Planet is 'way off track' in dealing with climate change, U.N. report says

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/multi-agency-report-highlights-increasing-signs-and-impacts-of-climate-change

by makerofspoons • 6 years ago

141 83 6 years ago

public.wmo.int

jl6• 6 years ago

Can’t help but feel the coronavirus lockdowns are a good trial run for a low carbon world: limited travel, local food and entertainment, less consumption of non-essentials.

deerIRL2• 6 years ago

It will be really interesting to see how much of an affect on Global Warming this Pandemic has had.

I'm hoping if we can learn any lessons from this, it is better pandemic planning and larger companies finally seeing the benefit of remote work.

usaar333• 6 years ago

Minimal. At best, we might be pushing the timeline out by a few months.

Remote work isn't even necessarily carbon positive. In hot or cold weather, transit emissions savings may be more than offset by increased HVAC usage at home.

[Though avoiding business flying is probably a clear positive]

gambiting• 6 years ago

Remember that any improvement in our emissions will temporarily make the situation worse because of the Aerosol Masking effect.

ttul• 6 years ago

The pandemic will briefly stop the growth of carbon emissions, just like the global financial crisis did.

pera• 6 years ago

I was going to mention the ridiculous situation with ghost flights, but it seems authorities are temporarily suspending this rule:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90476154/airlines-will-stop-coro...

paxys• 6 years ago

In the very short term, probably, but things are going to back to normal (or even worse) soon. Major companies have already said that the virus is going to cause them to miss their targets for carbon reduction.

For it to be a valid trial run, emissions have to be reduced while the world is running as normal.

swebs• 6 years ago

It cut China's emissions by 25% and will probably do the same to the rest of the world.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/coronavirus-china-...

est31• 6 years ago

The list of similarities is long. Coronavirus is also a global threat facing all of humanity. Similar to climate change deniers, there is tons of misinformation on the question in the internet. The poorest will suffer most in both instances.

twblalock2• 6 years ago

I think civil unrest, like what happened when the French government raised fuel taxes, is the most likely outcome of a low carbon world.

People are willing to suffer short-term privations, especially when they are afraid of getting the coronavirus. People are not willing to suffer for years to reduce their carbon footprints.

It's also notable that the burdens of reducing carbon emissions fall disproportionately on the poor. The fuel taxes in France are a perfect example.

shadowgovt2• 6 years ago

I hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse.

Even though it's unfair, if the choice is "the burdens fall on the poor" and "the burdens fall on everyone (including the poor, who will be hit harder because they have fewer resources in reserve to survive unplanned catastrophe)", the first option is better.

(... it's also a false forced choice; there are other options. But the question of poverty runs somewhat separate to the question of saving humanity from climate change).

fathead_glacier• 6 years ago

One of my lecturers once gave an anecdotal reductio ad absurdum argument of why it is difficult to reduce our carbon footprint: people are not willing to walk from the UK to France for a piece of cheese when they can just drive a few minutes to the store.

It is a difficult problem to solve for a reason.

manfredo4• 6 years ago

People are willing to suffer short-term privations, especially when they are afraid of getting the coronavirus. People are not willing to suffer for years to reduce their carbon footprints.

The French suffered higher overhead energy costs to make their electricity production >70% nuclear. The difference is that this long term suffering is much less severe than short-term suffering.

svara3• 6 years ago

It's also a great demonstration that it's really hard to get people to believe that something they can't see is real.

Coronavirus cases have been growing stably and predictably for weeks. Epidemiologists (and not only they) saw it coming. No panic would have been necessary if calm, decisive action had been taken early on. But somehow the panic seems to be necessary. Normalcy bias is real.

These past weeks have been really instructive about collective human behavior, and have me really worried about our ability as a species to address climate change.

avip• 6 years ago

Otoh you see collaborations s.a China sending medical aid to Italy, which makes me feel maybe we do deserve to survive after all.

hn_throwaway_99• 6 years ago

No panic would have been necessary if calm, decisive action had been taken early on.

I disagree. Shutting down major portions of the economy, and the resultant economic damage, would have been quite severe regardless of when it was implemented. Not saying there wouldn't have been less panic, but broad quarantines would have caused a lot of panic in any case.

lukifer2• 6 years ago

I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate: the problem with "trust the experts, despite contradiction of everyday experience", is that it opens a massive attack vector for moral hazard / perverse incentives, for those who seek to profit or gain power from leveraging expertise (whether real or perceived). History is replete with data points where the experts were wrong (bloodletting) or dishonest (Iraq invasion). Laypeople are stuck with a "trust your mechanic" problem, of not having the knowledge to assess which experts are trustworthy.

It's easy to mock anti-vaxxers, climate denialists, et al; while an honest inquiry leaves room for nuance, those issues seem to have definitive answers, where reality correlates closely with the so-called consensus. But at the same time, the knee-jerk anti-science reactions should be viewed through a lens of general declining social trust in institutions. Even though those particular issues may be the wrong fields of combat, there's a subconscious sense in which everyday people feel lied to for decades by "experts". Now we're stuck in a boy-who-cried-wolf situation, where the actual experts who are honest brokers and have their shit together aren't being taken seriously. Trust is hard-won and easily lost, and there are massive downstream effects to corruption in truth-finding/sense-making institutions.

manfredo4• 6 years ago

Don't confuse disagreement on the severity of its consequences with disbelief in the phenomenon itself. For the coronavirus, it's an infection with a mortality rate ~20x higher[1] than the flu concentrated among people older than working age. If we want to reduce as much loss of life as possible then yeah we should shut down the country. But it doesn't present a threat to the long term success of society (heck, a cynic might even point out that retirees dying in greater numbers will make social security more affordable), and so many do conclude that decisive action is unwarranted.

1. The most in-depth writeup I've found reports a fatality rate of ~5x higher after more widespread testing: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/03/12/how-dead...

nixpulvis4• 6 years ago

I recall reading something about how stopping emissions outright would have a pretty dramatic adverse effect on global temperatures, because while the greenhouse effect is of course real, the emissions also act as reflection for incoming solar energy. This makes me wonder if we can fix this problem without real innovation, not just global production collapse (which is bad for other reasons, obviously).

If anyone can remind me about what I'm thinking of here, that would be awesome... or prove me wrong.

I'm by no means saying we shouldn't be planning and building more sustainable solutions (both policy and products), since that's EXACTLY what we need to be doing. I'm just also saying that to make this all work, I think we need to do more.

cosmic_shame• 6 years ago

It's called the aerosol masking effect, and it's terrifying.

SamBam2• 6 years ago

I'd be interested in reading more. It seems counter-intuitive -- the emissions that are already in the atmosphere would still be doing any reflection that they are currently doing.

And whatever shielding they're doing, the net effect of every ton of CO2 is in the direction of more warming.

agumonkey• 6 years ago

also:

- relocalization of industries

- more budget for health

buboard• 6 years ago

I hope it has long term effects. Tons of companies are trying remote work for the first time, hopefully some of it will stick. Commute emissions are like 8% of total

baxtr• 6 years ago

Jap. But not only local entertainment. Netflix et al too

Toine• 6 years ago

Only way to deal with this problem is to reduce world GDP by 90%. Won't happen. Prepare for the worst.

Der_Einzige• 6 years ago

hahahahahaha you're going to eat your words when this is all over

Coronavirus might not get it down by 90% but 50% is certainly possible.

MFLoon• 6 years ago

That's an inane take. Even in the absolute worst case scenario of 3% global mortality, how would that possibly result in a 50% global decrease in economic output?

vaidhy• 6 years ago

I am always amused by headlines like this. I do not understand why the people expect earth to react to keep humans alive. Earth does what it does. We do what we do and should be willing to face the consequences.

jwilk• 6 years ago

The submission title is editoralized. It poorly paraphrases this quote:

We are currently way off track to meeting either the 1.5°C or 2°C targets that the Paris Agreement calls for

The article doesn't use the words "planet" or "Earth".

JohnFen3• 6 years ago

Indeed. This is a point I frequently make to people who say things like "we're destroying the Earth" or "we're destroying nature".

We're not. The Earth, and nature, will be just fine. The question is whether or not the planet will remain conducive to human life.

boo_boo• 6 years ago

The people you talk to must be so grateful for having a pedant around to correct them

jvanderbot• 6 years ago

Now here's a crisis we can deal with. I hope COVID's rapid and haphazard response will teach us drastic changes are not so terrible and not so scarey when implemented slowly.

SamBam2• 6 years ago

Honestly, I feel like the world leaders' confused, belated, contradictory, and deceitful response to COVID is still miles better than their response to climate change.

Just imagine if climate change today were being met by the kinds of panicked direct interventions, quick decisions, and money being released the way is (fortunately) happening for COVID.

The problem is that climate change is still more like the proverbial frog in hot water, while COVID is more like a frying pan.

DFHippie• 6 years ago

COVID kills old people, so the people in power (the ones competent to protect their own interests) have taken notice.

CiPHPerCoder3• 6 years ago

I don't believe we'll ever succeed in dealing with climate change. It's going to kill us all and the people in power will refuse to accept responsibility the whole while.

Happy to be proven wrong!

geddy2• 6 years ago

Agreed, and also I hope to be proven wrong. People don't want to change, by nature. Humans are terribly flawed. The last two people alive on earth will be pointing fingers at each other moments before they perish.

Hamuko• 6 years ago

The last two people alive on earth will be pointing fingers at each other moments before they perish.

Doesn't really work with the fact that there's about 7.7 billion people.

sturza• 6 years ago

but it will increase shareholder value.

kcindric• 6 years ago

I agree, but I'm interested to see will we see the fall during our generation or the next one will experience it. Bringing children to this world seems selfish.

dumbfoundded2• 6 years ago

I actually believe we're in one of the best times to bring children into this world. Child mortality has dramatically fallen.

We just live in an age where we're hyper-aware of our actions. I believe if we get out of an emergency, "we're all going to die" mindset, we may actually have a chance.

nixpulvis4• 6 years ago

Dylan Thomas once wrote this appropriate poem:

---

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

---

(EDIT: HN formatting doesn't like poems)

hirundo3• 6 years ago

It's not going to decimate us or kill half of us or most of us, it's going to kill us all? What scenarios get us from here to there, such that nobody can adapt to the changes? Is this hyperbole or do you really think that human extinction is the probable result of AGW?

geddy2• 6 years ago

It's an interesting thought. Mass displacement will be a huge issue though. While we do have plenty of landmass in theory, migration of major cities is just.. I cannot possibly fathom how that could ever be organized. We'd panic, loot grocery stores, rob pharmacies, etc. I mean look at what this pandemic has done. You can't even buy cans of beans or toilet paper! My local store is out of bags of dry rice. Of _rice_.

I don't recall where I heard it but before I knew it was a quote, I used to say this all the time: humanity is three square meals away from total annihilation. One day without food and humans will revert right back to our caveman "attack other human, take food" lizard brains.

I definitely went a little off topic from your original post but, "adapt to the changes" isn't honestly something I can fathom happening. I don't know where you live - be it a city or suburbs or otherwise - but think about 30 million people showing up and tell me that doesn't end in a massive disaster.

manfredo4• 6 years ago

The end of human industrialized civilization is only a reasonable outcome as a secondary effect (e.g nuclear war destroying most of society). And even then I'm dubious if we'd reach human extinction rather than just the end of industrial society.

Even with 5 or 7 degrees celsius warming there's still a lot of habitable land. The main concern is that agricultural capacity will be lower overall. This will disproportionately impact poorer countries that have less resources to do things like improve irrigation infrastructure, or set up large thermonuclear desalination plants to cope with lower water supply.

AnIdiotOnTheNet• 6 years ago

Don't put this on the people in power, it's people in general who refuse to accept responsibility or change.

CiPHPerCoder3• 6 years ago

Power comes with responsibility that the powerless do not necessarily assume.

rnd03• 6 years ago

People in power do and believe what they are told to do and believe. For evidence see the iraq war, the war on terror, etc.

It's on the people in power. If they wanted, they could use the resources at their disposal (media, etc) to change people's opinions almost over-night.

The way they did after 9/11.

It is absolutely on them; and on no one else.

rnd03• 6 years ago

Agreed, particularly in the U.S.

It's very unlikely that Biden will take significantly more steps to deal with climate change than Trump will.

The political will to deal with climate change simply isn't there; it would piss off too many lobbyists.

_bxg12• 6 years ago

Poor timing for the publication of this report, to be honest. People have finite emotional capacity for dealing with stress/threats. Most people right now, with the coronavirus going, probably don't have the energy to spend on caring about this, so instead they'll just detach from it (I know that's what I find myself doing). Waiting a month or two would've likely meant a stronger impact.

lotsofpulp• 6 years ago

People have been ignoring it for decades now, and it's not going to change due to another UN report regardless of timing. Everyone wants the upper middle class US lifestyle, and the future will have to pay for it.

_bxg12• 6 years ago

If they did the report, it's because they hoped to make an impact. All I'm suggesting is that whatever impact they were hoping to make, it could've been larger with better timing. Your defeatism has no relevance to that question one way or the other.

ISL• 6 years ago

Don't worry, we'll still be "way off track" in two months, and we can bang the drum again then.

It is a drum that needs a lot of banging.

The slowing of economic activity from Covid-19 is going to make it possible to test many climate and environmental models in ways climate-modelers couldn't have dreamed up six months ago. It is possible that Covid-19 will teach our present generations a lot about collective global action. The novel coronavirus is small potatoes in magnitude relative to the impact of climate change, but the timescale makes Covid-19 far more acute.

DoofusOfDeath• 6 years ago

I don't want to be pessimistic, but I'm working on the assumption that we won't (collectively) enact any plan that (requires coordinated sacrifice of multiple countries) but (allows some country to gain economic / military advantage by gaming the system at others' expense).

So I'm assuming that it's smartest to assume climate change will happen without significant mitigation, and try to minimize the suffering that results.

Now that I think about it, this reminds me a lot of our response to covid-19: I always assumed people lacked the political will for real containment, and we should focus our efforts on "flatting the curve" instead.

Planet is 'way off track' in dealing with climate change, U.N. report says

Related Stories