Indeed, first step is to get people to think on those timescales - and the cathedrals are a good example that people used be able to do that. I make an interactive climate model normally running from 1750 to 2250 (could go further) so it’s ± symmetrical about the present, but society attitudes are not. For example, it’s normal to pay to preserve 'heritage' sites from 100 - 1000 - more years ago, but [most] economists imply (with discount rates) it's crazy to care about it all disappearing under the sea on any similar timescale.
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7239 readers
316 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I've been using this idea to argue with doomers. Basically it goes, yes, it looks bleak now, but we're gen one of a four generation project that'll take 200 years. Gen one will get the ball rolling, aka stop burning stuff, begin setting up carbon free energy production, figure out the best way(s) to remove carbon. Gen two keeps setting up clean energy, works on carbon removal, environmental restoration. Gen 3 and 4 continue. Obviously this is a simplification, but it'll go something like that. People who comment generally don't like my outlook, but I'm starting to think they want the world to burn, like a part of themselves is invested in doom.