• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    We’re at a point where it’s too late to avoid all impact, but we’ve got a very real choice about exactly how much impact we do see. There’s a big difference between 1.5°C and 2°C and more.

    • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Thanks. Please propagatw this fact more.

      I hear and read it too often that people are falling into devastation mode and say, back up, we lost, its over.

      However its a difference in being “over” which is 2.5 - 4.5 degrees or above.

      • interolivary@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        As @vivadanang@lemm.ee pointed out, it’s extremely likely we’re going to be at 1.5°C in just a few years. Even if we went carbon negative literally right at this instant, we’d likely still fly past 2.5°C in the relatively near future (well, depending on which research you believe re. how fast carbon neutralaity / negativity would affect temperature change.)

        This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t do anything, but I think we really need to start putting more resources and thought into survival instead of just blindly hoping that mitigation will save us (and it’s not exactly looking great on the mitigation front).

        I’ll be surprised if mass-scale industrial society is still around in 100 years and we’re more or less fucked, but we’ll be even more fucked if we don’t start thinking more about how we’re going to deal with the inevitable.