WTF Climate Change News

[Innula Zenovka]

Bentley to stop making petrol cars by 2030 and go fully electric

Luxury car brand promises to shift business to become ‘end-to-end carbon neutral’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Free]

Sorta on topic...

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Sorta on topic...

Yeah, looks like I might eventually need flooding insurance [ right now we're in an area that worst case scenario, will be an island.

 

[Rose Karuna]

I ran across this and thought it was an awesome idea and way of repurposing clothing.

H&M will let people convert old clothing items into new ones at Stockholm store

Fast fashion chain H&M wants to turn discarded clothes into something new to wear again -- within five hours.

www.cnn.com

I'm hoping businesses like this begin opening in the US.

 

[Beebo Brink]

'We packed long underwear and never wore it': Arctic scientists shocked at warming

Couple finds areas that once required ice-breaking ship have become open water

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

According to this climate study we don't have to worry any longer about climate change, because we are already past the point no return. More specifically they looked at the ESCIMO climate model, so you've got to take this into consideration that other models might yield to different results.

An earth system model shows self-sustained thawing of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020 - Scientific Reports

The risk of points-of-no-return, which, once surpassed lock the world into new dynamics, have been discussed for decades. Recently, there have been warnings that some of these tipping points are coming closer and are too dangerous to be disregarded. In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO...

www.nature.com

 

[Beebo Brink]

According to this climate study we don't have to worry any longer about climate change, because we are already past the point no return.

Interesting. Their conclusion provides factual support for what I've believed for quite a while now, that the point of no return was decades ago. Pretty much every identification of new CO2 sources and feedback loops has been in one direction: change is happening faster/sooner than expected. And since there's no way we've mapped all the interactions and dynamics at play, the most likely assumption is that we've always been underestimating the progression.

My own prediction is hardly scientific, more of an informed hunch, but it seems I'm not that far off the mark.

Conclusion
Self-sustained melting of the permafrost is a robust phenomenon in ESCIMO. It only disappears when man-made emissions are stopped counterfactually as early as in the 1960es. Or by choosing parameter values that do not recreate historical developments. We encourage other model builders to explore these conclusions in their models, and report on their findings.

 

[Beebo Brink]

This past election cycle we saw how politically de-stabilizing climate migration can be. It was only a taste of what is to come:

Scientists link record-breaking hurricane season to climate crisis

Evidence is not so much in the number of tropical storms the Atlantic has seen, but in their strength, intensity and rainfall

www.theguardian.com

 

[Govi]

Sylvia on what to expect

 

[Sid]

1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions – study

Exclusive: Researchers say Covid-19 hiatus is moment to tackle elite ‘super emitters’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Beebo Brink]

Many roads aren't ready for climate change » Yale Climate Connections

They may wear out faster than planned, driving up costs to communities.

yaleclimateconnections.org

 

[Innula Zenovka]

ETA

Bushfire threatens Sydney homes after city swelters through hottest November night on record

The weekend marked the first two consecutive days above 39C recorded in Sydney since 1960

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sid]

Climate ‘apocalypse’ fears stopping people having children – study

Survey of 600 people finds some parents regret having offspring for same reason

www.theguardian.com

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Climate ‘apocalypse’ fears stopping people having children – study

Survey of 600 people finds some parents regret having offspring for same reason

www.theguardian.com

Well, that and grinding poverty during peak child rearing years.

 

[Beebo Brink]

One 42-year-old father wrote that the world in 2050 would be “a hot-house hell, with wars over limited resources, collapsing civilisation, failing agriculture, rising seas, melting glaciers, starvation, droughts, floods, mudslides and widespread devastation.” Schneider-Mayerson said he thought the pessimistic views held were all within the range of possibilities, if not necessarily the most likely outcome.

That anyone is still quibbling over this as a "possible, but not the most likely outcome" is yet another reason why we're doomed to be completely unprepared for the unfolding reality of the following decades.

What was almost as discouraging as the researchers' perspective is that people's concerns were largely focused on the welfare of their potential children, rather than recognizing that refraining from reproduction is a major way to mitigate the very change they fear. Regardless of motivation, however, not enough people are doing this to make a difference.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

That anyone is still quibbling over this as a "possible, but not the most likely outcome" is yet another reason why we're doomed to be completely unprepared for the unfolding reality of the following decades.

What was almost as discouraging as the researchers' perspective is that people's concerns were largely focused on the welfare of their potential children, rather than recognizing that refraining from reproduction is a major way to mitigate the very change they fear. Regardless of motivation, however, not enough people are doing this to make a difference.

There's not a great deal, though, anyone can do individually other than vote for politicians who take the danger seriously. That might not be sufficient but I can't see anything else that's likely to have any kind of impact.

The kind of thing that has a practical impact is central banks insisting that banks and financial institutions cost in global heating and other risk factors when lending money, and governments taking the Paris Accords seriously and taking practical measures to make producers switch to renewable energy.

I'd say that probably the most effective thing any US citizen has ever done in recent years to avert environmental catastrophe, unless they're actually a decision maker, is contributing to Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris' victory in the elections last month, and the citizens of Georgia are in a position to do even more in January if they manage to flip the Senate so the US' rejoining the Paris Accords stands a chance of being ratified as a treaty, thus forcing the US actually to deliver on its commitments.

That's what's important.

 

[Beebo Brink]

I'd say that probably the most effective thing any US citizen has ever done in recent years to avert environmental catastrophe, unless they're actually a decision maker, is contributing to Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris' victory in the elections last month, and the citizens of Georgia are in a position to do even more in January if they manage to flip the Senate so the US' rejoining the Paris Accords stands a chance of being ratified as a treaty, thus forcing the US actually to deliver on its commitments.

That's what's important.

We are not going to avert climate catastrophe, it's way too late for that. We are already locked in to at least 2-3degree rise in global temperature, based on where we are today. That is more than sufficient to be quite de-stabilizing. There is a theoretical possibility that urgent action rightnow could possibly alter our projected trajectory to 4 degrees of warming, but no one, anywhere, is proposing the kind of change that would avert that outcome.

Meeting just the first stage of the Paris Accords is not going well; the later much more demanding stages are not even discussed (and may well be a moot point). I don't share your belief that voting for Biden was a more effective strategy than forgoing having children, and there's no reason to even frame it as an either/or decision, when both would be preferable.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

We are not going to avert climate catastrophe, it's way too late for that. We are already locked in to at least 2-3degree rise in global temperature, based on where we are today. That is more than sufficient to be quite de-stabilizing. There is a theoretical possibility that urgent action rightnow could possibly alter our projected trajectory to 4 degrees of warming, but no one, anywhere, is proposing the kind of change that would avert that outcome.

Meeting just the first stage of the Paris Accords is not going well; the later much more demanding stages are not even discussed (and may well be a moot point). I don't share your belief that voting for Biden was a more effective strategy than forgoing having children, and there's no reason to even frame it as an either/or decision, when both would be preferable.

I didn't say it's an either/choice but I would say that, before too long, we should be hearing about the measures the US will be taking to reduce its carbon footprint and emissions of greenhouse gasses as a result of rejoining the Paris accords and what the quantifiable effects will be over the next n years.

That might well be too little, too late, but it's better than nothing -- the reason the UK now gets so much of its energy from renewable sources is that it's part of long-term government strategy to meet, first, the Kyoto , and then the Paris Protocols, and it's the same reason so many European countries are phasing out petrol and diesel engines in domestic vehicles. It happens because governments and central banks have to make it happen because of international commitments.

That might not be sufficient but it's a lot better than nothing, to my mind.

I don't know how many people would have to forego having children to achieve a similar effect, even if we calculate the savings over a much longer period, but I suspect it would have to be pretty enormous.

The climate crisis requires action by governments and international organisations rather than individual efforts, or so it seems to me, which is why I say that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' victory was so important -- it should have a large and quantifiable effect on reducing emissions in a way that would not otherwise have taken place.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Humanity is waging war on nature, says UN secretary general

António Guterres lists human-inflicted wounds on natural world in stark message

www.theguardian.com