Ignoring climate change will yield 'untold suffering,' panel of 14,000 scientists warns

[QuestioningMind]

Ignoring climate change will yield 'untold suffering,' panel of 14,000 scientists warns (msn.com)

They say the climate tipping point is imminent. Immediate action is required.



One of the tipping points is the Amazon rainforest, which has become a carbon source, no longer a carbon sink.





1. Implement a "significant' global carbon price to reduce emissions.
2. Phase out and eventually ban fossil fuels.
3. Restore and protect key carbon-rich ecosystems, like forests and wetlands, to preserve the planet's largest carbon sinks and protect biodiversity.

I'm surprised they didn't include anything about population control, which I would think is the most significant factor.

Sadly there are far too many people in the world who are raised to place more value on blind faith than verifiable evidence. The fact that things have gotten this far and there are still people who think the subject is up for debate suggests that the blind faith crowd is much larger than I'd feared.

 

[Valjean]

You do know what farming does to the ecosystem. Anyways meat is a nessessity not an option for health.

Huh? Why is meat a necessity? As long as you get the necessary nutrients, your metabolism doesn't care where they come from.
If you want to make the maximum possible impact on the climate emergency, consider having fewer children -- or none. In addition to not adding lifetimes of carbon to the atmosphere, you'll have more money, more job prospects, free time, and all round flexibility.

In the end, though, it might all be futile. The momentum we've created is just too much. A freight train can't stop on a dime.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's a 6 part plan the scientists signed up for. You are advocating for only 1/6th of the solution?
Well, I guess as long as it limits the interference with your life.

The OP is talking about a 'three pronged near term' position that addresses the largest problem areas:
1) Implement a "significant" global carbon price to reduce emissions; 2) phase out and eventually ban fossil fuels; and 3) restore and protect key carbon-rich ecosystems, like forests and wetlands, to preserve the planet's largest carbon sinks and protect biodiversity.

If we're even willing to talk about the 70% of emissions coming from transportation and fossil fuel power than talking about burgers is just a distraction. One leveraged by corporate types and their political backers looking to offload responsibility onto the consumer.

It's no different than trying to guilt people for using plastic straws, and demanding the public switch to paper straws, when the real man behind the curtain is manufacturing waste.

 

[Heyo]

I agree, in a general sense.
Apart from the difficulty in implementing any laws, the fragmented nature of global government means it's not a decision to be made, but hundreds of decisions.

It's the Tragedy of the Commons. Those who put effort (=money) into combatting climate change are the fools if not a vast majority are all matching these efforts.
The correct strategy (from a game theory position) would be to set a "climate change budget" from which two measures are funded: 1. combatting climate change at, or slightly above, the global average and 2. preparations for climate change like higher dams, fire fighting, flood control etc.

 

[Stevicus]

Sadly there are far too many people in the world who are raised to place more value on blind faith than verifiable evidence. The fact that things have gotten this far and there are still people who think the subject is up for debate suggests that the blind faith crowd is much larger than I'd feared.

This is true, although I also consider charts such as this.

If the population was only a tenth of what it is now, most of the other factors related to climate change wouldn't be as intensified as they are now. This includes the consumption of fossil fuels, consumption of meat, usage of plastic bags, and many other things that would be significantly reduced if the population wasn't so high.

I recall an article I posted a while back which also highlights an aspect of the problem that few Westerners tend to look at. It focused on a person living in India, who was middle class, working his way up, and he wanted air conditioning for his domicile. The article mentioned that India is quite hot, but air conditioners are still out of reach for most of the population to afford. But this guy and others like him are buying air conditioners and using them. All of the things that are in widespread use in the West are starting to be used in other areas of the world - and this is by design, since we wanted a global economy and a global market to sell all these things that we have come to enjoy.

People who have been living in squalor while Westerners were living it up - they want all these things too, and now some are in a position where they can afford to buy it. Many in the West have pledged to make life more livable for the people of the world. There's nothing wrong with all these people wanting nice places to live, air conditioning, electricity, internet, TV, cars, boats, vacations - not to mention meat. No one is asking for it to be free, but if they can afford it, then they're going to want it. Are we in the West (who already have these things) going to tell them that they can't have it now, because we screwed it all up?

I think that will be the tougher issue to deal with in the long run.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's the Tragedy of the Commons. Those who put effort (=money) into combatting climate change are the fools if not a vast majority are all matching these efforts.
The correct strategy (from a game theory position) would be to set a "climate change budget" from which two measures are funded: 1. combatting climate change at, or slightly above, the global average and 2. preparations for climate change like higher dams, fire fighting, flood control etc.

Or, you can do what the Australian Government does. I've included their entire plan for climate change here, for your information.








Did you enjoy that?

 

[rational experiences]

Science taught science that science lied.

The sin of man the topic.

Who unsealed earths water sealed sun attacked mass radiation blasting of earth history. Water by flood and pressure had sealed stone. Law water created above ground.

An important teaching.

Why our universe is no longer a galaxy. Why the sun is smaller.

Theme satanism. Carbon effect.

Reason lava owned earth released gas heavens into space.

Radiation unsealed by scientists via earth mass machine conversions removed pressure and removed water mass. Off earths face.

Water mass owns pre formed oxygen.

Nature supplemented it's oxygenation. Balances hydrogen oxygen maintained.

Hence water evaporation in radiation science one cause plus earth UFO radiation release is doing the burning so oxygenation in water is diminishing itself.

Is no reason to theory human life removal by millions. As if human population is to blame.

As food is grown on earths vast empty planes. Enough places to feed life.

You however broke a human science promise to not combust nature's wood by stone law broken. Radiation UFO release. The earth's heaven highest carbon problem.

So you promised as a scientist 2012 advice was a sun voiding burning by dropping vacuum as universe into pressurized conditions that does not allow combustion to be expressed.

Unnaturally or artificially.

Which would return gas mass back in mass to a previous non burning carbon status. And earths pressured holding of non radiation release also.

Finishing sciences ancient life attack.

Two massive burning effects.

Carbon problem overcome. As a amassed accumulative process.

Carbon accumulated as you chose nuclear practice again.

As coal is a present carbon mass it cannot reproduce a carbon state. Science said don't burn it as it doesn't completely combust. Producing off gases carbon monoxide.

Why they said don't burn any forest. Already knew not to.

Carbon pressurized becomes held crystalline form. Proving earth UFO radiation unsealed earth is causing a huge problem.

Science as an ancient world philosophy advice already knew the life attacked conditions and were advised.

If science just a human thinking says I think the carbon effect will own cause death unnaturally of millions of humans we are already unnaturally dying in all forms irradiation sickness.

So if theists say we are possessed by our own reasoning I will choose to do it myself unnaturally is proof the human theist is possessed in thoughts by evil wisdom.

Rationally.

Pressure states prove combustion conditions change in holding conditions.

The atmosphere once acted accordingly as a voiding vacuum of the status burnt gases. Why it's status was determined holy by science laws as it had naturally dealt with emissions. As a holy life support.

Earth itself had also burnt out huge forests and ground life in lightning strikes.

Why it's functioning action voiding vacuum was considered as utmost importance to maintain dealing with problems such as carbon monoxide accumulation.

A problem given to everyone to Inherit rich or poor.

Why the heavens wisdom was known.... effect the vacuum by UFO status and life won't be lived by anyone.

 

[Heyo]

Or, you can do what the Australian Government does. I've included their entire plan for climate change here, for your information.








Did you enjoy that?

The plans of some of our political parties look similar but they have to step up their game now. We have elections in September with the Green party having good chances. And we just had flash floods that killed nearly 200 people.

 

[Secret Chief]

Or, you can do what the Australian Government does. I've included their entire plan for climate change here, for your information.








Did you enjoy that?

A few other alternatives:

1. Enact superficial changes.
2. Promise big changes by a date that is too far off.
3. Promise big changes and then actually do ****all.

 

[Secret Chief]

- UK already undergoing disruptive climate change


"The year 2020 was the third warmest, fifth wettest and eight sunniest on record, scientists said in the latest UK State of the Climate report.

No other year is in the top 10 on all three criteria."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A few other alternatives:

1. Enact superficial changes.
2. Promise big changes by a date that is too far off.
3. Promise big changes and then actually do ****all.

We've refused to set targets or commit to much of anything. Our recent performance on this has been despicable.

 

[Secret Chief]

We've refused to set targets or commit to much of anything. Our recent performance on this has been despicable.

Never mind, you've got a mild climate anyway.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Never mind, you've got a mild climate anyway.

Heh...we have ALL the climates. Just like North America, we're too big not to.

 

[Secret Chief]

Heh...we have ALL the climates. Just like North America, we're too big not to.

The UK doesn't have a climate, it just has weather. And rather a lot of it these days, sometimes on the same day.
Random minor anecdote. I went out in the car earlier this week on a short journey. Hourly meteorological office forecast: dry, sunny, low chance of light showers. An hour later I was utterly soaked and the roads I drove home on were like rivers. Next day I thought the clutch was about to go, turned out there was water in the clutch...

 

[Stevicus]

Greenland ice melting on Tuesday could cover Florida in 2 inches of water - CNN

 

[Quagmire]

For a long time now I've thought that a big part of the problem is that scientists keep pulling their punches when they go to warn us about this stuff. Exp:

". . .such as the Amazon rainforest becoming a carbon source rather than a carbon sink — from which it will be hard to recover, the team added".(emphasis mine)

What they really mean is by that time it's basically too late.

They need to stop using phrases like "significant impact" or "observable adverse effects over time", and just tell us what they're really thinking:

"If we don't all get our **** together ASAP we're ****ed"

Spoiler: language

 

[Stevicus]

For a long time now I've thought that a big part of the problem is that scientists keep pulling their punches when they go to warn us about this stuff. Exp:

". . .such as the Amazon rainforest becoming a carbon source rather than a carbon sink — from which it will be hard to recover, the team added".(emphasis mine)

What they really mean is by that time it's basically too late.

They need to stop using phrases like "significant impact" or "observable adverse effects over time", and just tell us what they're really thinking:

"If we don't all get our **** together ASAP we're ****ed"

Spoiler: language

Pretty much. Floods in central Europe, megadrought in the Western US, and today I was reading about massive wildfires in Siberia - and they don't have enough personnel and equipment to fight them.

I'm reasonably hopeful that, for the long, long-term future, the planet will eventually recover, although we humans may not be around to see it.

 

[Shaul]

Meat eating is not inherently more polluting than non-meat eating. It all depends on how each type of food is gotten.

 

[rational experiences]

Conscious memory affects our modern beliefs today.

What humans as scientists caused before.

Father said we began eating meat when life got irradiated burnt so did nature. No vege food. Meat everywhere. So today knowing environmental burning and carbon is a problem we discuss meat eating.

As if it were relative.

He also said once humans and animals never needed to eat. Were peaceful and placid. Bio water mass as a massive body held atmosphere fed us internally by microscopic energy in water mass.

Radiation voided in the latest new machine experiments by space I visionary saw.....animal relationships behaviours pairing up is proven. Changed. Placid.

Proving radiation effect is earths atmospheric problem and it was previously advised. Sun becoming smaller. Space pressure changes.

Predicted in science.

No earth UFO heart release 2012 cessation. Nuclear science re chosen. Earth vacuum voiding changed. Accumulating began.

Numbers or table effect. Earths tables emerge in the earth heavens. Causes science converting earth mass.

Which proves carbon monoxide buildup was once vacuum voided as status type of heavy gas. Gas caused in vegetation burning.

Combustion burning bush. Vegetation unable to re oxygenate heated water in irradiation fallout.

As forests burn naturally by lightning also and smoke from ancient burns gone.

Lightning striking by greater force would belong to a higher carbon body.

So if science told science no alchemy allowed. And even herbal medicine was outlawed once historic. Human fear proves by observation of life attacked combusted relates to the strange choices in history.

When is the too late moment considered in science? Before or after?

 

[Heyo]

For a long time now I've thought that a big part of the problem is that scientists keep pulling their punches when they go to warn us about this stuff. Exp:

". . .such as the Amazon rainforest becoming a carbon source rather than a carbon sink — from which it will be hard to recover, the team added".(emphasis mine)

What they really mean is by that time it's basically too late.

They need to stop using phrases like "significant impact" or "observable adverse effects over time", and just tell us what they're really thinking:

"If we don't all get our **** together ASAP we're ****ed"

Spoiler: language

Nope.
That is not the task for scientists, it is one for activists and politicians. I expect scientists to unemotionally present the data and their conclusions in a scientific way. I trust science because it doesn't take sides in politics.