Asklemmy

43963 readers

1194 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

137

Where do you realistically expect the world to be in terms of meeting the 2050 climate goals? (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 1 year ago by LiamMayfair@lemmy.sdf.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like you're asking two questions.

Are we going to meet the 2050 climate goals, and can we limit global warming to 1.5C?

Imho, probably not, and definitely not.

Fossil fuel companies are still touting natural gas as having a role in addressing climate change goals, and we're still consuming more fossil fuels. Hell nah are we limiting global warning to 1.5C.

As for meeting 2050 climate goals...lol. Same evidence. Our main current sources of information routinely mention wildfires, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, etc, without contextualizing it. Why should I expect that to change? The current economic incentives seem to be opposed to meeting climate goals.

For example, Shell says they're going to be net-zero by 2050. But that's not a binding declaration on their part. If they can make more money digging up the arctic, then that's what I expect them. It's going to take someone with a heavy regulatory hand to tell them otherwise, then it's going to take a not shitty court system to uphold that regulation.

[–] EthicalAI@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Every article about weather should say “this event is made more likely due to climate change” and “this event will cost the taxpayer $X to repair” and “so far we have spent $Y total on climate related disaster relief”