this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
23 points (76.7% liked)

collapse of the old society

1322 readers
39 users here now

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Climate change isn't an on/off switch, it's something that can always be made better or worse by increments.

I'm just speaking to the accuracy of this one sentence. This is completely 100% incorrect.

The climate system is a chaos system that has many areas of stability, rapid transformation and tipping points.

If you think the system is only incrementally changing, that's just because you haven't pushed it hard enough to rapidly shift to a new area of behavior you've never seen before.

Many of these regimes are irreversible and cannot be changed back. You cannot unburn toast, it's a one way deal.

Once the climate changes, EVEN if you reset the conditions, you will not return to the initial state. Not at all. That idea is propaganda.

The fossil carbon and other climate related chemicals we have already dumped into the environment have a very long lag time before we see the effects (at all). These chemicals and their effects are more long living that most nuclear waste, for example. These are not going away while humanity still exists. That's a done deal.

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're right, but I don't think OP would necessarily disagree (although I don't know them).

The point is, we don't really know where, or how many, tipping points there are. Every 0.1 degree warming is a higher chance of reaching them. And most climate models predict very different outcones for 2 degree vs 3 degree vs 4 degree warming.

So, there are a bunch of lags effects and tipping points, but we still don't have any information to suggest that every 0.1 degree avoided has huge value.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

Many people have been manipulated into thinking of this whole problem as a "flow" or "rate" problem.

"If we could only slow down carbon..."

The thing is that what we have is a "sink" or "stock" problem where it's how much carbon is already in the system -- it's past actions that are already closed off to further change that are influencing things now

The rate of change in climate isn't from the rate of this year's contribution of 4ppm of CO2, it's from having 423ppm in the system all together forcing a very large shift in energy imbalance.

There is no solution space where slowing down the rate is meaningful. Going to zero or net negative for the ANNUAL rate next year is too small a lever against what work would need to happen to make a meaningful difference.

The TOTAL HISTORICAL carbon that is already there would have to be entirely removed and even that wouldn't put the system all the way back due to inertia and other nonlinearities.

What you're feeling today in the climate is actually geared to the emissions levels that were already achieved no more recently than 15 years ago in the past. What we do today will have effects that will only start in 15 years and take a long time to fully play out with effects still coming into play 100 years from today. This is a very very long lag time that confuses everything in terms of human feedbacks and human proof and human priorities.

A great number of people think we know what to do but we were too greedy and corrupt to do it.

I disagree. I think we have no idea what to even do. Humanity does not have the technology or capability to be sustainable. And so we think and talk about it wrongly because we do not want to accept that we are doomed.

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Just to back up what your saying MIT have a nice explainer on carbon lifetimes[0].

I don't know if I feel as doomed as you though. There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc). And moreover, a lot of the carbon use today is completely unecessary consumerism.

We've had 30 years of political inertia since Regan/Thatcher/etc so political change seems impossible to a lot of folks. Historically that's just not the case. Before then, voter rights, civil rights, women's rights all made huge political changes. If there's any silver lining to the horror show of US politics at the moment, it should be that there is at least proof that massive structural change is possible in today's political climate, and I genuinely believe that can be harnessed for good.

I don't think there's any guarantees, but it's still a lot too early to give up.

[0] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago)

There is a lot of technology to reduce carbon (renewables etc).

You're only talking about reducing the rate of increases. That's irrelevant. Carbon would still be growing, not shrinking.

As I stated, we need a way to decrease the existing carbon, which is a different, much larger problem, with no technology and nothing waiting in the wings. We have no ideas. Renewable or rebuildable power systems could be useful, but how does that power suck fossil carbon out of the biosphere, what's the tech for that?

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Humanity does not have the technology or capability to be sustainable

We absolutely have the technology, it's just being blocked from being implemented on emergency timescales by soulless oil and gas corpo suits that have almost de-facto control of governments in most countries.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 points 15 minutes ago

What's an example of the technology, and can you explain what scale it works at?