New UN report highlights the scale of global climate change

[paulsutton]

This was posted to the Fediverse , just sharing here so we can discuss here too.

‘We are moving in the wrong direction’: New UN report highlights the scale of global climate change

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/21/record-heat-sea-level-rise-and-melting-ice-new-report-highlights-climate-changes-global-ad

One question is, how many more reports are needed before we as a human race take things more seriously.  

There is only so much as individuals we can do surely.

Paul

 

[iNow]

The reports aren’t the problem, nor will they solve it 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, paulsutton said:

This was posted to the Fediverse , just sharing here so we can discuss here too.

‘We are moving in the wrong direction’: New UN report highlights the scale of global climate change

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/21/record-heat-sea-level-rise-and-melting-ice-new-report-highlights-climate-changes-global-ad

One question is, how many more reports are needed before we as a human race take things more seriously.  

There is only so much as individuals we can do surely.

Paul

 

It’s a question of progressive pressure to change. We are moving quite a bit now: almost no senior politician any longer denies the need for action, and governments and industry are investing in the shift. Of course we have move faster but there won’t ever be a discrete tipping point.. People have get used to changes and find tangible upsides in it for them, especially when it impacts their personal lifestyles. We have not got far with that yet, apart from cars. Home heating is a big one. 

[Ken Fabian]

On 4/23/2023 at 5:41 AM, iNow said:

The reports aren’t the problem, nor will they solve it 

How governments respond to the reports and the extent to which they put the wishes of commerce and industry ahead of the science based advice is a big problem.  I think the claims that if the style of the reports and advice were different - less alarming, with less emphasis on the likelihood of serious harms - then pro fossil fuels climate science denial wouldn't have traction is pure nonsense. If opponents of strong action are claiming their opposition is due to "alarmist rhetoric" they are probably lying; if the rhetoric was less alarming they would be pleased... and argue the problem isn't so serious after all. I think if pro fossil fuels climate science denial had less high level support and traction then governments would treat the problem more seriously and they would stand up to the opposition from industry.

The ongoing power of Doubt, Deny, Delay politics means any actual economic sacrifices in the short term for the sake of the longer term is successfully deemed an unacceptable cost. I think we will continue to make significant progress on low emissions electrification because - unexpectedly - low emissions options have become commercially competitive and can potentially continue to see further cost reductions. But achieving low emissions where it is hard - transport, concrete, steel and other industrial processes - looks more likely to yield cost increases in the shorter term and the power and influence of denial and economic alarmist fear keeps it politically unacceptable.