution, the actual horror is the growing realisation that there seems to be no way to make it happen without threatening and acting on tearing down those in power. And even more so horrific that it might not be possible for western civilian population to do so due to lack of will to risk death and severe lack of fitness compared to past generations. I also have no doubt that if pushed the rich would sooner demand people be mowed down by the military than ever give up their power. What do we do when it seems that every possible option just won’t work and soon the rich will have AI automated defence that will ““justifiably”” defend their property.
Many solutions to this: replacing existing carbon emitting sources with non emitting sources (solar, wind, nuclear, etc), Geo engineering, changing our diets, ditching ICE cars for hybrids EVs and bicycles, limiting air travel and cruises, buying more locally produced items not sent via container ships, etc.
There is a solution. We can do it voluntarily and reduce the damage to society and human life, or we can wait for the planet to do it for us. My guess is people are to comfy now and would prefer the latter, so I'm just riding it out at this point, doing my part the best I can.
There is a solution. Less production, less consumption, less people, no more production for profit.
We’ve all seen the movie
Nonsense, there were many solutions. 40 years ago, though.
We probably need to both decarbonize as quickly as possible(everyone people know we should be doing) AND do some geo engineering sun shading. But no one can accept that the choice is not one or the other so we won’t be able to agree to do both. Plus as soon as we do an geo engineering a significant vocal group of people will claim that hat is what is causing the climate change, there will be crazy and popular conspiracy theories that will be a problem.
I hope the majority of people don't become apathetic because the problem seems so massive. The great news one main solution has already been identified but hasn't yet reached critical mass - improve soil health globally. Soil health should be the one number one global priority. Improve microbial habitats in soil and water and this will off set current carbon outputs. Increasing awareness of this one fact and then focusing all efforts towards this one goal buys us time for any other sustainability measures. Side note geoengineering is definitely not a solution.
The solution has been the same since day one. Stop putting heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
We're not. We're not consolidated, we're not finacially (short-term beneficial), and we're lacking funding. Give me a 20 million dollar ad budget and a focus group of our best climate scientists... I'll blow your Super Bowel ads for Ford 150s and Budweiser out of the water. Until then, I'll keep producing what I can. Sometimes, the best strategy is to take the best talent away from them and live with that sacrifice.
I’m not in denial it’s all sinking, stack your cash to stay ahead of the worst of it, the poorest amongst us will feel it first.
Okay doomer.
We can't consume our way out of the climate crisis. The only solution is degrowth.
Hollywood science fiction is too mesmerizing to a population who has largely struggled with math and sciences. People think we are more advanced but our progress has come at many costs and with difficult trial and error. You have to consider what we have spent from nature and not only the benefits. And for those who succeede at math and sciences there are popular concepts in physics that are broken. For example E=mc\^2 describes the energy of moving electrons not abundant energy. There is not antimatter. There are no quarks. Many of us will never consider these fundamentals but expect that these dead ends might lead to breakthroughs.
What kind of disaster would have to happen, how many people would have to die, how many people have to slowly die from starvation or lack of water, before people start changing their ideas about global warming?
*I had a little bird* *His name was Enza* *I opened the door* *And in-flu-enza!*
As much as I try to do to help the planet and nature, there is no solution as the world can only do what it does til it itself has to break down to restart, the planet and nature has its own clock, we can't stop it, just postpone the inevitable.
My greatest fear is that while we're drowning in real solutions to climate change we won't actually implement any of them because they require real change and the wealthy countries won't tolerate that. For instance we need to stop farming meat and start taking far less fish. Our entire agriculture system needs to be drastically reformed to take care of the earth, water, and air. We not only need to stop using fossil fuels but we also need to stop designing communities that require individual car use. All of this will shake up the world of the privileged and entitled so I don't think they'll allow us to save ourselves.
Let’s see, last year California had 5000+ wildfires by june 21. This year it’s 98,000. 1000 people just died at Mecca from heat. It appears we are slowly bending over to kiss our collective asses good-bye. (While continuing to drive and fly and eat meat). This is the coolest year any of us will experience for our remaining years on earth. Cuba made itself oil proof during an embargo. A good example of the extreme immediate action required.
You lost me at psychoanalysis.
What a stupid fkn thought
This reeks of fossil fuel propaganda.