With evidence mounting on the failure to limit global warming to 1.5C, do you think global carbon emissions will be low enough by 2050 to at least avoid the most catastrophic climate change doomsday scenarios forecast by the turn of the century?
I am somewhat hopeful most developed countries will get there but I wonder if developing countries will have the ability and inclination to buy into it as well.
We’ll not meet the goal limit, climate will change, the poor will suffer all the consequences, the rich will be mildly inconvenienced. Habitats will be destroyed, species will go extinct, life will go on.
Pretty much. The outcome is simple. By 2050, the rich will start moving their houses north-er than they already do, south asia and europe will be considered pre-tropical. America will start hearing the words “desertification” but people on the south border will still vote against their interests.
By 2150 the rich, whose numbers will already be severely culled, will run out of North to run to.
species will go extinct, life will go on
Bro did you just contradict yourself on the same sentence?
It depends on if the super-wealthy can figure out how to make money off of it. If they can then all the politicians will fall in line because you don’t say no to your main source of income.
This is exactly the reason we are not going to succeed. I’ve already come to terms with it. We’re fucked.
Lol, no. Considering the three largest sources of emissions as far as countries are concerned are about 50% of the global total, refuse to take action, nothing is going to change.
I daresay India and China will be CO2 free before the western states. The West is too concerned with not loosing an inch of the status quo of current behavior. It’ll shoot itself in the foot by electing fascists with their go-back-to-the-good-old-days-without-migrants promises.
But the developing countries also will be much too late.
I don’t think 2-2.5 degrees are realistic. I mean for 2050, probably yes, but it won’t stop there. There are several tipping points that’ll help shoot far beyond that.
I think the world will settle between 4 and 5 degrees late this century and it will be a world with quite a smaller number of humans than we have nowadays.
It wouldn’t have to be that way. Siberia could become farmland and take on half of the African population, for example. But Russia won’t stand for that.
4 degrees is the apocalyptic scenario. The vast majority of oxygen in the atmosphere is provided not by trees or any plants, but by the algae and cyanobacteria in the ocean. At the 4 degree threshold, they can’t do aerobic respiration anymore, so they switch to anaerobic respiration. This means they stop producing oxygen, drastically reducing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and drastically increasing the carbon dioxide. This does two things: kills any large fauna, humans included, and the additional carbon dioxide continues to act as a greenhouse gas, accelerating the effect even further. Eventually, after almost all oxygen breathing life is dead, we reach equilibrium, assuming your definition of 'we" includes insects, because that’s basically all that would be left. If there’s a risk of reaching the 4 degree threshold, we would be forced into taking our chances with the literal nuclear option of deliberately inducing a nuclear winter.
Yep in the UK.the electorate just punished a party in a by-election for brining in controls.om.vehicle.emiasions.(ULEZ) in one of the most connected cities on the world. The area of.uxbridhe and Ruislip has no less.than 3 tube lines another mainline rail and busses with wait.times measured in minutes. But no when the. Chips.were.down the mayor is bad for.trying.to clean air.
Nope. Net-zero emissions by 2050 is a vague sham of a goal supported by the fossil fuel industry. Big oil actually plans to INCREASE fossil fuel production and use “planting trees” and “carbon capture” to justify expansion of resource consumption.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16072020/oil-gas-climate-pledges-bp-shell-exxon/
