Remember what Greta Thunberg has said?

"I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act."

The opinion piece below from Bloomberg/WaPo seems to agree with her...
____________________________

"Global Heat Records Are Falling. A Little Panic Might Be in Order."

The planet could easily set a record-high average temperature in 2023, especially with an El Niño weather pattern kicking in later this year. We have already suffered through the hottest early June on record, with global land temperatures briefly touching 1.5C above the pre-industrial average. Ocean temperatures this spring have been the hottest ever at this time of year, in records going back 174 years.

Many people, including myself, have warned against panicking about such stunning new highs, given the temporary nature of El Niño’s boost. Even if we temporarily hit 1.5C of warming this year, it will still be theoretically possible to avoid long-term warming beyond that level and all the catastrophic consequences that would come with it.

But first we must kick our fossil-fuel addiction and stop spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And judging by how little the world’s policymakers seem to be interested in taking such steps, perhaps just a smidgen of panic might be helpful.

Scientists agree the world must zero out its emissions by 2050 in order to keep warming to 1.5C, a target set at the Paris climate accords in 2015. And so far 95 countries have made "net-zero" pledges.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the vast majority of those pledges aren’t credible. Current policies and practices have the world on pace to hit nearly 3C of warming by the end of the century. Even the most dependable net-zero pledges would still lead to close to 2.5C of warming, a recent study found.

One big problem is that significant numbers of "net-zero" countries have zero plans to stop burning oil, gas, and coal, according to a new study from the Stockholm Environment Institute. Of the 95 pledging countries, 45 talk about "continuing or expanding fossil-fuel production" right there in their net-zero pledges, according to the study. Only 5 of the 95 countries, in contrast, discuss transitioning out of fossil-fuel production as part of their net-zero pledges.
____________________________

FULL ARTICLE -- https://archive.is/uz5Nr#selection-341.0-341.66

#Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency #ClimateAction #CO2 #Emissions #Capitalism #BusinessAsUsual

@breadandcircuses

""I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act."

I think those were her most powerful words.

She was completely correct in this regard. Problem of our time has been people not panicking enough. Especially us all who live in the wealthy, industrialized world.

At this point, change won't come from within the system. At least not at a pace as it'd be required to avoid the worst case scenarios.

And sorry to spoil the party, but anything beyond +2°C will be a devastating, terrible scenario. Maybe not for everyone in the global north, but for most of the global south, it'll probably mean death.

And then some politicians and capitalist puppets blather about the need to simply "adopt" to a world of +3°C...I mean, seriously...

Here, have a very conservative prediction of what the various temperatures could actually mean: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/backgrounder___comparing_climate_impacts_at_1_5c__2c__3c_4c.pdf (WWF source)

And now consider that these are based on what science knows, not what shocks them like the current warming of the ocean, or other effects scientists cannot clearly explain...happening at +1.2° C

Sometimes when I catch some of what media outlets write or listen to some of our politicians, I feel like I'm surrounded by clowns. /sigh

@TobiWanKenobi @breadandcircuses But it might be inconvenient to do what needs to be done. However, things like massive forest fires every year and lperpetual fire seasons seems even more inconvenient. Yes, we can't fix it on an individual level but do we really need to buy trucks and SUVs that just get bigger and bigger?

@tmstreet

Yes, people can help climate change by adjusting their habits. But there's something else we can do on an individual level; something that is far more important.

Band together and change our current system.

We won't solve any #ClimateCrisis or #socialinequality under capitalist rule.

The first step towards getting the necessary, drastic changes started would be for the people to take back control over their lives. We cannot change anything if we don't have full control over things. And we need to change a lot. Really a lot.

The idea that #climatechange will be fixed by people eating less meat and driving less SUVs/trucks sounds nice, but is nothing but capitalist propaganda.

As long as a small group of people is allowed to own such ridiculous amounts of money (power) and assets that they can virtually influence any policymaking, they'll steadily sabotage any attempt to fix things. Out of sheer interest to keep their power.

On top of that, these people also count as the biggest CO² emitters on this planet.

@breadandcircuses

@TobiWanKenobi @tmstreet @breadandcircuses So in a way, starting with the burgeoning smokestacks of the Industrial Age, rampant capitalism, it’s insistence on “growth” through advertising causing unnecessary wants vs needs, and the resultant concentration of wealth and power in a very small segment of the population is the primary cause for climate change and the major reason we will never achieve the necessary changes in order to reverse it.

@bouriquet

Capitalism needs energy and technological advancement to fuel its growth. And growth is an elementary part of capitalism. You cannot remove it.

And infinite growth on a finite planet does not work. Period

So even if you switch your entire industry to CO²-free energy, and if we ignore all the resources and nature destruction needed to avail this energy, then the economy would still grow, and we'd continuously need more energy.

Add to this the competitive nature of capitalism, where monopolies are the final form in any market section, and you know that you won't be able to act against the owners of those monopolies. Not within the ruleset, at least.

So you're basically stuck with an ever-growing economy ruled by a few mega corporations which quickly absorb all new technologies while constantly searching for new ways of exploitation in order to get ahead of the other mega corporations. 😞

@tmstreet @breadandcircuses

@TobiWanKenobi @bouriquet @tmstreet @breadandcircuses Incorrect. Growth refers to growth of productivity, which refers to higher output per input. Higher carrying capacity of a resource base.

Criticism of capitalism is fine but degrowth is a democidal ideology.

@ostrich @TobiWanKenobi @tmstreet @breadandcircuses noooo. Growth in sales and profits is all they cared about. Tax laws allowed write offs of input
@bouriquet @TobiWanKenobi @tmstreet @breadandcircuses Dude, please, come on, you don't seriously believe tax write-offs constitute a significant enough benefit to be a motivation to waste.
@bouriquet @TobiWanKenobi @tmstreet @breadandcircuses The issue is that any system, even anti-capitalist systems, that fail to fully internalize the externalities of emissions, pollution, etc. are doomed to destroy the environment efficiently. A firmly-enforced carbon tax would do this. You don't have to overthrow the whole system to accomplish it either, you just have to overthrow the right wing.

@ostrich

The right-wing is a product of capitalism, Why? Because this system has produced a huge level of inequality while keeping significant parts of societies dumb. At the same time private-funded media and social media (both belonging to capitalists) spread lies and half truths to make an easy buck and to distract from the true issues of society.

In the first place, you cannot even call these people true right-wingers since it's not like they're acting in the interest of their country. Many of the neo-fascists all over the world are networking and supporting Russia's imperial invasion war. Something which does not make any sense for an American nationalist, now does it?

"You don't have to overthrow the whole system to accomplish it either, you just have to overthrow the right wing."

Because of how the system is set up, that demand has no chance of coming true. The right-wing is backed by powerful capitalists. The only chance for you to "only overthrow the right-wing" would be to get most of the other capitalists on your side. Good luck with that.

Of course, you could dampen the negative effects of the capitalist system by enforcing high and significant carbon taxes, death taxes, wealth taxes, etc. But, did you consider why those things haven't been in place for decades?

We actually have a carbon tax in my country. Take a guess how high it is and then look up how high the tax would need to be in order to actually reflect the damage done by CO² emission, and then consider the consequences of it. I'll spoil you: Your demand for such a tax actually aligns with my demand to destroy the capitalist system.

"Incorrect. Growth refers to growth of productivity, which refers to higher output per input."

Growth refers to total growth. It can mean growth through improved efficiency in production, but it can also mean a simple increase of the output to fulfill demand, or exploitation of new markets, for example. You're just redefining growth to efficiency. The underlying financial system of capitalism needs economical growth, but it doesn't care where it comes from.

@bouriquet @tmstreet @breadandcircuses

@TobiWanKenobi @bouriquet @tmstreet @breadandcircuses I disagree, the right wing is an active movement of will. The ascription of that existing evil to "material conditions" serves to exonerate them from active destruction of humanity. You cannot contextualize that.