Some workings of the climate system currently — the record-low Antarctic sea ice, for example — are true anomalies that scientists can’t yet currently explain. But most are just what we would expect from a world that has continued to burn fossil fuels. While some developed countries have cut back on the use of coal, oil, and gas, global emissions have only plateaued. And unless global emissions reach zero, the planet will continue to warm.
That’s pretty clear about where we’re at and what the choice we have is.
There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.
Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)
Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.
Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.
Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they’re)
Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.
Or… realizing that it’s possible to limit the damage and taking action to make that happen. It’s pretty clear that the article recognizes that it’s possible.
It’s actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the “trick”)
One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.
It’s as “easy” as informed cooperation & will. But
deleted by creator
I don’t really see the optimism that you do:
That’s pretty clear about where we’re at and what the choice we have is.
@silence7 @Codilingus
There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.
Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)
Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.
Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.
@silence7 @Codilingus
Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they’re)
Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.
Doom!
Or… realizing that it’s possible to limit the damage and taking action to make that happen. It’s pretty clear that the article recognizes that it’s possible.
@silence7
It’s actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the “trick”)
One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.
It’s as “easy” as informed cooperation & will. But
Its a delicate balance. Too many people believe action is useless at this point, which is also untrue.
People need to be alarmed but in a way that drives them to action.