36
Around 2.5 million people in the U.S. are at risk from a severe coastal flood in 2050.
(www.climatecentral.org)
This is whataboutism.
relianceschool
joined 2 weeks ago
Average person will be 40% poorer if world warms by 4C, new research shows | Experts say previous economic models underestimated impact – as well as likely 'cascading supply chain disruptions'
Agreed. I'm getting tired of these pencil-pusher reports implying that "the economy" is going to keep chugging along at a reduced rate, as if we can just shuffle around our stock portfolios and weather the storm.
The "Planetary Solvency" report by IFoA is one of the first mainstream papers that's taking a sober look at the climate crisis. If we hit 2°C by 2050, they're seeing a significant likelihood of:
- 2 billion deaths
- High number of climate tipping points triggered, partial tipping cascade.
- Breakdown of some critical ecosystem services and Earth systems.
- Major extinction events in multiple geographies.
- Ocean circulation severely impacted.
- Severe socio-political fragmentation in many regions, low lying regions lost.
- Heat and water stress drive involuntary mass migration of billions.
- Catastrophic mortality events from disease, malnutrition, thirst and conflict.
I don't even want to think about 3°C and 4°C scenarios.
Jesuits are real ones. The Nazis considered them to be one of their "most dangerous enemies" due to their principled opposition. Glad to see they're keeping the flame alive.
Banks trying to take profits buying air conditioner stocks while society and the biosphere is crumbling around them is a perfect encapsulation of this crisis. I'm doing my best to laugh at the absurdity of it all, because the alternative is paralyzing depression.
If you're interested in the more fundamental dynamics at play here, I'd highly recommend giving these a watch:
94
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Youth-Led Climate Case. The Youth Say They Will Fight On
(insideclimatenews.org)
It's not only climate change... I like the visualization of the planetary boundaries from Wikipedia.
Thank you for sharing! I'm a big proponent of the planetary boundaries framework, it's a great way to visualize overshoot. While climate change is a big (perhaps the biggest) issue facing global civilization right now, it's extremely important that we don't get tunnel vision and try to solve for one variable without looking at our biosphere holistically. (That's how we get carbon capture and geoengineering.)
A few more links/resources for those interested:
- This is the Stockholm Resilience Centre's home page for planetary boundaries, showing the change in overshoot from 2009 (when the framework was established) to 2023.
- Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries is the corresponding paper for their 2023 update, which goes more in depth into each boundary and what constitutes a transgression.
The IPCC, FAO (UN), and the World Resources Institute put emissions from (all) agriculture at around 20%-25% of total emissions.
This article cites a single paper in opposition, which claims that emissions from animal agriculture are more than double that number. I don't have the time or expertise to comb through that paper with a critical eye, but the reports of the above organizations cite dozens of studies so it seems the weight of evidence is tilting towards the 20% figure.
This isn't to say that animal agriculture isn't an issue - it's a huge issue, and not just for the climate. But I think it's important to acknowledge that these emissions numbers aren't widely accepted.
Some key findings from this report:
- A review of 50 research articles finds there is strong evidence climate activism influences public opinion and media coverage, but it depends on the tactics used and the way the media covers the events.
- There is moderate evidence that climate activism influences voting behavior and policymaker attention.
- More research is needed on the influence of climate activism on policy change and environmental outcomes.
The YPCC summarized the findings below:
The review finds strong evidence that climate activism influences public opinion and media coverage, although the specific relationship depends on the kind of actions taken and the way the media covers the events. The evidence shows that protest usually increases support for the movement when protests are peaceful, but not when they are violent. But there was also evidence that the influence of activism on public perceptions could be positive or negative, depending on the tone of the media coverage of the protests.
The review found moderate evidence that climate activism can influence voting behavior and policymaker attention. One study in Germany found that areas that experienced Fridays for Future protests had a higher share of the vote go to the Green Party, and that repeated protests increased the effect. Multiple studies in the UK found that protests successfully increase communications by policymakers about climate change or pro-climate actions.
There was less evidence that climate activism leads directly to policy change or improvements in environmental quality. This is not necessarily because climate activism does not affect these outcomes or others we reviewed—it is likely because studies that capture these outcomes are difficult to conduct.
The IEA states that:
In 2024, 80% of the growth in global electricity generation was provided by renewable sources and nuclear power. Together, they contributed 40% of total generation for the first time, with renewables alone supplying 32%.
So 32% of new electricity generation in 2024 was provided by renewables. In 2023 renewables accounted for about 23% of electricity generation, and 13% of total energy consumption.
Record-Breaking Annual Growth in Renewable Power Capacity; With 585 GW of capacity additions, renewables accounted for over 90% of total power expansion globally in 2024.
I commented this in a related post, but according to the IEA, in 2024 renewables accounted for 38% of new energy generation, and 32% of new electricity generation. That's a big discrepancy from the 90% cited in this report, which refers to "renewable power capacity,"defined as:
the maximum net generating capacity of power plants and other installations that use renewable energy sources to produce electricity.
Not quite sure why that difference in definition leads to such different figures.
view more: next ›
I love linking this story in composting subs when people ask if citrus peels are OK! Great demonstration of the power of adding organic matter.
That said, it should be acknowledged that moisture and heat probably played a big role in how quickly the peels broke down and fed the soil; I don't think you'd get similar results in a dry/desert ecosystem.