SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.
Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.
Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".
[...] After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.
The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.
Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and clear.
"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.
"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."
The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.
Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.
We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:38PM (4 children)
In other words, the argument that doing the things that are being suggested isn't convincing. I think that's because the overall cost/benefit of the things being proposed are not at all clear. Even if some look to probably be a net positive globally, the programs tend to require some to bear a large proportion of the costs while others enjoys most of the benefits. So, yeah, I see why you're having a hard time convincing people to act. Come up with a new solution that benefits them and accomplishes your goals. I bet you'll find a lot more success that way then telling people they're wrong and ignorant if they don't want to do things your way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:09PM (2 children)
The problem is that the people in charge of the decisions are the ones who know they have the power/money/ability to avoid the problem.
China is trying to de-smog because it's hard to breathe in Beijing, where the power-that-be live. But when you talk about sea rising by meters, and droughts, to people who can afford a few houses in different landscapes, it's really difficult to get their attention. And they won't give a shit about a few hundred million Bangladeshis being displaced, because making sure they go bother someone else is what aircraft carriers are for.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:55AM
Over what time period? Again, if it takes centuries to do that (and it likely will, from current rates of sea level increase), then there's not an urgent matter there.
And areas that won't be in drought. Agriculture can move around.
How much of a cost is that going to be, really? Work some deal out with India and other neighboring countries to accommodate them over the necessary time period and move on.
Sounds like someone is less short-sighted than you give them credit for.
I suppose I get tired of the people whining about how short-sighted everyone is supposed to be while having a few instances of myopia in their own works.
There's an easy way to do that. Throw a bunch of public funds at those people. They'll buy into the religion real fast. I think that already happened a decade ago.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:50PM
In other words, they aren't ignoring anything, you're criticizing those in power for choosing the least socially & economically disruptive solution for themselves and who they represent rather than the one that effects the social change that you want. If you want to advocate for social causes, then do so. Just don't try to hide that by claiming that the problems you're trying to solve are technical ones and then calling anyone who disagrees with your chosen solutions ignorant or scientifically illiterate.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:02PM
People are terrible at assessing risk, and hate any kind of change.
For a long time most people refused to wear seatbelts because... it's a little uncomfortable? It took explicit laws and decades of graphic TV advertisements to hammer it through to people that when shit gets fucked, seat belts can prevent your shit from getting fucked.
People won't care until there's no food left.