“Climate change comes with irreversible consequences.”
  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    4·
    2 months ago

    While I will remain vigilant, I have lost all hope. I won’t stop reducing, reusing, recycling, etc. But I expect to burn in a nightmare future regardless. This is what I consider a rational reading of the situation.

  • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
    2·
    2 months ago

    Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks. So yeah, do more with less. Drive less, fly less, consume less. Skip the damned cruise ships entirely.

    For more, see below. Overconfidence in climate overshoot https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08020-9

    Abstract

    Global emission reduction efforts continue to be insufficient to meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement1. This makes the systematic exploration of so-called overshoot pathways that temporarily exceed a targeted global warming limit before drawing temperatures back down to safer levels a priority for science and policy2,3,4,5. Here we show that global and regional climate change and associated risks after an overshoot are different from a world that avoids it. We find that achieving declining global temperatures can limit long-term climate risks compared with a mere stabilization of global warming, including for sea-level rise and cryosphere changes. However, the possibility that global warming could be reversed many decades into the future might be of limited relevance for adaptation planning today. Temperature reversal could be undercut by strong Earth-system feedbacks resulting in high near-term and continuous long-term warming6,7. To hedge and protect against high-risk outcomes, we identify the geophysical need for a preventive carbon dioxide removal capacity of several hundred gigatonnes. Yet, technical, economic and sustainability considerations may limit the realization of carbon dioxide removal deployment at such scales8,9. Therefore, we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    2·
    2 months ago

    the geophysical need for a preventive carbon dioxide removal capacity of several hundred gigatonnes.

    I think it’s much more than that really, but yes, that is the only way to slam the brakes on things, and even with that some feedbacks might be already too far into play.

    Yet, technical, economic and sustainability considerations may limit the realization of carbon dioxide removal deployment at such scales

    And there is why even knowing what might have a chance doesn’t matter. This isn’t a “we should give up” viewpoint, but simply doing the math and physics. Because of what it takes energy-wise and logistics to remove that much carbon permanently from the cycle using zero emission energy sources (that we don’t have), it’s simply not going to happen. The “don’t give up” attitude isn’t to look for a fix, as even stopping all emissions right now won’t do that. It’s to realize that we have a harsh future ahead and to plan for just that, mitigate the damage as best we can and prepare for the worst. Anyone promising anything more than that is either ignorant of the facts, or is trying to sell you something while you’ll still buy.