Sixth IPCC Report

[Fishnut]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

[monkey]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

I think that depends on who you count as "we"

I suspect us Rich Westerners will be able to afford to adapt, while many in the Global South won't be able to.

[Woodchopper]

I started a new thread on the report

[Bird on a Fire]

I haven't read today's IPCC report. I have been in bed all day with palpitations - not 100% sure if it's related.

This thread covering the recent updates is good https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/142 ... 21569?s=19 - I don't think there's any huge surprises in there.

The big change for me is the increased certainty of predictions. We're going to hit 1.5°C of warming, probably by the end of the decade, so the Paris Agreement is kind of f.cked.

But it's still worth fighting to keep below 2°C, or generally as low as possible. For instance, 2°C (or more precisely acidification caused by emitting that much carbon) means the loss of all calcifying corals, as opposed to merely 70-80% of it.


The other point is that, just as we're flying towards tipping points in earth and ecological systems, we may be about to find tipping points in human behaviour too. Just as those of us who've been taking an interest for decades are giving up in despair, normal people en masse are starting to get concerned.

If that translates into effective mass mobilisations, it could have an impact - strikes, sabotage, direct action, rather than marches and clicktivism. People all over the world have just spent the last 18 months having to drag their hopeless politicians by the ear towards doing things approximately based on science. Maybe they can keep it up. It'll be worth it.


Conservation of remaining ecosystems becomes even more crucial. Ecological restoration of wetlands, grasslands and (mainly tropical) forests likewise, as well as various marine habitats.

Pushing for better treatment of refugees takes on renewed urgency, as numbers of them will be doing that hockey-stick thing too.


f.cked isn't, as the saying goes, Boolean. We're definitely more f.cked than we want to be. More f.cked than world leaders promised to try not to be 5 years ago in France. But we can still struggle to be less f.cked than "very, very f.cked indeed".

But yeah. f.ck.

[Fishnut]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

I think that depends on who you count as "we"

I suspect us Rich Westerners will be able to afford to adapt, while many in the Global South won't be able to.

Eight dead as wildfires continue to rage across southern Europe (05/08/21)
Entire town destroyed by Californian wildfires (06/08/21)
At least 188 people died in flooding in Germany last month (18/07/21)
More than 2,500 deaths linked to last year's UK heatwave

This isn't something happening "over there". It's here too. And so far we're doing a really sh.t job of "adapting".

[Bird on a Fire]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

I think that depends on who you count as "we"

I suspect us Rich Westerners will be able to afford to adapt, while many in the Global South won't be able to.

Well, apart from the rich westerners whose homes are currently on fire, or were washed away in floods, or hit by big storms, or will be in the next years. ETA as Fishninja points out.

Flood defences are too expensive to save everyone's homes. There's no such thing as fire defences. So a bunch of rich western communities will have to relocate or die.

Unless governments sort out their head-in-sand approach rapidly, people will be losing their investments, pensions, jobs and homes. States may step in with support, like they did with Grenfell, but some people will slip through the gaps.

Plus the farmers and fishers who'll lose their livelihoods, hollowing out rural and coastal communities.

Tensions over food and water supplies will probably drag us into more wars and civil unrest.

Which will all be compounded by the next pandemic, as the systemic issues that caused this one are still accelerating, partly as a consequence of climate change.


The funny thing with drastically altering the climate of the entire planet at an unprecedented speed is that it's going to affect everybody at once. There's nowhere to buy a ticket to. Even if those billionaire c.nts get their spacecocks working in time, they can't just orbit while cryogenically frozen till the planet gets fixed like something out of Austin Powers. And I suspect none of "us" have the necessary wealth anyway.

So, no. Pretty much all of us are, to some extent, f.cked.

[Bird on a Fire]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

I think that depends on who you count as "we"

I suspect us Rich Westerners will be able to afford to adapt, while many in the Global South won't be able to.

Eight dead as wildfires continue to rage across southern Europe (05/08/21)
Entire town destroyed by Californian wildfires (06/08/21)
At least 188 people died in flooding in Germany last month (18/07/21)
More than 2,500 deaths linked to last year's UK heatwave

This isn't something happening "over there". It's here too. And so far we're doing a really sh.t job of "adapting".

Adapting is quite plainly more expensive and more disruptive than transitioning.

The only problem is political inertia caused by powerful vested interests.

[Bird on a Fire]

If you want to explore future climate scenarios where you live, IPCC have put out this fun* interactive tool https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/

*Well, fun for fans of existential terror anyway

[monkey]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

I think that depends on who you count as "we"

I suspect us Rich Westerners will be able to afford to adapt, while many in the Global South won't be able to.

Eight dead as wildfires continue to rage across southern Europe (05/08/21)
Entire town destroyed by Californian wildfires (06/08/21)
At least 188 people died in flooding in Germany last month (18/07/21)
More than 2,500 deaths linked to last year's UK heatwave

This isn't something happening "over there". It's here too. And so far we're doing a really sh.t job of "adapting".

Never said we were doing a good job at anything, or that there would be no effects in the West. Or that adaption is the best way forward, or that we shouldn't have already started trying to sort this out decades ago.

I just wanted to point out that in relative terms, some are going to be a lot more f.cked than others, and the prosperity of the country you live in is going be a factor in this.

I could have used more accurate language, apologies.

[Fishnut]

I promise I'm not picking on this particular twitter thread, it's just an example of the sort of thing I see in lots of places. In this thread - and many places elsewhere - we're told to not despair, that there's lots of things we can do to tackle climate and we should focus on the positives. It admits that individual decisions are only part of the problem and it's the system that needs changing. But the list of things we can do to change the system is as follows:
- go on climate marches
- vote for parties which prioritise the environment
- support environmental charities

I know I'm feeling incredibly pessimistic about everything which is probably clouding my judgement but f.ck those seem toothless.

Climate marches may achieve something, I don't know, and they can't hurt but the government seems to be singularly disinclined to care what protesters say. Protesting didn't stop the Iraq war, it didn't stop tuition fee rises, it didn't stop Brexit, there's been no signs to suggest it's going to change the substance of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Maybe protesting will influence companies, I certainly hope so, and there are examples of companies doing the right thing voluntarily, but they are few and far between.

My vote in national elections hasn't once mattered in the 20+ years I've been eligible to vote. Writing to my MP does f.ck-all because I, like a huge number of other people in this country, am in a safe seat. Stick a rosette of the right colour on a cow and they'd get elected.

Supporting environmental charities requires disposable income which isn't something everyone has.

I get there's no simple solution but these feel more about making peple feel better than they do about creating any meaningful change. Oh, I waved a placard and I wrote an email to my MP which he never saw because his secretary is a master gatekeeper and I donated a couple of quid to the local Wildlife Trust. That's really going to make the government listen come COP26

Are there any actually effective things an individual can do to change the system? Or is it all symbolic stuff in the hopes that those with actual power decide to take note?

[Millennie Al]

People all over the world have just spent the last 18 months having to drag their hopeless politicians by the ear towards doing things approximately based on science.

Have you been living in the same world as me? What I have seen is politicians tenaciously hanging on to positions which ignore science and getting support from enough people to allow them to do so. Remember Boris leaving the first lockdown too late? And insisting on saving Christmas? In what way has he changed to a science-based approach? Or what about America? Surely change there was mostly driven by Trump ceasing to be president - though individual states have much more autonomy. Who are these world leaders who have changed?

[jimbob]

People all over the world have just spent the last 18 months having to drag their hopeless politicians by the ear towards doing things approximately based on science.

Have you been living in the same world as me? What I have seen is politicians tenaciously hanging on to positions which ignore science and getting support from enough people to allow them to do so. Remember Boris leaving the first lockdown too late? And insisting on saving Christmas? In what way has he changed to a science-based approach? Or what about America? Surely change there was mostly driven by Trump ceasing to be president - though individual states have much more autonomy. Who are these world leaders who have changed?

You both seem to be saying the same thing.

[Woodchopper]

I promise I'm not picking on this particular twitter thread, it's just an example of the sort of thing I see in lots of places. In this thread - and many places elsewhere - we're told to not despair, that there's lots of things we can do to tackle climate and we should focus on the positives. It admits that individual decisions are only part of the problem and it's the system that needs changing. But the list of things we can do to change the system is as follows:
- go on climate marches
- vote for parties which prioritise the environment
- support environmental charities

I know I'm feeling incredibly pessimistic about everything which is probably clouding my judgement but f.ck those seem toothless.

Climate marches may achieve something, I don't know, and they can't hurt but the government seems to be singularly disinclined to care what protesters say. Protesting didn't stop the Iraq war, it didn't stop tuition fee rises, it didn't stop Brexit, there's been no signs to suggest it's going to change the substance of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Maybe protesting will influence companies, I certainly hope so, and there are examples of companies doing the right thing voluntarily, but they are few and far between.

My vote in national elections hasn't once mattered in the 20+ years I've been eligible to vote. Writing to my MP does f.ck-all because I, like a huge number of other people in this country, am in a safe seat. Stick a rosette of the right colour on a cow and they'd get elected.

Supporting environmental charities requires disposable income which isn't something everyone has.

I get there's no simple solution but these feel more about making peple feel better than they do about creating any meaningful change. Oh, I waved a placard and I wrote an email to my MP which he never saw because his secretary is a master gatekeeper and I donated a couple of quid to the local Wildlife Trust. That's really going to make the government listen come COP26

Are there any actually effective things an individual can do to change the system? Or is it all symbolic stuff in the hopes that those with actual power decide to take note?

I agree. According to this:

The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget –twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population

[...]

The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people) were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions – depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in those 25 years alone

[...]

The richest 5% (c.315 million people) were responsible for over a third (37%) of the total growth in emissions (see Figure 2), while the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that of the poorest 50%

Get, say, the top 5% to reduce their consumption down to, say, that of an average European and much of the problem would be solved.

There is an effective way to reduce consumption by the rich. Just bring in very heavy taxes on the high carbon products and services they are spending money on. Let them fly in economy like the rest of us.

The biggest obstacles are the ability of the top 5% to lobby governments, and the need to coordinate among governments to stop them just moving country. The latter isn't that hard as most of them don't want to live in obscure tax havens. But it would require coordination among developed countries.

[Bird on a Fire]

Yes. If we come out of Cop26 with an effective carbon tax I'll be delighted.

[Bird on a Fire]

People all over the world have just spent the last 18 months having to drag their hopeless politicians by the ear towards doing things approximately based on science.

Have you been living in the same world as me? What I have seen is politicians tenaciously hanging on to positions which ignore science and getting support from enough people to allow them to do so. Remember Boris leaving the first lockdown too late? And insisting on saving Christmas? In what way has he changed to a science-based approach? Or what about America? Surely change there was mostly driven by Trump ceasing to be president - though individual states have much more autonomy. Who are these world leaders who have changed?

You both seem to be saying the same thing.

Yes. There were plenty of occasions in many countries where people started staying at home before lockdowns were ordered, for example, which forced governments' hands a bit. Lockdowns often came too late, but they probably only came at all because enough ordinary people were behaving sensibly.

Of course governments haven't changed their priorities. I never said they did, and don't expect they would. But they can be forced. People need to stop expecting them to do the right thing if only they had enough information, and realise that they are deliberately obstructing progress and need to be fought.

Obviously during a pandemic there are limits to what people can do. But with most people back in the world there can be strikes, protests, direct action etc etc to make governments do what people want them to.

[IvanV]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

More precisely, major climate changes are inevitable and irreversible. So whilst we need to carry on trying to minimise the size of that, the reality is that we will have to adapt to it, as well.

We can have a semantic discussion over how bad it has to be to describe it as "f.cked". I would argue that for the foreseeable, I don't expect to be as f.cked as for example we were by the collapse of the western Roman Empire.

The good news is that over the last century or so, humanity has done exceedingly well in reducing the cost of natural disasters. That cost has been falling consistently and substantially as a proportion of world GDP. This is despite the fact that the total cost of those disasters has been increasing fast, the economy has been increasing much faster. The total cost increases because population grows and puts more people at risk of natural disasters, and economic growth puts more property, and more valuable property, at risk of natural disasters. Nevertheless, that total cost is a falling proportion of our economy. We have been very successful at containing the damage - especially in lives - of such events by implementing very effective mitigation measures.

So I expect we will continue to be good at putting in place such mitigation measures, and carry on with our, different, lives with the changes in risks and concerns. Indeed we humans, sadly, will be able to respond to the threats posed by these changes far more effectively than most other species. Indeed we wealthy humans in the wealthy countries, sadly, will be able to respond to the threats posed by these changes far more effectively than less wealthy humans.

The single largest change of the last 2000 years that damaged our economic well-being was the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It reduced the economic well-being of the society in that area by a large amount, to the extent that the populations were reduced, that major cities lost as much as 90% of their population as the infrastructure to suppor such large cities collapsed (Rome itself had a population of around 1m and fell to a few tens of thousands). And long-term instability produced famines much as is going on in Tigray just now, except it went on for centuries.

I think we are a bit more resilient these days, and probably we won't be as f.cked as that. Until sea-level change starts to be measured in 10s of metres, anyway.

[lpm]

Not disputing the fall of the Roman Empire as being number one fuckedness, but the mass starvation in Europe in WW2 is probably more relevant - closer parallels to modern distribution and international interconnectedness of goods and food.

In WW2 a powerful nation - Germany - didn't want its people to starve so deliberately selected other populations to starve instead. Namely Russians/Ukrainians, Poland and Jews. Greece and Holland were given higher priority so starved less, e.g. only 25,000 people starved to death in Holland and only 300,000 in Greece. It's likely we will see similar choices being made by the powerful countries in the coming fuckedicity when they seek to protect their own citizens.

The process in climate breakdown would begin with rich countries cutting foreign aid. When a cyclone wipes out chunks of Bangladesh, little international help will come in.

The next step is protectionism, with countries like the USA breaking trade treaties and having America First policies.

The third step is active control over resources. For example China not relying on money to buy rare metals from an African country, but using its local military bases and corruption of government to physically seize mines and transport links.

All three steps have already been started.

[Bird on a Fire]

Yes yes. I think we can all agree that by the middle of the century the numbers of deaths will probably be in the millions, and displacements the hundreds of millions, and that most of the worst impacts will be on poor, black and brown people.

Maybe it's just because I'm almost certain to actually be alive to see it, but I'm not quite as ready to just accept that, as clever as posting to that effect would doubtless make me look.

There's a huge amount of work to be done to minimise and mitigate the coming damage. The degree of fuckedness is by no means inevitable, and I'd much rather live in two degrees f.cked than the three governments are leading us towards.

[Fishnut]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

More precisely, major climate changes are inevitable and irreversible.

Sorry for being obtuse, but how exactly is this "more precise"?

[IvanV]

Yes yes. I think we can all agree that by the middle of the century the numbers of deaths will probably be in the millions, and displacements the hundreds of millions, and that most of the worst impacts will be on poor, black and brown people.

Some sources indicate that global heat-related deaths are currently 5 million a year. So it's not clear to me even very impressionistically what size of deterioration you have in mind.

One of the things that gives me heart that action will be taken to contain it, even in poorer places, is that poorer places have in the past done that when they suffered regularly. Examples I would note include such beacons of wealth and organisation as the Phililppines and Bangladesh. And they did that at a time when their economic status remained well below their present conditions. A big difference is whether such events are sufficiently frequent, and the point is that some places will be experiencing increases in the frequency of disastrous events.

So yes, the kind of places you mention will be most badly hit. But far from all of them are failed or near-failed states like Somalia and the Central African Republic. Many of them will be able to react. Mozambique, for example, clearly was not all used to experiencing the kind of tropical storm that caused such a disaster a year or two ago there. Nor Myanmar the even larger disaster a few years before that. But then that kind of thing rarely happens in Mozambique or Myanmar. Each of those are currently suffering political instability, and it remains to be seen how that plays out. But if they do stabilise, then they just as capable of reacting as the Philippines and Bangladesh were in their poorer past.

[IvanV]

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible

We are f.cked.

More precisely, major climate changes are inevitable and irreversible.

Sorry for being obtuse, but how exactly is this "more precise"?

Probably more my own obtuseness in thinking that I might be understood, or even that what I said made sense. Or that anyone would ever understand my complex jokes. They usually don't, even after lengthy explanation, and I tend to forget this.

What I meant, as I hope was clear in what followed, is that

(a) The first statement is precise. It says that a change is taking place, which is either precisely true or precisely false. (We agree true.) Though clearly some kinds of true/false statement are iabmctt, and probably this is a case, but since we both agree it is clear enough to be true, it doesn't matter.)
(b) The second statement is imprecise. It attempts to put a size on the change. But the measure of the size of the change, "f.ck.d", is imprecise.

That was a way of leading into my optimistic hope that, since what was happening was inevitable, humanity would use its ingenuity to mitigate the size of the effect to less than "f.ck.d", if you think "f.ck.d" is a very large measure.

And any joke that needs explaining is a bad joke, and one that takes 3 paragraphs to explain is a very bad joke. I should learn.

[lpm]

Yes yes. I think we can all agree that by the middle of the century the numbers of deaths will probably be in the millions, and displacements the hundreds of millions, and that most of the worst impacts will be on poor, black and brown people.

Some sources indicate that global heat-related deaths are currently 5 million a year. So it's not clear to me even very impressionistically what size of deterioration you have in mind.

One of the things that gives me heart that action will be taken to contain it, even in poorer places, is that poorer places have in the past done that when they suffered regularly. Examples I would note include such beacons of wealth and organisation as the Phililppines and Bangladesh. And they did that at a time when their economic status remained well below their present conditions. A big difference is whether such events are sufficiently frequent, and the point is that some places will be experiencing increases in the frequency of disastrous events.

So yes, the kind of places you mention will be most badly hit. But far from all of them are failed or near-failed states like Somalia and the Central African Republic. Many of them will be able to react. Mozambique, for example, clearly was not all used to experiencing the kind of tropical storm that caused such a disaster a year or two ago there. Nor Myanmar the even larger disaster a few years before that. But then that kind of thing rarely happens in Mozambique or Myanmar. Each of those are currently suffering political instability, and it remains to be seen how that plays out. But if they do stabilise, then they just as capable of reacting as the Philippines and Bangladesh were in their poorer past.

The problem isn't failed states like Somalia & Co, surely. It's that non-failed states will be stressed so hard they'll become failed states. The Philippines for example. A wave of disasters across several years, a country can't get back on its feet, and it all disintegrates into conflict without a functioning central government.

And of course if that happens in Egypt then refugees come north and add to the stress on Turkey, which stresses Greece, which stresses the EU. Or Mexico becomes a failed state and stresses the US. Or Indonesia, leading to stress on Australia.

As an example, there's a long list of cities with growing populations that will be trashed by sea level. Humans have invested heavily in river, coastal and delta cities. And humans ave a tendency to extract groundwater and sink the cities... Alexandria is going under. Rio. Mumbai & Kolkata. Ho Chi Minh & Hai Phong. Lagos. Manila.

I'm not sure we should assume many countries, including relatively stable countries at the moment, will be able to react.

[Bird on a Fire]

In terms of minimising damage, the responsibility lies largely with non-failed states, and the world's wealthiest. If the US, EU and China take immediate steps to halve their emissions by 2030 the world will be well on its way to <2°C warming. The technology exists to replace 70%+ of energy-related emissions already, for instance; what's needed is for wealthy governments to stop subsidising polluting alternatives and to help accelerate the rollout of a sustainable future.

That's much, much easier than trying to adapt to 3°C of warming - the only challenge is that it involves proactively doing something a bit inconvenient now, instead of reacting to a catastrophe a few years down the line.

The International Energy Agency said we need to end all new fossil fuel exploitation this year. The UK - not a failed state - is still approving coal mines and gas fields within its own territory, still drilling for oil, and has companies like BP (the world's sixth biggest carbon polluter) under its jurisdiction and listed on the London stock exchange. It's also not remotely prepared for climate change - most non-failed states are also hideously complacent when it comes to adaptation. Flood defences are expensive, relocating people is difficult, and adapting agriculture to unpredictable climatic extremes is challenging.

The conversation should be about what wealthy, developed, technologically advanced countries are doing to minimise their contribution to the crisis, not whether the world's poorest are going to be able to adapt.

[IvanV]

The conversation should be about what wealthy, developed, technologically advanced countries are doing to minimise their contribution to the crisis, not whether the world's poorest are going to be able to adapt.

We absolutely have to talk about that. But now that "major climate changes are inevitable and irreversible", we absolutely also have to talk about adaptation too, in a major way. It would be utterly irresponsible to say it isn't what we should (also) be talking about.

I reacted to Fishnut's "We're f.ck.d" because it smacked of resignation in the face of what we now can no longer avoid, but can take major steps to mitigate. History is that we have been very good at mitigation of natural disasters. So far we have been pretty bad at carbon reduction. We need to get good at reduction. But let's also do what we know we are good at, because it can have a big effect, and is probably comes with high bang for buck, if we choose the highest value projects.

[Little waster]

Presumably Piers Corbyn will turn up to denounce this ... just as soon as The Bank of Toytown cheque he just received from Sir I.P. Freely, President of Mega-Oil Hyper Corp clears.