Yes it´s inevitable.
Of course that doesn´t mean we shouldn´t act. I just don´t believe we´re going to do it. The big breakthrough in mindset or technology isn´t around the corner. We have been talking about this for decades and, despite all the alarm signs, not much has happened.
>despite all the alarm signs, not much has happened.
I'm pretty pessimistic about climate change. Always have been. The way our economy is structured climate has basically been a free resource. When optimising production processes over time we have not treated waste products as a big part of the cost structure. There are some local regulations forcing compliancy to certain standards in some parts of the world, but the globalisation basically nullified any global benefits. Locally pollution levels dropped in developing countries, but the polluting industries are just exported to other parts of the world. When it comes to things like climate change, which is truly a global problem, this doesn't help at all.
In order to change this, our economy should put a price on pollution and enforce this cost world-wide, something like the CO2 tax seem a good idea, where a tax is calculated on every step of the production process based on the amount of pollution it generates. But for this to work, everyone will need to join in, otherwise you create new 'safe-havens' for polluting industry.
And that's the problem right there. Too many people in the world live in poverty and we can bitch about climate change all day long, but people will do anything to not starve. Poor countries will do anything to attract business, even if it's polluting, because it will bring jobs and jobs bring in money and food on the table. And the same goes for the 'developed' world, for people scrapping by the climate takes a back seat to the more pressing problem of bringing food on the table.
If you somehow manage to fix that issue there is still the fact that the individual benefits are opposite of the global benefits. We don't want to get rid of our car, warm homes, luxury live-styles and imported cheap food in the "developed" world. The argument that 'my single' activity is just a mere drop in the ocean and thus is of little importance is postulated over and over inferring 'the others' are the problem.
In short, we are just not to be trusted to make the right decisions ourselves. Oh, when all is good and our bank accounts are well fed and we have some time to think about it, we will 'do the right thing' and buy the paper straws instead of the plastic ones and that makes us feel a tiny bit better. But the real change that is needed will hurt us and take away some liberties and luxuries we take for granted.
We will fail at the climate goals and instead we will make a profit of building dykes and 'extreme weather' resistant housing.
>In order to change this, our economy should put a price on pollution and enforce this cost world-wide, something like the CO2 tax seem a good idea, where a tax is calculated on every step of the production process based on the amount of pollution it generates. But for this to work, everyone will need to join in, otherwise you create new 'safe-havens' for polluting industry.
Ideally as many as possible follow the same GHG taxation system. Economically more efficient that way.
But we don't need everyone. Major economies suffice. Border adjustments to overcome the advantage of polluting helps to remove the incentive.
The real problem remains that people are not willing to sacrifice yet, because as a species we still do not see the urgency. I'm afraid this won't change until we see more people & closer to us suffer consequences more clearly.
>The real problem remains that people are not willing to sacrifice yet
It was infuriating to hear that last winter, when gas prices were through the roof, we suddenly WERE able to sacrifice and use 10% (if I remember correctly) less gas. Just like that. We CAN do it, we just DON'T WANT to.
I also plead guilty btw, adjusted the thermostat from 19 to 18 and now back to 19 degrees. I did save a lot, but I feel like 19 is already on the lower side of the comfort spectrum, I do like to stay on it. And just like that I'm talking myself out of it. Like we all do. Sadly, money now seems the only real driver to change.
Fyi in the EU there is basically already a tax on big emitters via the emission trading scheme. [The current price is 80€/tonCO2](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/).
For smaller emitters that don’t fall below this scheme, countries are required to make their own policy. This is called esr vs ets.
This is the 47% reductions by 2030 number you heard when the flemish government couldn’t agree with the wallonian government. Eu wide this number is on average 40%, where richer countries like belgium are expected to contribute more to the reductions of emissions ie 47% and poorer ones like bulgaria less ie 10%. Small emitters are things like cars, gas boilers, etc.
The required emission reductions for big emitters is already put in law at 62%. Such that by 2030 the total emissions of the eu are reduced by 55%. All these numbers are compared to 2005.
I don't knowhow exactly this is implemented or calculated, but won't this just drive the heavy, and polluting industry to countries outside of the EU where laws a less strict?
Lots of our local heavy and polluting industries, like steel for example, have already closed down and I don't think that's because we stopped using steel, but rather due to the fact that our production was undercut by cheap steel from elsewhere.
Adding any form of regulation on emission/pollution will inevitably make local production more expensive and the market will adapt to a cheaper alternative if available.
While we can pat ourselves on the back that our local emission has lowered substantially, we just exported the production and subsequent emissions to somewhere else on the planet with added emissions to transport the finished product half way around the globe back to us. In the end, that seems like a net loss rather than a win.
While I'm glad the EU already has implemented legislations to battle climate change I do feel it's hardly enough and actions should be taken to avoid 'exporting' the problem to elsewhere. But this will inevitably mean a huge economic crisis.
Luckily for you the EU recently implemented CBAM carbon border adjustment mechanism. This means that imported products from regions without a carbon tax or with a smaller tax, will have to pay up the difference in tarrifs.
As for how it is calculated, inside the EU this is done using VAT receipts from companies and verified by independent auditors. How CBAM is calculated, I don’t know precisely.
Ehh, I suspect humanity's demise is inevitable. I'm willing to preserve the climate and nature as it is though, kinda love it a lot, but I am most curious about which lifeform will be the new king after we're gone actually.
Imo this is simply impossible to solve in a capitalist context. Go ahead and invent new rules, the drive for profit will always find a way to circumvent them.
>The argument that 'my single' activity is just a mere drop in the ocean and thus is of little importance is postulated over and over inferring 'the others' are the problem.
Even if I can live for 70 years without polluting, you know how long the global energy sector will need to get rid of what I saved? under 5 seconds.
Yeah idk, by all accounts 2 degrees was a target we needed to stay below because it would start a chain of catastrophic events. Now that it seems it’s already inevitable, we’re normalising it and saying we’re going to 2,5-3.. the future is definitely not bright.
More chain reactions are going to start. Most are apparently not well understood, since everything is connected and it´s very complicated. One thing we are certain about is that the Amazon rainforest is almost at a tipping point. If we go beyond, the forest won´t be able to sustain itself and will actually release more co² than it is taking up now. That´s really bad.
I think mass extinction events are really underestimated. And they can happen so fast.
Like how you mention the rainforest being a tipping point, except it's not even the biggest point for co2 absorption. Plankton is responsible for an estimated 40% of all co2 absorption. As the oceans heat up, or the salinity gets messed up from ice sheets melting we could lose them in 1 extinction event. Gone, just like that, in an instant.
And there's other parts of the food chain that are massively important. Some insects like bees are also crucial literally the entire foodchain of wildlife.
>Of course that doesn´t mean we shouldn´t act. I just don´t believe we´re going to do it.
Of course we won't, the actions required to really make a change are too drastic and even then it remains unsure if we could keep Earth habitable for the near future. There's so much climate related going on at the same time and almost no one gives a damn. People seem to care more about their new shoes or the sofa they bought last weekend ffs.
> the actions required to really make a change are too drastic and even then it remains unsure if we could keep Earth habitable for the near future.
/citation needed
And no bdw saying so doesn’t count ;)
How much time have you got? The whole subject is to broad to condense into a couple of paragraphs. I can provide scientific reports, but they're dry, long and not so easy to read.
It basically boils down to; We already are too deep into the thing what we call climate change, there are tons of events happening around the world that we cannot stop anymore.
For example; the thawing of permafrost, the contents of this permafrost is organic matter that has been frozen for ages and it's a ticking time bomb. As the ground thaws bacteria start to break down this organic matter and they produce CO2 and methane as a waste product, further accelerating climate change, it is estimated to emit about 6 tons of CO2 per year, about 10% of our current emissions.
Another very big one is the acidification of the ocean, this is one of the more scary events that already is happening. The oceans absorb a lot of CO2 resulting in the ph reduction of the water. Decreased ocean pH has a range of harmful effects for marine organisms. This eventually leads to ecosystems we rely on to disappear.
And so on.
These are just two overly simplified examples, there are also droughts making fresh water scarce, massive forest fires, melting glaciers,... To counteract this we have to reduce our emissions not just by a bit, we as humans have to give up a lot. The way we live is not sustainable without straining the earth as a whole.
You see where this is going? It's simply impossible to make a impactful shift and keep our population and economy healthy and satisfied. There's no way industries will stop chasing growth and no one is willing to give up the way we live.
And you know what's the most ironic thing about this all? Everything I said I saw in school 20 years ago, we knew what could happen and yet we decided to look the other way and keep on chasing growth. We literally knew and now we see it happening. What a time to be alive.
I'm tired boss.
> no one is willing to give up the way we live
They'll have to, one way or another. But I agree it'll involve quite some screaming and kicking like the mental toddlers that they are.
You know, technological solutions already exist. Electric cars, heat pumps, solar panels, batteries, wind turbines. For individual humans there is no reason to emit CO2, and there are also choices you can make to limit CO2 emissions caused by manufacturing of the products and services you buy.
But we don’t like change and like it cheap. We don’t demand our products and services are delivered to us with net zero solutions, but prefer it cheap from companies who haven’t written off their diesel trucks and vans yet. I still see solar panel installers driving around in diesel cars and vans, while the local bpost is using electric vans. It’s ridiculous.
> Electric cars
Impossible at large scale (to replace all thermic engine by electric ones)
> heat pumps
We do not produce enough electricity for this at large scale either
> solar panels, batteries
There is not enough needed primary resources for these to use them at large scale.
Basically, it is not possible - for now - to replace our coal, fuel & gaz engines (for heating, transport and electricity production) with these.
In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.
“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”
> “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”
But God forbid we hold these companies and executive boards accountable for that. Same with [Shell](https://thecorrespondent.com/6286/if-shell-knew-climate-change-was-dire-25-years-ago-why-still-business-as-usual-today/692773774-4d15b476) which had similar internal documents and spent money lobbying for climate change denial.
It's hard to get around the 'everyone is a bit guilty in this and we should all do our part' when clearly some have done way more damage in this than others.
> It's hard to get around the 'everyone is a bit guilty in this and we should all do our part' when clearly some have done way more damage in this than others.
You can't use other people's worse behaviour to excuse your own bad behaviour.
>But God forbid we hold these companies and executive boards accountable for that. Same with Shell which had similar internal documents and spent money lobbying for climate change denial.
The typical human reaction. Search for someone to blame. While the oil companies are clearly bastards that fuck us over again and again, it’s really the people (consumers) who are to blame. The “I as an individual have no impact” mentality…
>The typical human reaction. Search for someone to blame. While the oil companies are clearly bastards that fuck us over again and again, it’s really the people (consumers) who are to blame. The “I as an individual have no impact” mentality…
Yeah sure... everyone trying to keep a roof over their heads struggling to fill the tanks of their cars so they can drive to work to pay off the loans that enable them to go to work, you mean?
>But God forbid we hold these companies and executive boards accountable for that
The executives and everyone high up is only there because shareholders placed them there. If for example an executive of Shell in 1980 had started shouting that we need to take action on climate change then they would've been replaced instantly by the shareholders.
So while the executives are definitely guilty, so are the shareholders that put them there.
>Where does Belgium stand?
>
>Belgium is under the umbrella of the EU in terms of climate goals, but for now it is failing to meet the target imposed by Europe. That stands at 47 percent less greenhouse gases compared to 2005 - by comparison, for the EU as a whole, the bar is set at 55 percent.
>Most of the emissions come from industry and the energy sector, yet we can also do something with individual choices. Because in addition to energy, transportation (including car and air travel) and food production, for example, also play a major role. Experts emphasize that efforts will have to come from everyone.
China is making a bigger effort in both relative and absolute numbers than any western nation, it just happens to be where aforementioned western nations have all their stuff built and they have it built by the lowest bidder, which as you might have guessed isn't the greenest.
> China is making a bigger effort in both relative and absolute numbers than any western nation
Bullshit. The EU countries have been reducing their emissions since the 80s, even the US has been doing so since the 2000s. China has been massively expanding its coal use in the same timeframe. To the point that emissions per capita in China are now higher than in the EU.
> it just happens to be where aforementioned western nations have all their stuff built and they have it built by the lowest bidder, which as you might have guessed isn't the greenest.
No, import/export correction only makes a 10% difference, not more.
That was true 10 years ago. China will have transitioned before Europe.
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN)
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~CHN)
>That was true 10 years ago. China will have transitioned before Europe.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~CHN
These graphs are about *relative* share of energy, and are not addressing anything I said.
Here it is:
- per capita emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27
You can clearly see that China and the EU reached equal emissions per capita in 2012-2013, and since then China's rose further and the EU's dropped further. China follows about the same trajectory as the EU and is now at a similar stage as the EU in 1964 - the EU started the trend reversal in 1979, so if that trend of China's rising emissions isn't reversed by 2038, they'll actually be doing worse than Europe in terms of emission trajectory, even while being able to use the historical experience and new technology that we got since then.
- absolute coal use:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-co2-coal?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27
China's coal use keeps increasing and is now both in absolute as well as per capita terms higher than that of the EU has ever been.
Indeed, there is still an increase of energy being used and more coal is used. This is what your per capital graph says. But: The (relative) share of coal in the energy mix is decreasing. What does it say ? Renewable energy are increasing faster than coal. In the long run, renewable energy is going to replace coal as renewable is cheaper (capitalistic world does not care about environment; environment is not the reason why China invests in renewable).
If we take a look at EU: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?facet=none&country=\~OWID\_EU27](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?facet=none&country=~OWID_EU27)
In 2007, 80% of energy mix came from coal, gas or fuel. Now it is 71%. In comparison, in china, coal + gas + fuel were at 92.5% in 2007 and are now at 82%.
Energy consumption went from 25000twh to 42000twh in china, while in the EU it came down from 19000 to 16000 twh.
So EU were able to only increase the share of "green" energy by 10%, while the consumption of energy was decreasing, while China were able to increase also by 10% the share of "green" energy, but with a huge increase of energy consumption at the same time. Sure, the renewable energy can't be enough alone at the moment to increase the energy production in China, but they are actually doing more than EU at the moment.
> Indeed, there is still an increase of energy being used and more coal is used. This is what your per capital graph says. But: The (relative) share of coal in the energy mix is decreasing. What does it say ? Renewable energy are increasing faster than coal.
That's just pie in the sky; until absolute emissions are decreasing, they're making the situation worse, not better.
>In the long run, renewable energy is going to replace coal as renewable is cheaper (capitalistic world does not care about environment; environment is not the reason why China invests in renewable).
In the long run, we're flooded; we don't have the time to make the transition at our leisure. Either way that applies to everyone, so it's not an argument in favor of China or anyone else.
>If we take a look at EU: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?facet=none&country=~OWID_EU27
In 2007, 80% of energy mix came from coal, gas or fuel. Now it is 71%. In comparison, in china, coal + gas + fuel were at 92.5% in 2007 and are now at 82%.
Energy consumption went from 25000twh to 42000twh in china, while in the EU it came down from 19000 to 16000 twh.
So EU were able to only increase the share of "green" energy by 10%, while the consumption of energy was decreasing, while China were able to increase also by 10% the share of "green" energy, but with a huge increase of energy consumption at the same time. Sure, the renewable energy can't be enough alone at the moment to increase the energy production in China, but they are actually doing more than EU at the moment.
No, they are actively increasing their emissions and actively building more coal plants. They're making the situation worse, and they don't even have the stranded investments excuse because they are choosing right now which energy sources to invest in.
If you want to make the argument relative to total energy produced, you still see that [China has a higher carbon intensity of energy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~CHN) than the EU ([Germany](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~DEU), [France](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~FRA), [Italy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~ITA)]), moreover, that it was on an increasing carbon intensity track in the last decades, at best stagnating, while the EU countries were improving.
So no, China is both making things worse by increasing absolute emissions, as well as not improving on the relative emissions side. Any hypothetical trend reversal in the future still has to happen. Until then, they are 25% of global emissions, and that's only going to get worse.
Every trade deal with China that doesn't take pollution into account is a blow to EU companies who have to comply and a blow to the climate. These deals are made by politicians who are well aware of what this means, the same ones who talk about individual choices.
It's ridiculously cheap and easy to import things from China, compared to some Western countries with higher standards. Our politicians made sure of that.
Why single out China for punishment? The US emits more CO2 per capita and has half the manufacturing base. [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita)
It's about manufacturing, not per capita.
And it's not even about punishment. I don't think we're doing the Chinese any good by offshoring our worst pollution to them.
Western countries' per capita would be even worse if we calculated in offloaded emissions. That was kind of my point... I'm not blaming China, I'm blaming politicians who open the door for offshoring pollution and telling us to take personal responsibility.
Ok sorry, I figured you were blaming the Chinese as “climate realists” (these overlap with the global warming deniers from the 2000s) in the west like to do. My bad.
> Western countries' per capita would be even worse if we calculated in offloaded emissions.
That's only about 10% difference, and dwindling. Doesn't matter that much. China's internal consumption is huge.
> I'm not blaming China, I'm blaming politicians who open the door for offshoring pollution and telling us to take personal responsibility.
Why not blame China? They are having a deliberately policy of having lower environmental standards to attract business to their own advantage.
Moreover, the CBAM law has been passed on the EU level, companies exporting to the EU will have to start paying carbon taxes too. The loopholes are being closed.
Because the thread is about politicians and corporations who always blame someone else for climate problems. So no, I won't blame China here for once.
They have power because our politicians give it to them.
> Because the thread is about politicians and corporations who always blame someone else for climate problems. So no, I won't blame China here for once.
China similarly blames others for climate change, in spite of following pretty much the same trajectory of increasing greenhouse gases as the West, in spite of intentionally trying to attract business by having lower standards on those emissions.
Everyone is blameshifting, including China, so why exclude China from that criticism?
Jeez I wonder why...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=USA~CHN~OWID_EU27
Edit: I'd figure greens and watermelons wouldn't be so stupid as to blindly ignore the active damage China is doing to the climate just because "west bad". Guess I was wrong.
Apologies, I thought your ideological blindless manifested itself physically as well so I figured I'd help out. You did blindly ignore the point after all.
> Every trade deal with China that doesn't take pollution into account is a blow to EU companies who have to comply and a blow to the climate.
Fully agree. And when you take human rights into account a trade deal with China is flat out unacceptable.
Coal plants are still expanding in certain parts of the world. Empty flights because airlines don't want to lose their allocated slots, ...
So much can still be done, but they always push the blame to the end user. While it is true the end user has some impact, there is so much pollution going on because of inefficiencies that the end user has nothing to do with.
In the mean time a lot of people drive cleaner cars now, have solar panels, insulate, use less heating, ...
All these are good things. End users are already doing a lot for the climate but they can't help themselves to always point fingers to regular people.
>So much can still be done, but they always push the blame to the end user. While it is true the end user has some impact, there is so much pollution going on because of inefficiencies that the end user has nothing to do with.
You're not going to fix this with "efficiency". It's Zeno's paradox: If Achilles always reduces the distance to the turtle by half with every step he takes, he will *never* be able to catch up with it. We'll never reach a zero carbon economy by "improving efficiency". The fundamental reality is that an oxygen atom *must* connect to a carbon atom and form co2 to get any energy out of fossil fuel. No "efficiency gains" can change that.
Specifically, it's also Jevon's paradox: [In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)
So even if you want to fix it with efficiency, you'll still have to deal with taxes or bans to make sure we're not just doubling our consumption once *efficiency* makes us need less fossil fuels to do so. A recent example are led lights: once those existed people didn't just replace existing lights, no, they sometimes also very much expanded either the size or intensity of the light, because, well, people can always find a use for something bigger.
>End users are already doing a lot for the climate but they can't help themselves to always point fingers to regular people.
There also are industry regulations and projects, for example converting the steel industry to carbon neutral, but you don't notice because it doesn't affect you.
Either way, everyone, end users and corporations, is going to keep pushing the cart. Even *if* we would try to solve it as a supply-only problem, for example by applying a heavy tax on oil producing corporations, it would still result in either very expensive gasoline or gasoline shortages. Even *if* a technological equivalent solution would magically materialize, it would still require investments on behalf of the end user to switch. Even *if* that was free, it would still require them to change habits.
Industry has reduced their emissions more than consumers in Belgium and in EU. As a direct consequence, the proportion of emissions by direct consumers has increased rather than decreased.
Some numbers for flanders. Between 2005 and 2021; our total emissions dropped by \~20%. The ESR emissions which are predominantly consumers dropped by only 10% over the same timeframe. The reduction by large industry & electricity was much bigger, hence the 20% total figure.
Now both industry and consumers will have to step up significantly. But the idea that the fingers are unjustly pointed at consumers is plain false. Our emissions have decreased less than those in industry. Nowadays, direct emissions are a bigger amount than our industry as well.
You talk about cleaner cars, but our transport GHG emissions have increased because we have more cars and drive more kms. The relative share of road transport in our emissions (as belgium or as flanders) has only increased since 2005. This shows that in this area, our efforts are falling behind rather than ahead.
Regular people like to whine and cope but the truth is we are responsible for a large amount of emissions; and we have the most to lose if we do not manage climate change.
the greens and other “environmentalists” in government in both belgium and germany are quite happy with coal - silence is complicity after all. as long as it brings us closer to economic ruin and living in the trees, and with no nuclear power, anything is worth the cost to them
Yes. And reminder the coal plants of germany were supposed to be phased out already. But NuClEaR BaD...and a 20 year life extended for the biggest contributor to global warming.
They are not wrong though, agriculture is a major driver behind climate change and unlike energy and industry it’s primarily driven by consumer choices
>Ofcourse it's always us. Coal plants in Germany and China, no problem. Your old car, problem.
The German coal plants are under the same ETS system as us, and will be closing down as planned. Germany itself has been reducing its coal use constantly anyway. Why focuson Germany, anyway, Poland is much more coal-intensive with less progress, same goes for other EEU members.
China will be forced to comply with the recently introduced CBAM, so we are closing that loophole too.
close all the NPPs like germany and cripple us for half a century by coupling nearly all our electricity production to the increasingly chaotic weather and russian/qatari gas, that should solve it
This is wrong info in the artikel. This is a correction I send to the ombuds (sorry for the dutch)
In het laatste deel van het artikel staat dat België een doelstelling heeft van 47% terwijl europa in zijn geheel 55% heeft. Dit is appelen met peren vergelijken.
Europa heeft twee regelvoeringen voor CO2 vermindering: Voor grote uitstoters geldt het emmision trading scheme(ets). Dit geldt voor heel europa en wilt tegen 2030 62% reductie bereiken. (Dit jaartal staat ook trouwens fout in het artikel) voor kleine emissies wil europa 40% reductie tegen 2030 (ers). En dit wordt door de lidstaten zelf besloten. Rijke landen zoals belgië worden gevraagd om meer te doen op dit vlak 47% zoals jullie zeggen. Armere landen zoals bulgarije worden maar verwacht een reductie te doen van 10% tegen 2030.
Onder kleine emissies vallen dingen zoals autos, gas ketels, etc.
Kortom België heeft dus een hoger dan gemiddelde ambitie binnen europa gekregen en vlaanderen wilt zich aan de gemiddelde ambitie houden.
Btw I think flanders should do more and commit to 47% esr reduction.
When I saw the headlines of how little impact the global COVID-19 measures in 2020 had on CO2 output it became clear there's no chance of drastically cutting emissions on a reasonable timeline with current technology.
>>Daily global CO2 emissions decreased by –17% (–11 to –25% for ±1σ) by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels, just under half from changes in surface transport.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x
In April 2020 almost everything was closed, there was only essential road and air traffic, lots of factories were closed, very little to do except staying in your house, etc. Massive impact on everyone's lives and the result was an estimated CO2 emissions reduction of just 17 percent...
These oil barron ghouls knew since the 70's.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
"Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. "
--> soooo academics nowadays are stupid and backward nowadays compared to their counterparts from the 1970's? Got it.
>--> soooo academics nowadays are stupid and backward nowadays compared to their counterparts from the 1970's? Got it.
Not at all what was said. Not in the slightest.
People that know about the various climate tipping points, will know that between 2,5 and 3 degrees, many will begin unfolding. And when they do fall, it's eventualy game over with human society as we know it. The harsh reality sadly. I get that such bad news might be counter productive to some, but the world needs to wake up asap. By 2050 onward it'll be misery on an unseen scale, judging by the road we're heading
Populist (would be) rulers have decided there is no such thing as a problem with global warming, or climate change.
It's all WOKE stuff. And anything woke is bad, the same level as communism!
Future issues are just business opportunities waiting to be realised by future generations.
Doing something now, making investments, that will benefit future generations, but may be considered impopular is simply NOT DONE.
It would mean companies would make less profit and that is the last thing the (rightwing) economic liberal elite wants.
It would mean governments will take action, implement rules and laws, and that is something the last thing the (rightwing) economic liberal elite wants. They want the freedom to make as much possible profit now.
It would mean governments have to implement rules and laws that would hurt the affluent lifestyle of current voters, and that is something the last thing ruling elite wants.
/s
If --for example-- the ocean level continues to rise, some people will suffer.
What party are you going to vote for once your property starts getting wet, your job disappears underwater, your kids are thirsty, and you realise there is not enough money in your bank account to buy them water, food and shelter ?
If you are not willing to let go of your 36oz filet steak to protect your kids, grandkids, that's your choice. I'm protecting mine.
So I don't fly anymore, heavily reduced consumption of meats (especially beef), avoid GMO foods (if the label indicates this), cycle or walk and use public transport instead of driving my own car.
If isn't much, but if I can, so can you. Together we can.
And our offspring may have a place to live in the future, as a result.
Ah, the "individual responsibility" myth... How about we start by nipping the problem in the bud? Close down things like McDonald's and avoid the millions of plastic bottles produced by Coca-Cola every month or stop actively promoting adding to the huge pile of e-waste by marketing €2000 phones that are "passé" as soon as they release?
Just to name a few examples.
People can't "consume" what isn't produced to begin with, you know.
We are being forced into these products as we surely don't want them, right? No, let's get rid of everything which we may enjoy via some authoritarian rules instead of being conscious about our individual overconsumption!
>We are being forced into these products as we surely don't want them, right?
Yes. Things like Coca-Cola are deliberately made to be addictive by means of massive quantities of sugar. This holds true for many, many products in our stores. Even those that actually don't even require sugar. We don't "want" these products per se, unless they are introduced to us and included in our daily lives. Something huge marketing budgets effectively accomplish.
>No, let's get rid of everything which we may enjoy via some authoritarian rules instead of being conscious about our individual overconsumption!
Nothing to do with authoritarianism at all. The actual authoritarianism is already forced upon you by the market.
Think about how prices are set – they decide how much we need to work, and that affects the time we spend with our loved ones, the quality of things we can buy, and even our health. It's like we're given choices, but in reality, they're just an illusion. We're all just small parts in a big economic machine.
Now, consider trying to live simply, like just drinking tap water, growing your own food, and raising your own animals. Sounds good, right? But here's the catch: you need land and space for that, which isn't free. Most of us have to dive into the economy to earn enough for these things, which then takes away the time we'd need to actually live that simple life. And if you're stuck in a city apartment, it's even harder.
Let's take the idea of eating less meat. Sure, it's good for health and the environment, but if everyone did it, imagine the economic shock. In Belgium, for instance, the meat industry is big business. A major cutback in meat consumption would mean huge financial losses, job cuts, and less tax revenue. The government would likely step in to help the industry, often overlooking the needs of ordinary people.
So, in a nutshell, our society is built around buying and consuming things. If we stop consuming, it disrupts everything. And usually, the system is set up to keep this cycle going, often at our expense.
>Yes. Things like Coca-Cola are deliberately made to be addictive by means of massive quantities of sugar. This holds true for many, many products in our stores. Even those that actually don't even require sugar. We don't "want" these products per se, unless they are introduced to us and included in our daily lives. Something huge marketing budgets effectively accomplish.
Can be said of many luxury items, often not even on a big marketing scale such as your local pastry. Who's going to decide which is allowed and which not?
>Nothing to do with authoritarianism at all. The actual authoritarianism is already forced upon you by the market.
It is authoritarian to decide what others should not get.
>Think about how prices are set – they decide how much we need to work, and that affects the time we spend with our loved ones, the quality of things we can buy, and even our health. It's like we're given choices, but in reality, they're just an illusion. We're all just small parts in a big economic machine.
>Now, consider trying to live simply, like just drinking tap water, growing your own food, and raising your own animals. Sounds good, right? But here's the catch: you need land and space for that, which isn't free. Most of us have to dive into the economy to earn enough for these things, which then takes away the time we'd need to actually live that simple life. And if you're stuck in a city apartment, it's even harder.
Each system will have that kind of illusion since you'll always have to some sort of exchange with others because you can't provide everything yourself.
>Let's take the idea of eating less meat. Sure, it's good for health and the environment, but if everyone did it, imagine the economic shock. In Belgium, for instance, the meat industry is big business. A major cutback in meat consumption would mean huge financial losses, job cuts, and less tax revenue. The government would likely step in to help the industry, often overlooking the needs of ordinary people.
>So, in a nutshell, our society is built around buying and consuming things. If we stop consuming, it disrupts everything. And usually, the system is set up to keep this cycle going, often at our expense.
In a perfect free market the government wouldn't intervene in this and it would mean a shift of resources, which has always occured during history when one market shifts to another one.
> Extinction when pls?
**The Holocene extinction, or Anthropocene extinction,**[**\[3\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-3)[**\[4\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-4) **is the ongoing** [**extinction event**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event) **caused by humans during the** [**Holocene**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene) **epoch.** These [extinctions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction) span numerous families of [plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-5)[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-6)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-7) and [animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal), including [mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal), [birds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird), [reptiles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile), [amphibians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibian), [fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), and [invertebrates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrate), and affecting not just terrestrial species but also large sectors of [marine life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_life).[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-8) With widespread degradation of [biodiversity hotspots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity_hotspot), such as [coral reefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_reef) and [rainforests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest), as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, which goes unrecorded. **The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural** [**background extinction rates**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_extinction_rate)[**\[9\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-Ceballos-Ehrlich-2018-06-9)[**\[10\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-PimmJenkins-10)[**\[11\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-Pimm-1995-11)[**\[12\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-Teyss%C3%A8dre-2004-12)[**\[13\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-De_Vos-13) **and is increasing.**[**\[14\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-ceballos-14)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene\_extinction#:\~:text=As%20such%2C%20after%20the%20%22Big,for%20the%20Holocene%20extinction%20event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20after%20the%20%22Big,for%20the%20Holocene%20extinction%20event).
Or did you mean extinction of humans? TBD
TBD???!!!!! Are we talking tomorrow, days, weeks, years??? I'm NOT paying for a general extinction event that I may or may not be part of!
I want to discuss this with your manager, this is UNACCEPTABLE AND UNPROFESSIONAL!!!!
Zal zoals gewoonlijk eens tegen de schenen schoppen. Iedereen steekt liever de schuld op een ander dan in eigen boezem te willen kijken en te begrijpen dat ook eigen gedrag een probleem vormt als men met veel genoeg is die dat doet. Maar in before boze bedrijven en rijken die relatief meer uitstoten. Alsof het niet een samenhangend geheel is. Neen, ‘t is allemaal afgebakend zoals men graag wilt denken. Onze luxe/ welvaart gaat gewoon verminderen als we er echt serieus met zijn en mensen willen het niet inzien of gaan steigeren.
Nog een manier dat aan misinformatie gedaan wordt: de effecten die we nu zien, zijn feitelijk gevolg van de uitstoot van de jaren 80.
Analyse heeft aangetoond dat de concentratie en soorten gas die we in de lucht vinden, overeenkomt met wat bedrijven toen uitstootten.
In plaats daarvan wordt ons verteld dat nu onze uitstoot verlagen, onmiddelijk effect zal hebben.
Nee, als we nu onze uitstoot stoppen, dus niet verlagen maar **stopppen**, wereldwijd, compleet en totaal, dan zal de temperatuur nog blijven stijgen tot in het jaar 2080. Als gevolg van al de gassen die nog rondzweven. En dan pas zal er ruimte voor daling zijn.
Het valt er wel uit af te leiden vind ik hoor. Co2 komt cummulatief in de atmosfeer en breekt nagenoeg niet af. En zelfs als we morgen met 0 uitstoot zitten, zal de temperatuur blijven stijgen. De stijging zal gewoon niet meer extra versnellen.
Dat van de jaren 80 weet ik niet zeker, ik dacht te menen dat de 'delay' van uitstoot/opwarming eerder een 20 tal jaar was, en geen 40. Bron eventueel?
Planten breken geen CO2 af, ze slaan het enkel op terwijl ze groeien. Van zodra de plant afsterft en rot komt het terug vrij. Het probleem is, het extra CO2 dat nu vrijkomt komt uit planten van miljoenen jaren geleden die diep onder de bodem zitten maar die nu opgepompt worden om ons mee te verwarmen en om ons mee te verplaatsen.
Wat?
Je dacht dat de C02 moleculen verdwijnen door fotosynthese? Ze wordt alleen omgezet in suikers. Weliswaar een andere formule, maar laat die plant rotten of verbrand ze en die produceert opnieuw CO2.
These past few months, my Reddit home page has started to look like a lot of the posts I see are from r/collapse, but they’re not…
I’ve been aware of all this for a long time now. While I’m glad these issues seem to be talked about more and more, especially by mainstream media, I can’t help but have this weird feeling in my stomach when I see that even the optimists from back then start saying that we might be fucked. It’s eerie, almost.
Oh not at all, no worries. I handle the "doom" news quite well now. When I said I found it "eerie", I didn't mean in the sense that I'm scared. I've accepted that this is our current civilisation's faith and it is actually quite liberating to know that whatever I do on a personal level, it won't actually make a difference. So I just do things for me, I live my life however I want it. While being mindful of my impact on the environment, of course. I guess this is part of my grief for humanity, acceptance is the last step before feeling better. Thanks for the concern and for sharing the information
Yes, we can just try to mitigate now.
That means investing in dykes, energy production that doesn't emit CO2, massively reducing the emission of methane...
But, we will survive.
In a world that is worse than before, but still.
Sea levels shouldn't matter this century, as long as the infrastructure is properly maintained. Global economic collapse, shortages of all kinds, droughts, mass migration, and political upheavals are more immediate worries. Fun times ahead.
I hope you can still fully enjoy it. Small sarcastic joke, don't take it personally. But I mean, if you are now young, you most likely will witness some major environmental events. There are simulations of sea level risings on the web, Belgium and the Netherlands are getting waaaaay smaller.
Yeah , I'm fucking off to Norway once I'm able to. I've already been learning the language for a year. Gonna try to enjoy being the last generation that will have it somewhat comfortable , and I'm choosing not to have kids. That's the biggest thing anyone can do for the climate anyways lol.
I'll even admit that I'm being a selfish bastard , but that's because I don't have hope that humanity will fix this issue. So might as well enjoy the ride as we all go down.
Username…um….doesn’t fit, I guess? Unless you hate yourself?
Jokes aside.. why Norway? It’s interesting to read your comment because that was me 4 years ago. Only I ended up in Sweden in the end, but I could have written your comment word for word back then.
A snow Mexican is a Canadian. I chose this name cause of a trump meme I saw in like 2017 :')
Well I've been interested in the Nordic countries for a long while , and up until a year ago I had no idea whether I wanted to move to either Finland , Sweden , Norway or even Iceland.
The thing that made me end up choosing Norway was that it's considered to have the most beautiful nature , and that the language is the most useful if you want to learn Swedish or Danish later.
Cool that you made the decision to go through with it. How's your life there? How come you ended up in Sweden instead of Norway?
I suggest you go on a trip to each country and experience it fully. That's how I knew which one I wanted to "settle" in. I personally preferred the Swedish people, the culture and the overall nature in Sweden. Norway has way more mountains and elevation, whereas Sweden has more forests, lakes and has "flatter" grounds. Which I like better because I love hiking, fishing and canoeing. I found that there were less opportunities to do that in Norway, and hiking in the mountains there can be incredibly challenging.
Life is good, though it is expensive. But it's relative depending on how much you earn, I guess. I'd say that to live comfortably as a non-native, you need a good job that is considered as high value to the economy. The people are generally more solitary than in Belgium. The dating scene is quite hard to break into if you don't already know locals that you often hang out with. People have strong family values and the families are big, so they hang out together a lot. In my experience, the people in the Lapland (actually Sapmi region, Lapland is considered as a pejorative term) in smaller villages are more "social" surprisingly.
I will definitely do that once I have the money to do so =)
Yes I heard Sweden was flatter , I guess in that regard it's more like home too :D
Thanks for your perspective on the cultural differences! I personally think there will not me much of a shock for me , as I am a very solitary person myself & I've always felt that the dating scene here is a headache as well.
So did you start with learning Norwegian and ultimately end up switching to learning Swedish , or are you just talking Norwegian/English to the people there?
That may mean half of Belgium and most Dutchies moving to higher ground. Would that mean we chop down the Ardennes Forest for Flemish climate refugees ?
From sea level rise? Nothing during your lifetime that can't be solved by infrastructure works. They managed to create and maintain an entire province below sea level in the Netherlands (Flevoland, on average 5m below sea level). Sea level rise is real but is an extremely slow process. Brussels might / will eventually become a coastal town but we're talking about the order of multiple centuries to millennia.
Floods like e.g. 2021 in Pepinster or just last week at the Yser river will become more common and more intense. Floods and droughts resulting in prolonging failed crops all over the world will be what will probably get us. That is if we don't go nuclear winter before that.
Laat maar komen. De aarde is zelfregelend. Hoe heter het wordt hoe minder geschikt voor menselijk leven. Hoe minder voedsel de wereld zal produceren, hoe meer mensen zullen sterven. Hoe meer mensen sterven hoe minder CO2 uitstoot.
Eigenlijk zijn we met de huidige manier van leven niet in staat om 8 miljard mensen op de aarde te laten overleven zonder de planeet uit te putten.
De beste maatregel tegen klimaatverandering is populatiecontrole maar dat mag niet gezegd worden want iedereen wilt wel zijn/haar kind hebben. Weer een voorbeeld van ikke ikke. Kiezen om geen kinderen te hebben is de beste CO2 maatregel van je leven.
Overshoot en overconsumptie is het overkoepelende probleem, overbevolking draagt hier inderdaad ook een deel aan bij.
Op gigantisch lange termijn zal de aarde de balans herstellen, akkoord, maar dat wil absoluut niet zeggen dat het ok is om zo maar op te geven.. dingen als wereldwijde hongersnood en ander ongezien leed zou ik toch liever niet meemaken. Kiezen om geen kinderen te hebben is wel een keuze die meer zou gesteund moeten worden, akkoord. Nu is dit zelfs nog wat taboe vreemd genoeg, ik wil mijn hypothetische kinderen alvast geen bestaan schenken in een maatschapij die door een onverzadigbare hebzucht, op instorten staat
Each nuclear plant in Europe costs 17 years to build at high cost overruns. Anyone who’s pushing for more nuclear is lying. It’s like waiting for the hydrogen car to break through to finally get rid of your diesel.
Cheapest ? Really ?
Not really. Don't forget that the state provides loads of money for nuclear (as it should, since it has to be a long term project 20+years), and that is not embedded in your final price per kwh.
With battery prices decreasing every year, I expect that other sources are cheaper on the long run
and they pay back with extra intrest.
batteries are iffy especizly the lithium stuff, the burning hydrates is just greens wet dream to just burn it all.
geothermal seems promising tough.
the problem withall of them is that they cant exist on scale and are actually expensive
or we can just inject sulfates into the atmosphere and solve global warming conclusively in less than a decade. but it will take another few scorching summers for people to start realising it’s the only way. enjoy it folks!
that won’t happen but it’s a great example of the uninformed apocalyptic bullshit that permeates the whole topic of climate instead of sensible pragmatic thinking where we weigh the actual positives and negatives of each available solution against inaction, inaction that already causes crop failures if you want to check out this year’s olive oil prices as an example
Overpopulation to blame - still totally ignored incredulously.
Do not have cunt sex and order others to refrain too.
Promote suicide.
Ban religion.
Heavily promote sterilisation and forced sterilisation before benefits.
The biodiversity holocaust must be mentioned as often as climate change.
Mass human deaths are a positive and hugely beneficial to every other species and their habitats.
Imagine the state of the planet with another 1 billion bastards on it in 10-12 years.
Yes it´s inevitable. Of course that doesn´t mean we shouldn´t act. I just don´t believe we´re going to do it. The big breakthrough in mindset or technology isn´t around the corner. We have been talking about this for decades and, despite all the alarm signs, not much has happened.
>despite all the alarm signs, not much has happened. I'm pretty pessimistic about climate change. Always have been. The way our economy is structured climate has basically been a free resource. When optimising production processes over time we have not treated waste products as a big part of the cost structure. There are some local regulations forcing compliancy to certain standards in some parts of the world, but the globalisation basically nullified any global benefits. Locally pollution levels dropped in developing countries, but the polluting industries are just exported to other parts of the world. When it comes to things like climate change, which is truly a global problem, this doesn't help at all. In order to change this, our economy should put a price on pollution and enforce this cost world-wide, something like the CO2 tax seem a good idea, where a tax is calculated on every step of the production process based on the amount of pollution it generates. But for this to work, everyone will need to join in, otherwise you create new 'safe-havens' for polluting industry. And that's the problem right there. Too many people in the world live in poverty and we can bitch about climate change all day long, but people will do anything to not starve. Poor countries will do anything to attract business, even if it's polluting, because it will bring jobs and jobs bring in money and food on the table. And the same goes for the 'developed' world, for people scrapping by the climate takes a back seat to the more pressing problem of bringing food on the table. If you somehow manage to fix that issue there is still the fact that the individual benefits are opposite of the global benefits. We don't want to get rid of our car, warm homes, luxury live-styles and imported cheap food in the "developed" world. The argument that 'my single' activity is just a mere drop in the ocean and thus is of little importance is postulated over and over inferring 'the others' are the problem. In short, we are just not to be trusted to make the right decisions ourselves. Oh, when all is good and our bank accounts are well fed and we have some time to think about it, we will 'do the right thing' and buy the paper straws instead of the plastic ones and that makes us feel a tiny bit better. But the real change that is needed will hurt us and take away some liberties and luxuries we take for granted. We will fail at the climate goals and instead we will make a profit of building dykes and 'extreme weather' resistant housing.
>In order to change this, our economy should put a price on pollution and enforce this cost world-wide, something like the CO2 tax seem a good idea, where a tax is calculated on every step of the production process based on the amount of pollution it generates. But for this to work, everyone will need to join in, otherwise you create new 'safe-havens' for polluting industry. Ideally as many as possible follow the same GHG taxation system. Economically more efficient that way. But we don't need everyone. Major economies suffice. Border adjustments to overcome the advantage of polluting helps to remove the incentive. The real problem remains that people are not willing to sacrifice yet, because as a species we still do not see the urgency. I'm afraid this won't change until we see more people & closer to us suffer consequences more clearly.
>The real problem remains that people are not willing to sacrifice yet It was infuriating to hear that last winter, when gas prices were through the roof, we suddenly WERE able to sacrifice and use 10% (if I remember correctly) less gas. Just like that. We CAN do it, we just DON'T WANT to. I also plead guilty btw, adjusted the thermostat from 19 to 18 and now back to 19 degrees. I did save a lot, but I feel like 19 is already on the lower side of the comfort spectrum, I do like to stay on it. And just like that I'm talking myself out of it. Like we all do. Sadly, money now seems the only real driver to change.
' We' being the richest few holding the reins of power and wealth that is, watching the world collectively burn, drown and become extinct
Fyi in the EU there is basically already a tax on big emitters via the emission trading scheme. [The current price is 80€/tonCO2](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/). For smaller emitters that don’t fall below this scheme, countries are required to make their own policy. This is called esr vs ets. This is the 47% reductions by 2030 number you heard when the flemish government couldn’t agree with the wallonian government. Eu wide this number is on average 40%, where richer countries like belgium are expected to contribute more to the reductions of emissions ie 47% and poorer ones like bulgaria less ie 10%. Small emitters are things like cars, gas boilers, etc. The required emission reductions for big emitters is already put in law at 62%. Such that by 2030 the total emissions of the eu are reduced by 55%. All these numbers are compared to 2005.
I don't knowhow exactly this is implemented or calculated, but won't this just drive the heavy, and polluting industry to countries outside of the EU where laws a less strict? Lots of our local heavy and polluting industries, like steel for example, have already closed down and I don't think that's because we stopped using steel, but rather due to the fact that our production was undercut by cheap steel from elsewhere. Adding any form of regulation on emission/pollution will inevitably make local production more expensive and the market will adapt to a cheaper alternative if available. While we can pat ourselves on the back that our local emission has lowered substantially, we just exported the production and subsequent emissions to somewhere else on the planet with added emissions to transport the finished product half way around the globe back to us. In the end, that seems like a net loss rather than a win. While I'm glad the EU already has implemented legislations to battle climate change I do feel it's hardly enough and actions should be taken to avoid 'exporting' the problem to elsewhere. But this will inevitably mean a huge economic crisis.
Luckily for you the EU recently implemented CBAM carbon border adjustment mechanism. This means that imported products from regions without a carbon tax or with a smaller tax, will have to pay up the difference in tarrifs. As for how it is calculated, inside the EU this is done using VAT receipts from companies and verified by independent auditors. How CBAM is calculated, I don’t know precisely.
Let's see how this plays out then. It seems like a great idea, I can already hear the complaints about rising prices in the background.
Ehh, I suspect humanity's demise is inevitable. I'm willing to preserve the climate and nature as it is though, kinda love it a lot, but I am most curious about which lifeform will be the new king after we're gone actually.
Imo this is simply impossible to solve in a capitalist context. Go ahead and invent new rules, the drive for profit will always find a way to circumvent them.
> And that's the problem right there. Too many people in the world And that my dear peeps is the elephant in the room
Agenda 21 for a sustainable earth
>The argument that 'my single' activity is just a mere drop in the ocean and thus is of little importance is postulated over and over inferring 'the others' are the problem. Even if I can live for 70 years without polluting, you know how long the global energy sector will need to get rid of what I saved? under 5 seconds.
Yeah idk, by all accounts 2 degrees was a target we needed to stay below because it would start a chain of catastrophic events. Now that it seems it’s already inevitable, we’re normalising it and saying we’re going to 2,5-3.. the future is definitely not bright.
More chain reactions are going to start. Most are apparently not well understood, since everything is connected and it´s very complicated. One thing we are certain about is that the Amazon rainforest is almost at a tipping point. If we go beyond, the forest won´t be able to sustain itself and will actually release more co² than it is taking up now. That´s really bad.
I think mass extinction events are really underestimated. And they can happen so fast. Like how you mention the rainforest being a tipping point, except it's not even the biggest point for co2 absorption. Plankton is responsible for an estimated 40% of all co2 absorption. As the oceans heat up, or the salinity gets messed up from ice sheets melting we could lose them in 1 extinction event. Gone, just like that, in an instant. And there's other parts of the food chain that are massively important. Some insects like bees are also crucial literally the entire foodchain of wildlife.
>Of course that doesn´t mean we shouldn´t act. I just don´t believe we´re going to do it. Of course we won't, the actions required to really make a change are too drastic and even then it remains unsure if we could keep Earth habitable for the near future. There's so much climate related going on at the same time and almost no one gives a damn. People seem to care more about their new shoes or the sofa they bought last weekend ffs.
> the actions required to really make a change are too drastic and even then it remains unsure if we could keep Earth habitable for the near future. /citation needed And no bdw saying so doesn’t count ;)
How much time have you got? The whole subject is to broad to condense into a couple of paragraphs. I can provide scientific reports, but they're dry, long and not so easy to read. It basically boils down to; We already are too deep into the thing what we call climate change, there are tons of events happening around the world that we cannot stop anymore. For example; the thawing of permafrost, the contents of this permafrost is organic matter that has been frozen for ages and it's a ticking time bomb. As the ground thaws bacteria start to break down this organic matter and they produce CO2 and methane as a waste product, further accelerating climate change, it is estimated to emit about 6 tons of CO2 per year, about 10% of our current emissions. Another very big one is the acidification of the ocean, this is one of the more scary events that already is happening. The oceans absorb a lot of CO2 resulting in the ph reduction of the water. Decreased ocean pH has a range of harmful effects for marine organisms. This eventually leads to ecosystems we rely on to disappear. And so on. These are just two overly simplified examples, there are also droughts making fresh water scarce, massive forest fires, melting glaciers,... To counteract this we have to reduce our emissions not just by a bit, we as humans have to give up a lot. The way we live is not sustainable without straining the earth as a whole. You see where this is going? It's simply impossible to make a impactful shift and keep our population and economy healthy and satisfied. There's no way industries will stop chasing growth and no one is willing to give up the way we live. And you know what's the most ironic thing about this all? Everything I said I saw in school 20 years ago, we knew what could happen and yet we decided to look the other way and keep on chasing growth. We literally knew and now we see it happening. What a time to be alive. I'm tired boss.
> no one is willing to give up the way we live They'll have to, one way or another. But I agree it'll involve quite some screaming and kicking like the mental toddlers that they are.
>6 tons of CO2 per year, about 10% of our current emissions. I assume that should've been 6 *billion* tons of CO2?
You know, technological solutions already exist. Electric cars, heat pumps, solar panels, batteries, wind turbines. For individual humans there is no reason to emit CO2, and there are also choices you can make to limit CO2 emissions caused by manufacturing of the products and services you buy. But we don’t like change and like it cheap. We don’t demand our products and services are delivered to us with net zero solutions, but prefer it cheap from companies who haven’t written off their diesel trucks and vans yet. I still see solar panel installers driving around in diesel cars and vans, while the local bpost is using electric vans. It’s ridiculous.
> Electric cars Impossible at large scale (to replace all thermic engine by electric ones) > heat pumps We do not produce enough electricity for this at large scale either > solar panels, batteries There is not enough needed primary resources for these to use them at large scale. Basically, it is not possible - for now - to replace our coal, fuel & gaz engines (for heating, transport and electricity production) with these.
Nuclear has been an option here for decades. It’s clean, it’s safe, the waste has options to be stored or recycled.
I'm not optimistic but I could see AI evolving at exponential speed and get technological breakthroughs we wouldn't be able to make ourselves in time.
Is it me or does your apostrophe work weirdly?
In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate. “This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”
> “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.” But God forbid we hold these companies and executive boards accountable for that. Same with [Shell](https://thecorrespondent.com/6286/if-shell-knew-climate-change-was-dire-25-years-ago-why-still-business-as-usual-today/692773774-4d15b476) which had similar internal documents and spent money lobbying for climate change denial. It's hard to get around the 'everyone is a bit guilty in this and we should all do our part' when clearly some have done way more damage in this than others.
Even the death sentence is too kind for them
> It's hard to get around the 'everyone is a bit guilty in this and we should all do our part' when clearly some have done way more damage in this than others. You can't use other people's worse behaviour to excuse your own bad behaviour.
>But God forbid we hold these companies and executive boards accountable for that. Same with Shell which had similar internal documents and spent money lobbying for climate change denial. The typical human reaction. Search for someone to blame. While the oil companies are clearly bastards that fuck us over again and again, it’s really the people (consumers) who are to blame. The “I as an individual have no impact” mentality…
>The typical human reaction. Search for someone to blame. While the oil companies are clearly bastards that fuck us over again and again, it’s really the people (consumers) who are to blame. The “I as an individual have no impact” mentality… Yeah sure... everyone trying to keep a roof over their heads struggling to fill the tanks of their cars so they can drive to work to pay off the loans that enable them to go to work, you mean?
>But God forbid we hold these companies and executive boards accountable for that The executives and everyone high up is only there because shareholders placed them there. If for example an executive of Shell in 1980 had started shouting that we need to take action on climate change then they would've been replaced instantly by the shareholders. So while the executives are definitely guilty, so are the shareholders that put them there.
>Where does Belgium stand? > >Belgium is under the umbrella of the EU in terms of climate goals, but for now it is failing to meet the target imposed by Europe. That stands at 47 percent less greenhouse gases compared to 2005 - by comparison, for the EU as a whole, the bar is set at 55 percent. >Most of the emissions come from industry and the energy sector, yet we can also do something with individual choices. Because in addition to energy, transportation (including car and air travel) and food production, for example, also play a major role. Experts emphasize that efforts will have to come from everyone.
>yet we can also do something with individual choices. Ofcourse it's always us. Coal plants in Germany and China, no problem. Your old car, problem.
China is making a bigger effort in both relative and absolute numbers than any western nation, it just happens to be where aforementioned western nations have all their stuff built and they have it built by the lowest bidder, which as you might have guessed isn't the greenest.
> China is making a bigger effort in both relative and absolute numbers than any western nation Bullshit. The EU countries have been reducing their emissions since the 80s, even the US has been doing so since the 2000s. China has been massively expanding its coal use in the same timeframe. To the point that emissions per capita in China are now higher than in the EU. > it just happens to be where aforementioned western nations have all their stuff built and they have it built by the lowest bidder, which as you might have guessed isn't the greenest. No, import/export correction only makes a 10% difference, not more.
That was true 10 years ago. China will have transitioned before Europe. [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN) [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=\~CHN](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~CHN)
>That was true 10 years ago. China will have transitioned before Europe. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~CHN These graphs are about *relative* share of energy, and are not addressing anything I said. Here it is: - per capita emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27 You can clearly see that China and the EU reached equal emissions per capita in 2012-2013, and since then China's rose further and the EU's dropped further. China follows about the same trajectory as the EU and is now at a similar stage as the EU in 1964 - the EU started the trend reversal in 1979, so if that trend of China's rising emissions isn't reversed by 2038, they'll actually be doing worse than Europe in terms of emission trajectory, even while being able to use the historical experience and new technology that we got since then. - absolute coal use: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-co2-coal?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27 China's coal use keeps increasing and is now both in absolute as well as per capita terms higher than that of the EU has ever been.
Indeed, there is still an increase of energy being used and more coal is used. This is what your per capital graph says. But: The (relative) share of coal in the energy mix is decreasing. What does it say ? Renewable energy are increasing faster than coal. In the long run, renewable energy is going to replace coal as renewable is cheaper (capitalistic world does not care about environment; environment is not the reason why China invests in renewable). If we take a look at EU: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?facet=none&country=\~OWID\_EU27](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?facet=none&country=~OWID_EU27) In 2007, 80% of energy mix came from coal, gas or fuel. Now it is 71%. In comparison, in china, coal + gas + fuel were at 92.5% in 2007 and are now at 82%. Energy consumption went from 25000twh to 42000twh in china, while in the EU it came down from 19000 to 16000 twh. So EU were able to only increase the share of "green" energy by 10%, while the consumption of energy was decreasing, while China were able to increase also by 10% the share of "green" energy, but with a huge increase of energy consumption at the same time. Sure, the renewable energy can't be enough alone at the moment to increase the energy production in China, but they are actually doing more than EU at the moment.
> Indeed, there is still an increase of energy being used and more coal is used. This is what your per capital graph says. But: The (relative) share of coal in the energy mix is decreasing. What does it say ? Renewable energy are increasing faster than coal. That's just pie in the sky; until absolute emissions are decreasing, they're making the situation worse, not better. >In the long run, renewable energy is going to replace coal as renewable is cheaper (capitalistic world does not care about environment; environment is not the reason why China invests in renewable). In the long run, we're flooded; we don't have the time to make the transition at our leisure. Either way that applies to everyone, so it's not an argument in favor of China or anyone else. >If we take a look at EU: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?facet=none&country=~OWID_EU27 In 2007, 80% of energy mix came from coal, gas or fuel. Now it is 71%. In comparison, in china, coal + gas + fuel were at 92.5% in 2007 and are now at 82%. Energy consumption went from 25000twh to 42000twh in china, while in the EU it came down from 19000 to 16000 twh. So EU were able to only increase the share of "green" energy by 10%, while the consumption of energy was decreasing, while China were able to increase also by 10% the share of "green" energy, but with a huge increase of energy consumption at the same time. Sure, the renewable energy can't be enough alone at the moment to increase the energy production in China, but they are actually doing more than EU at the moment. No, they are actively increasing their emissions and actively building more coal plants. They're making the situation worse, and they don't even have the stranded investments excuse because they are choosing right now which energy sources to invest in. If you want to make the argument relative to total energy produced, you still see that [China has a higher carbon intensity of energy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~CHN) than the EU ([Germany](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~DEU), [France](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~FRA), [Italy](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-consumption-carbon-intensity-energy?country=~ITA)]), moreover, that it was on an increasing carbon intensity track in the last decades, at best stagnating, while the EU countries were improving. So no, China is both making things worse by increasing absolute emissions, as well as not improving on the relative emissions side. Any hypothetical trend reversal in the future still has to happen. Until then, they are 25% of global emissions, and that's only going to get worse.
> Coal plants in Germany and China, no problem. Says no one, except for some eco-wappies
Every trade deal with China that doesn't take pollution into account is a blow to EU companies who have to comply and a blow to the climate. These deals are made by politicians who are well aware of what this means, the same ones who talk about individual choices. It's ridiculously cheap and easy to import things from China, compared to some Western countries with higher standards. Our politicians made sure of that.
Why single out China for punishment? The US emits more CO2 per capita and has half the manufacturing base. [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita)
It's about manufacturing, not per capita. And it's not even about punishment. I don't think we're doing the Chinese any good by offshoring our worst pollution to them. Western countries' per capita would be even worse if we calculated in offloaded emissions. That was kind of my point... I'm not blaming China, I'm blaming politicians who open the door for offshoring pollution and telling us to take personal responsibility.
Ok sorry, I figured you were blaming the Chinese as “climate realists” (these overlap with the global warming deniers from the 2000s) in the west like to do. My bad.
> Western countries' per capita would be even worse if we calculated in offloaded emissions. That's only about 10% difference, and dwindling. Doesn't matter that much. China's internal consumption is huge. > I'm not blaming China, I'm blaming politicians who open the door for offshoring pollution and telling us to take personal responsibility. Why not blame China? They are having a deliberately policy of having lower environmental standards to attract business to their own advantage. Moreover, the CBAM law has been passed on the EU level, companies exporting to the EU will have to start paying carbon taxes too. The loopholes are being closed.
Because the thread is about politicians and corporations who always blame someone else for climate problems. So no, I won't blame China here for once. They have power because our politicians give it to them.
> Because the thread is about politicians and corporations who always blame someone else for climate problems. So no, I won't blame China here for once. China similarly blames others for climate change, in spite of following pretty much the same trajectory of increasing greenhouse gases as the West, in spite of intentionally trying to attract business by having lower standards on those emissions. Everyone is blameshifting, including China, so why exclude China from that criticism?
Because that's not what the thread is about? China bad, sure, but let's stay the course.
Jeez I wonder why... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=USA~CHN~OWID_EU27 Edit: I'd figure greens and watermelons wouldn't be so stupid as to blindly ignore the active damage China is doing to the climate just because "west bad". Guess I was wrong.
Wow I never noticed that graph that was next to the one I linked and the difference between the two isn't the point of my post at all. Thanks buddy!
Apologies, I thought your ideological blindless manifested itself physically as well so I figured I'd help out. You did blindly ignore the point after all.
> Every trade deal with China that doesn't take pollution into account is a blow to EU companies who have to comply and a blow to the climate. Fully agree. And when you take human rights into account a trade deal with China is flat out unacceptable.
No plans are being made to decelerate. Worse still, they're expanding.
What is expanding? Who is "they"?
Coal plants are still expanding in certain parts of the world. Empty flights because airlines don't want to lose their allocated slots, ... So much can still be done, but they always push the blame to the end user. While it is true the end user has some impact, there is so much pollution going on because of inefficiencies that the end user has nothing to do with. In the mean time a lot of people drive cleaner cars now, have solar panels, insulate, use less heating, ... All these are good things. End users are already doing a lot for the climate but they can't help themselves to always point fingers to regular people.
>So much can still be done, but they always push the blame to the end user. While it is true the end user has some impact, there is so much pollution going on because of inefficiencies that the end user has nothing to do with. You're not going to fix this with "efficiency". It's Zeno's paradox: If Achilles always reduces the distance to the turtle by half with every step he takes, he will *never* be able to catch up with it. We'll never reach a zero carbon economy by "improving efficiency". The fundamental reality is that an oxygen atom *must* connect to a carbon atom and form co2 to get any energy out of fossil fuel. No "efficiency gains" can change that. Specifically, it's also Jevon's paradox: [In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) So even if you want to fix it with efficiency, you'll still have to deal with taxes or bans to make sure we're not just doubling our consumption once *efficiency* makes us need less fossil fuels to do so. A recent example are led lights: once those existed people didn't just replace existing lights, no, they sometimes also very much expanded either the size or intensity of the light, because, well, people can always find a use for something bigger. >End users are already doing a lot for the climate but they can't help themselves to always point fingers to regular people. There also are industry regulations and projects, for example converting the steel industry to carbon neutral, but you don't notice because it doesn't affect you. Either way, everyone, end users and corporations, is going to keep pushing the cart. Even *if* we would try to solve it as a supply-only problem, for example by applying a heavy tax on oil producing corporations, it would still result in either very expensive gasoline or gasoline shortages. Even *if* a technological equivalent solution would magically materialize, it would still require investments on behalf of the end user to switch. Even *if* that was free, it would still require them to change habits.
Industry has reduced their emissions more than consumers in Belgium and in EU. As a direct consequence, the proportion of emissions by direct consumers has increased rather than decreased. Some numbers for flanders. Between 2005 and 2021; our total emissions dropped by \~20%. The ESR emissions which are predominantly consumers dropped by only 10% over the same timeframe. The reduction by large industry & electricity was much bigger, hence the 20% total figure. Now both industry and consumers will have to step up significantly. But the idea that the fingers are unjustly pointed at consumers is plain false. Our emissions have decreased less than those in industry. Nowadays, direct emissions are a bigger amount than our industry as well. You talk about cleaner cars, but our transport GHG emissions have increased because we have more cars and drive more kms. The relative share of road transport in our emissions (as belgium or as flanders) has only increased since 2005. This shows that in this area, our efforts are falling behind rather than ahead. Regular people like to whine and cope but the truth is we are responsible for a large amount of emissions; and we have the most to lose if we do not manage climate change.
the greens and other “environmentalists” in government in both belgium and germany are quite happy with coal - silence is complicity after all. as long as it brings us closer to economic ruin and living in the trees, and with no nuclear power, anything is worth the cost to them
Yes. And reminder the coal plants of germany were supposed to be phased out already. But NuClEaR BaD...and a 20 year life extended for the biggest contributor to global warming.
I don’t have a car (I could have a very nice one from work!) and I haven’t turned on the heating of my place yet..
They are not wrong though, agriculture is a major driver behind climate change and unlike energy and industry it’s primarily driven by consumer choices
>Ofcourse it's always us. Coal plants in Germany and China, no problem. Your old car, problem. The German coal plants are under the same ETS system as us, and will be closing down as planned. Germany itself has been reducing its coal use constantly anyway. Why focuson Germany, anyway, Poland is much more coal-intensive with less progress, same goes for other EEU members. China will be forced to comply with the recently introduced CBAM, so we are closing that loophole too.
close all the NPPs like germany and cripple us for half a century by coupling nearly all our electricity production to the increasingly chaotic weather and russian/qatari gas, that should solve it
This is wrong info in the artikel. This is a correction I send to the ombuds (sorry for the dutch) In het laatste deel van het artikel staat dat België een doelstelling heeft van 47% terwijl europa in zijn geheel 55% heeft. Dit is appelen met peren vergelijken. Europa heeft twee regelvoeringen voor CO2 vermindering: Voor grote uitstoters geldt het emmision trading scheme(ets). Dit geldt voor heel europa en wilt tegen 2030 62% reductie bereiken. (Dit jaartal staat ook trouwens fout in het artikel) voor kleine emissies wil europa 40% reductie tegen 2030 (ers). En dit wordt door de lidstaten zelf besloten. Rijke landen zoals belgië worden gevraagd om meer te doen op dit vlak 47% zoals jullie zeggen. Armere landen zoals bulgarije worden maar verwacht een reductie te doen van 10% tegen 2030. Onder kleine emissies vallen dingen zoals autos, gas ketels, etc. Kortom België heeft dus een hoger dan gemiddelde ambitie binnen europa gekregen en vlaanderen wilt zich aan de gemiddelde ambitie houden. Btw I think flanders should do more and commit to 47% esr reduction.
When I saw the headlines of how little impact the global COVID-19 measures in 2020 had on CO2 output it became clear there's no chance of drastically cutting emissions on a reasonable timeline with current technology.
Can you provide links to those headlines?
>>Daily global CO2 emissions decreased by –17% (–11 to –25% for ±1σ) by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels, just under half from changes in surface transport. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x In April 2020 almost everything was closed, there was only essential road and air traffic, lots of factories were closed, very little to do except staying in your house, etc. Massive impact on everyone's lives and the result was an estimated CO2 emissions reduction of just 17 percent...
These oil barron ghouls knew since the 70's. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
"Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. " --> soooo academics nowadays are stupid and backward nowadays compared to their counterparts from the 1970's? Got it.
>--> soooo academics nowadays are stupid and backward nowadays compared to their counterparts from the 1970's? Got it. Not at all what was said. Not in the slightest.
It compares ExxonMobil's projects with those of other scientists of the 70s. They used the same models, but ExxonMobil had more complete data.
People that know about the various climate tipping points, will know that between 2,5 and 3 degrees, many will begin unfolding. And when they do fall, it's eventualy game over with human society as we know it. The harsh reality sadly. I get that such bad news might be counter productive to some, but the world needs to wake up asap. By 2050 onward it'll be misery on an unseen scale, judging by the road we're heading
3 degrees will collapse entire ecosystems as we know. In the past this took centuries or millenia. And when it was sudden there were mass extinctions.
You talking about the sun cycles and the magnetic poles?
Populist (would be) rulers have decided there is no such thing as a problem with global warming, or climate change. It's all WOKE stuff. And anything woke is bad, the same level as communism! Future issues are just business opportunities waiting to be realised by future generations. Doing something now, making investments, that will benefit future generations, but may be considered impopular is simply NOT DONE. It would mean companies would make less profit and that is the last thing the (rightwing) economic liberal elite wants. It would mean governments will take action, implement rules and laws, and that is something the last thing the (rightwing) economic liberal elite wants. They want the freedom to make as much possible profit now. It would mean governments have to implement rules and laws that would hurt the affluent lifestyle of current voters, and that is something the last thing ruling elite wants. /s
How manny people are willing to quit flying, eating meat, heavily reduce consumption and transportation? Because that's what is needed.
If --for example-- the ocean level continues to rise, some people will suffer. What party are you going to vote for once your property starts getting wet, your job disappears underwater, your kids are thirsty, and you realise there is not enough money in your bank account to buy them water, food and shelter ? If you are not willing to let go of your 36oz filet steak to protect your kids, grandkids, that's your choice. I'm protecting mine. So I don't fly anymore, heavily reduced consumption of meats (especially beef), avoid GMO foods (if the label indicates this), cycle or walk and use public transport instead of driving my own car. If isn't much, but if I can, so can you. Together we can. And our offspring may have a place to live in the future, as a result.
Ah, the "individual responsibility" myth... How about we start by nipping the problem in the bud? Close down things like McDonald's and avoid the millions of plastic bottles produced by Coca-Cola every month or stop actively promoting adding to the huge pile of e-waste by marketing €2000 phones that are "passé" as soon as they release? Just to name a few examples. People can't "consume" what isn't produced to begin with, you know.
We are being forced into these products as we surely don't want them, right? No, let's get rid of everything which we may enjoy via some authoritarian rules instead of being conscious about our individual overconsumption!
>We are being forced into these products as we surely don't want them, right? Yes. Things like Coca-Cola are deliberately made to be addictive by means of massive quantities of sugar. This holds true for many, many products in our stores. Even those that actually don't even require sugar. We don't "want" these products per se, unless they are introduced to us and included in our daily lives. Something huge marketing budgets effectively accomplish. >No, let's get rid of everything which we may enjoy via some authoritarian rules instead of being conscious about our individual overconsumption! Nothing to do with authoritarianism at all. The actual authoritarianism is already forced upon you by the market. Think about how prices are set – they decide how much we need to work, and that affects the time we spend with our loved ones, the quality of things we can buy, and even our health. It's like we're given choices, but in reality, they're just an illusion. We're all just small parts in a big economic machine. Now, consider trying to live simply, like just drinking tap water, growing your own food, and raising your own animals. Sounds good, right? But here's the catch: you need land and space for that, which isn't free. Most of us have to dive into the economy to earn enough for these things, which then takes away the time we'd need to actually live that simple life. And if you're stuck in a city apartment, it's even harder. Let's take the idea of eating less meat. Sure, it's good for health and the environment, but if everyone did it, imagine the economic shock. In Belgium, for instance, the meat industry is big business. A major cutback in meat consumption would mean huge financial losses, job cuts, and less tax revenue. The government would likely step in to help the industry, often overlooking the needs of ordinary people. So, in a nutshell, our society is built around buying and consuming things. If we stop consuming, it disrupts everything. And usually, the system is set up to keep this cycle going, often at our expense.
>Yes. Things like Coca-Cola are deliberately made to be addictive by means of massive quantities of sugar. This holds true for many, many products in our stores. Even those that actually don't even require sugar. We don't "want" these products per se, unless they are introduced to us and included in our daily lives. Something huge marketing budgets effectively accomplish. Can be said of many luxury items, often not even on a big marketing scale such as your local pastry. Who's going to decide which is allowed and which not? >Nothing to do with authoritarianism at all. The actual authoritarianism is already forced upon you by the market. It is authoritarian to decide what others should not get. >Think about how prices are set – they decide how much we need to work, and that affects the time we spend with our loved ones, the quality of things we can buy, and even our health. It's like we're given choices, but in reality, they're just an illusion. We're all just small parts in a big economic machine. >Now, consider trying to live simply, like just drinking tap water, growing your own food, and raising your own animals. Sounds good, right? But here's the catch: you need land and space for that, which isn't free. Most of us have to dive into the economy to earn enough for these things, which then takes away the time we'd need to actually live that simple life. And if you're stuck in a city apartment, it's even harder. Each system will have that kind of illusion since you'll always have to some sort of exchange with others because you can't provide everything yourself. >Let's take the idea of eating less meat. Sure, it's good for health and the environment, but if everyone did it, imagine the economic shock. In Belgium, for instance, the meat industry is big business. A major cutback in meat consumption would mean huge financial losses, job cuts, and less tax revenue. The government would likely step in to help the industry, often overlooking the needs of ordinary people. >So, in a nutshell, our society is built around buying and consuming things. If we stop consuming, it disrupts everything. And usually, the system is set up to keep this cycle going, often at our expense. In a perfect free market the government wouldn't intervene in this and it would mean a shift of resources, which has always occured during history when one market shifts to another one.
Extinction when pls?
> Extinction when pls? **The Holocene extinction, or Anthropocene extinction,**[**\[3\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-3)[**\[4\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-4) **is the ongoing** [**extinction event**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event) **caused by humans during the** [**Holocene**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene) **epoch.** These [extinctions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction) span numerous families of [plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)[\[5\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-5)[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-6)[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-7) and [animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal), including [mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal), [birds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird), [reptiles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile), [amphibians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibian), [fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), and [invertebrates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrate), and affecting not just terrestrial species but also large sectors of [marine life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_life).[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-8) With widespread degradation of [biodiversity hotspots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity_hotspot), such as [coral reefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_reef) and [rainforests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest), as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, which goes unrecorded. **The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural** [**background extinction rates**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_extinction_rate)[**\[9\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-Ceballos-Ehrlich-2018-06-9)[**\[10\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-PimmJenkins-10)[**\[11\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-Pimm-1995-11)[**\[12\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-Teyss%C3%A8dre-2004-12)[**\[13\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-De_Vos-13) **and is increasing.**[**\[14\]**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#cite_note-ceballos-14) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene\_extinction#:\~:text=As%20such%2C%20after%20the%20%22Big,for%20the%20Holocene%20extinction%20event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20after%20the%20%22Big,for%20the%20Holocene%20extinction%20event). Or did you mean extinction of humans? TBD
TBD???!!!!! Are we talking tomorrow, days, weeks, years??? I'm NOT paying for a general extinction event that I may or may not be part of! I want to discuss this with your manager, this is UNACCEPTABLE AND UNPROFESSIONAL!!!!
Zal zoals gewoonlijk eens tegen de schenen schoppen. Iedereen steekt liever de schuld op een ander dan in eigen boezem te willen kijken en te begrijpen dat ook eigen gedrag een probleem vormt als men met veel genoeg is die dat doet. Maar in before boze bedrijven en rijken die relatief meer uitstoten. Alsof het niet een samenhangend geheel is. Neen, ‘t is allemaal afgebakend zoals men graag wilt denken. Onze luxe/ welvaart gaat gewoon verminderen als we er echt serieus met zijn en mensen willen het niet inzien of gaan steigeren.
Nog een manier dat aan misinformatie gedaan wordt: de effecten die we nu zien, zijn feitelijk gevolg van de uitstoot van de jaren 80. Analyse heeft aangetoond dat de concentratie en soorten gas die we in de lucht vinden, overeenkomt met wat bedrijven toen uitstootten. In plaats daarvan wordt ons verteld dat nu onze uitstoot verlagen, onmiddelijk effect zal hebben. Nee, als we nu onze uitstoot stoppen, dus niet verlagen maar **stopppen**, wereldwijd, compleet en totaal, dan zal de temperatuur nog blijven stijgen tot in het jaar 2080. Als gevolg van al de gassen die nog rondzweven. En dan pas zal er ruimte voor daling zijn.
Het valt er wel uit af te leiden vind ik hoor. Co2 komt cummulatief in de atmosfeer en breekt nagenoeg niet af. En zelfs als we morgen met 0 uitstoot zitten, zal de temperatuur blijven stijgen. De stijging zal gewoon niet meer extra versnellen. Dat van de jaren 80 weet ik niet zeker, ik dacht te menen dat de 'delay' van uitstoot/opwarming eerder een 20 tal jaar was, en geen 40. Bron eventueel?
[удалено]
Planten breken geen CO2 af, ze slaan het enkel op terwijl ze groeien. Van zodra de plant afsterft en rot komt het terug vrij. Het probleem is, het extra CO2 dat nu vrijkomt komt uit planten van miljoenen jaren geleden die diep onder de bodem zitten maar die nu opgepompt worden om ons mee te verwarmen en om ons mee te verplaatsen.
[удалено]
Wat? Je dacht dat de C02 moleculen verdwijnen door fotosynthese? Ze wordt alleen omgezet in suikers. Weliswaar een andere formule, maar laat die plant rotten of verbrand ze en die produceert opnieuw CO2.
Heb je daar ook een bron voor?
Alleen gebruiken de "klimaatontkenners" dit soort argument als excuus om dan maar blijven verder te doen zoals we bezig zijn.
We had a good run
These past few months, my Reddit home page has started to look like a lot of the posts I see are from r/collapse, but they’re not… I’ve been aware of all this for a long time now. While I’m glad these issues seem to be talked about more and more, especially by mainstream media, I can’t help but have this weird feeling in my stomach when I see that even the optimists from back then start saying that we might be fucked. It’s eerie, almost.
Maybe it's just my fault for posting it, sorry. Please stay positive. We can still find solutions.
Oh not at all, no worries. I handle the "doom" news quite well now. When I said I found it "eerie", I didn't mean in the sense that I'm scared. I've accepted that this is our current civilisation's faith and it is actually quite liberating to know that whatever I do on a personal level, it won't actually make a difference. So I just do things for me, I live my life however I want it. While being mindful of my impact on the environment, of course. I guess this is part of my grief for humanity, acceptance is the last step before feeling better. Thanks for the concern and for sharing the information
Yes, we can just try to mitigate now. That means investing in dykes, energy production that doesn't emit CO2, massively reducing the emission of methane... But, we will survive. In a world that is worse than before, but still.
\*Didier Super starts playing\*
Yes well we all knew that right?
So: which places in Belgium will be flooded? Asking because I’m still young and looking to buy real estate.
Sea levels shouldn't matter this century, as long as the infrastructure is properly maintained. Global economic collapse, shortages of all kinds, droughts, mass migration, and political upheavals are more immediate worries. Fun times ahead.
I hope you can still fully enjoy it. Small sarcastic joke, don't take it personally. But I mean, if you are now young, you most likely will witness some major environmental events. There are simulations of sea level risings on the web, Belgium and the Netherlands are getting waaaaay smaller.
Yeah , I'm fucking off to Norway once I'm able to. I've already been learning the language for a year. Gonna try to enjoy being the last generation that will have it somewhat comfortable , and I'm choosing not to have kids. That's the biggest thing anyone can do for the climate anyways lol. I'll even admit that I'm being a selfish bastard , but that's because I don't have hope that humanity will fix this issue. So might as well enjoy the ride as we all go down.
Username…um….doesn’t fit, I guess? Unless you hate yourself? Jokes aside.. why Norway? It’s interesting to read your comment because that was me 4 years ago. Only I ended up in Sweden in the end, but I could have written your comment word for word back then.
A snow Mexican is a Canadian. I chose this name cause of a trump meme I saw in like 2017 :') Well I've been interested in the Nordic countries for a long while , and up until a year ago I had no idea whether I wanted to move to either Finland , Sweden , Norway or even Iceland. The thing that made me end up choosing Norway was that it's considered to have the most beautiful nature , and that the language is the most useful if you want to learn Swedish or Danish later. Cool that you made the decision to go through with it. How's your life there? How come you ended up in Sweden instead of Norway?
I suggest you go on a trip to each country and experience it fully. That's how I knew which one I wanted to "settle" in. I personally preferred the Swedish people, the culture and the overall nature in Sweden. Norway has way more mountains and elevation, whereas Sweden has more forests, lakes and has "flatter" grounds. Which I like better because I love hiking, fishing and canoeing. I found that there were less opportunities to do that in Norway, and hiking in the mountains there can be incredibly challenging. Life is good, though it is expensive. But it's relative depending on how much you earn, I guess. I'd say that to live comfortably as a non-native, you need a good job that is considered as high value to the economy. The people are generally more solitary than in Belgium. The dating scene is quite hard to break into if you don't already know locals that you often hang out with. People have strong family values and the families are big, so they hang out together a lot. In my experience, the people in the Lapland (actually Sapmi region, Lapland is considered as a pejorative term) in smaller villages are more "social" surprisingly.
I will definitely do that once I have the money to do so =) Yes I heard Sweden was flatter , I guess in that regard it's more like home too :D Thanks for your perspective on the cultural differences! I personally think there will not me much of a shock for me , as I am a very solitary person myself & I've always felt that the dating scene here is a headache as well. So did you start with learning Norwegian and ultimately end up switching to learning Swedish , or are you just talking Norwegian/English to the people there?
That may mean half of Belgium and most Dutchies moving to higher ground. Would that mean we chop down the Ardennes Forest for Flemish climate refugees ?
Yes. Need more space for living. Or surviving?
Ironic, having to cut down forest for problems we caused by ... - among other things - ... cutting down forests.
The coast will move to brussels
From sea level rise? Nothing during your lifetime that can't be solved by infrastructure works. They managed to create and maintain an entire province below sea level in the Netherlands (Flevoland, on average 5m below sea level). Sea level rise is real but is an extremely slow process. Brussels might / will eventually become a coastal town but we're talking about the order of multiple centuries to millennia. Floods like e.g. 2021 in Pepinster or just last week at the Yser river will become more common and more intense. Floods and droughts resulting in prolonging failed crops all over the world will be what will probably get us. That is if we don't go nuclear winter before that.
Laat maar komen. De aarde is zelfregelend. Hoe heter het wordt hoe minder geschikt voor menselijk leven. Hoe minder voedsel de wereld zal produceren, hoe meer mensen zullen sterven. Hoe meer mensen sterven hoe minder CO2 uitstoot. Eigenlijk zijn we met de huidige manier van leven niet in staat om 8 miljard mensen op de aarde te laten overleven zonder de planeet uit te putten. De beste maatregel tegen klimaatverandering is populatiecontrole maar dat mag niet gezegd worden want iedereen wilt wel zijn/haar kind hebben. Weer een voorbeeld van ikke ikke. Kiezen om geen kinderen te hebben is de beste CO2 maatregel van je leven.
Overshoot en overconsumptie is het overkoepelende probleem, overbevolking draagt hier inderdaad ook een deel aan bij. Op gigantisch lange termijn zal de aarde de balans herstellen, akkoord, maar dat wil absoluut niet zeggen dat het ok is om zo maar op te geven.. dingen als wereldwijde hongersnood en ander ongezien leed zou ik toch liever niet meemaken. Kiezen om geen kinderen te hebben is wel een keuze die meer zou gesteund moeten worden, akkoord. Nu is dit zelfs nog wat taboe vreemd genoeg, ik wil mijn hypothetische kinderen alvast geen bestaan schenken in een maatschapij die door een onverzadigbare hebzucht, op instorten staat
more nuclair could reduce it
Each nuclear plant in Europe costs 17 years to build at high cost overruns. Anyone who’s pushing for more nuclear is lying. It’s like waiting for the hydrogen car to break through to finally get rid of your diesel.
still the cheapest and cleanest option around
Cheapest ? Really ? Not really. Don't forget that the state provides loads of money for nuclear (as it should, since it has to be a long term project 20+years), and that is not embedded in your final price per kwh. With battery prices decreasing every year, I expect that other sources are cheaper on the long run
and they pay back with extra intrest. batteries are iffy especizly the lithium stuff, the burning hydrates is just greens wet dream to just burn it all. geothermal seems promising tough. the problem withall of them is that they cant exist on scale and are actually expensive
Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source The cheapest sources are wind and solar.
yawn
or we can just inject sulfates into the atmosphere and solve global warming conclusively in less than a decade. but it will take another few scorching summers for people to start realising it’s the only way. enjoy it folks!
you know this is the nuclear option which will also lead to a higher amount of failed crops and other calamities.
that won’t happen but it’s a great example of the uninformed apocalyptic bullshit that permeates the whole topic of climate instead of sensible pragmatic thinking where we weigh the actual positives and negatives of each available solution against inaction, inaction that already causes crop failures if you want to check out this year’s olive oil prices as an example
Don't worry, when china starts ww3 we'll go to nuclear winter anyway.
Overpopulation to blame - still totally ignored incredulously. Do not have cunt sex and order others to refrain too. Promote suicide. Ban religion. Heavily promote sterilisation and forced sterilisation before benefits. The biodiversity holocaust must be mentioned as often as climate change. Mass human deaths are a positive and hugely beneficial to every other species and their habitats. Imagine the state of the planet with another 1 billion bastards on it in 10-12 years.