Instead, we have vote for president. That vote may affect the actions on climate change, but it may not be in the way you want. And it has lots and lots of related side affects.
Let us say that the president who would take more steps to curb global warming would also cause growth in a non US country that is environmentally destructive. Or that they themselves would make so many deals and compromises that the deal that gets passed is actually a long term net loss.
I am totally not saying that will happen, but making things too black and white can lead to surprises.
We know the problem here. We have some solutions. We just need to act!
If a million people have "money" but there's enough food for 900,000 people, you're going to find the price rises to just a bit more than you can afford. No matter how much money you have, the price will rise to more. See sibling comment about wheelbarrows full of devalued currency.
If things go wrong you'll need a better plan than "I have money". If food supplies literally run out, money will be worthless.
Isn't so fun being a subsistence farmer in deteriorating conditions.
I would tell you that I don't care, but then I would be called a troll, despite mine being the mainstream position.
If we cut by 50% and the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more? How far do you want to go and how much needs to be risked Before you’re satisfied that our carbon levels are acceptable. Sorry that you feel the world isn’t following your desires and expectations but they need more than a promise that things may get better to enact policy that will dramatically alter their entire economy, way of living, and social order.
Edit: sure downvote me and throw insults. That’s a good way to promote healthy discussion.
Cutting human carbon emission to zero today would still result in temperature increases over the next decade or so, because there's a planet-sized throughput delay in the system. Can't turn the oil tanker around that quickly.
The IPCC suggested target is 1.5-2C over the next century as being both reasonably achievable while not having too drastic an impact on the environment and agriculture.
Otherwise increasingly severe floods, droughts and storms will dramatically alter the economy, way of living and social order for billions of people anyway.
Likewise, I don’t know how close the world temperature is to the equilibrium for the current level of greenhouse gasses. If levels remain constant, is the global average temperature going to go up 0.5C? 0.01C? Or is equilibrium reached faster than the seasons change?
That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
CO₂ isn't a fixed quantity in the atmosphere that we add to. If we don't add to it, it gradually gets absorbed by natural processes on the Earth's surface.
The reason the amount in the upper atmosphere is rising is because we're producing more faster than the other processes can absorb it.
The picture is a little more complicated than that though. We are also destroying some of those absorption processes. For example through deforestation of the Amazon.
Also, CO₂ is now a proxy measure for other greenhouse gases produced by human activity. Methane in particular is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, so that matters too and the aborption processes are different. So there are a number of cycles of different things going on, and it's a fairly complicated picture, thus all the models.
However, there are some useful simplifications, and it's too important to let arguing over details be used to avoid dealing with the basic problem. CO₂ is still the main concern and target, because it's produced by a large number of human activities, and they can be changed. Basically anything that involves burning things, whether obviously like in a car, or hidden away in some power station where you can't see it.
All that said, even if we get net CO₂ emissions down to zero now, or even negative (if we find a way), it is generally accepted that we are too late to stop a significant average temperature rise that will cause significant climate changes affecting us, and especially affecting nature across the world.
Because of this, targets these days are the result of negotiating some kind of "realistic" level of harm, which of course involves setting temperature-rise targets, and lots of politics, and plenty of political and industrial leaders trying to see what they can get away with. Nobody is really happy because some people would like less harm than the "realistic" minimum now, and some people would like to carry on with life as before because it was fun, and maybe their wealth depends on it.
> That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
I'm completely with you on this. Technology will save the day if... well, the trouble is technology can't be taken for granted, even if there are plenty of great inventions around, and potential future inventions.
Technology can only save the day if politics, behaviour and the economy line up to allow it to happen.
I really don't think we can assume politics and people are collectively all that aligned on these issues or much else at the moment. We can't even agree on whether to protect each other from Covid or not by simple behavioral changes (social distancing, mask use etc), and that's a much more visible, short-term and simpler issue to understand than climate change.
In every case where I've replaced carbon with something else, it's turned out to be preferable. Cleaner, quieter, lighter, longer lasting.
To me, there are lots of other reasons for cutting carbon than the environment. The environment is just a big plus. If we cut all carbon fuel and ended up with longer lasting, more efficient products, but global warming increased, why would I think cutting carbon had been a waste?
Personally, I'd like to see some state where there was a hypercompetitive market of many different energy sources, rather than being dominated by carbon. I'm not sure what that would eventually look like — maybe carbon would be a part, maybe not — but it would be better.