Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet

Human activity is changing the Earth’s climate in ways “unprecedented” in thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, with some of the changes now inevitable and “irreversible”, climate scientists have warned.

Within the next two decades, temperatures are likely to rise by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, breaching the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and bringing widespread devastation and extreme weather.

Only rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade can prevent such climate breakdown, with every fraction of a degree of further heating likely to compound the accelerating effects, according to the International Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science.

Link

Given the overwhelming evidence given by the scientist in the latest comprehensive IPCC report, nobody can deny that humankind is on the path of self-destruction. So given that, what are we going to do about it? We are currently experiencing the admitted greenhouse gasses of 30 years ago.
The Governments from 197 countries will meet this November in Glasgow for vital UN climate talks, called Cop26. So they will try to formulate an answer. I feel it will be too little too late, unfortunately.
I think a good step forward is to give pollution a price, currently, it is free or nearly free to pollute. Giving it a price, more sustainable things will become more attractive.

Dutchy wrote:

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet

Human activity is changing the Earth’s climate in ways “unprecedented” in thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, with some of the changes now inevitable and “irreversible”, climate scientists have warned.

Within the next two decades, temperatures are likely to rise by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, breaching the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and bringing widespread devastation and extreme weather.

Only rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade can prevent such climate breakdown, with every fraction of a degree of further heating likely to compound the accelerating effects, according to the International Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science.

Link

Given the overwhelming evidence given by the scientist in the latest comprehensive IPCC report, nobody can deny that humankind is on the path of self-destruction. So given that, what are we going to do about it? We are currently experiencing the admitted greenhouse gasses of 30 years ago.
The Governments from 197 countries will meet this November in Glasgow for vital UN climate talks, called Cop26. So they will try to formulate an answer. I feel it will be too little too late, unfortunately.
I think a good step forward is to give pollution a price, currently, it is free or nearly free to pollute. Giving it a price, more sustainable things will become more attractive.

That has been known for decades to the experts. The wine and cheese swilling diplomats want to make it too complicated. In reality, the world needs to return to 1950 carbon emissions at the most. That means draconian co2 tax and reward systems. Much farmland needs to return to natural state.

The only thing simple enough to achieve the goal is co2 tax, including cumulative emissions. So the US, UK, Canada, Russia need to pay somewhat more for their emissions.

Eventually reforestation (“afforestation?”) or sequestration needs to suck co2 back out of the atmosphere, which is a large job. But doable. This is just a money issue which is the big argument, who pays. Rich countries will pay to green up their technology and pay the rainforest countries to keep the Earth’s lungs breathing. Important to note Canada, Russia and Brazil have the largest such lungs AFAIK.

No mention of India or China? Interesting...

I am sure China will laugh at the virtue-signaling Western World and their pet-project electric cars. As if that will make any substantial difference.
The only tidbit in the report that matters is towards the end:

Just 25 big cities - almost all of them in China - accounted for more than half of the climate-warming gases pumped out by a sample of 167 urban hubs around the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... f=i4qXzk6d

johns624 wrote:

No mention of India or China? Interesting...

There is a brief statement about China, but not much else.
Either way, any promises China makes are completely meaningless as they will INCREASE the number of COAL-FIRED PLANTS by a large amount:

Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree

https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite- ... coal-spree

Dieuwer wrote:

I am sure China will laugh at the virtue-signaling Western World and their pet-project electric cars. As if that will make any substantial difference.
The only tidbit in the report that matters is towards the end:

Just 25 big cities - almost all of them in China - accounted for more than half of the climate-warming gases pumped out by a sample of 167 urban hubs around the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... f=i4qXzk6d

If you read the linked article, perhaps you might have drawn the conclusion that China has nothing to laugh about, no one on earth has. It is a global problem, no escape here.

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I am sure China will laugh at the virtue-signaling Western World and their pet-project electric cars. As if that will make any substantial difference.
The only tidbit in the report that matters is towards the end:

Just 25 big cities - almost all of them in China - accounted for more than half of the climate-warming gases pumped out by a sample of 167 urban hubs around the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... f=i4qXzk6d

If you read the linked article, perhaps you might have drawn the conclusion that China has nothing to laugh about, no one on earth has. It is a global problem, no escape here.

IMO China clearly doesn't care, or hopes the West will pick up the slack so that they can stay cool under the belching smokestacks of their coal-fired plants.

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I am sure China will laugh at the virtue-signaling Western World and their pet-project electric cars. As if that will make any substantial difference.
The only tidbit in the report that matters is towards the end:



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... f=i4qXzk6d

If you read the linked article, perhaps you might have drawn the conclusion that China has nothing to laugh about, no one on earth has. It is a global problem, no escape here.

IMO China clearly doesn't care, or hopes the West will pick up the slack so that they can stay cool under the belching smokestacks of their coal-fired plants.

That was my earlier point. The West can keep cutting emissions and China will just increase theirs. In the meantime, because of our pollution controls, we will become less and less competitive and be beholden to the Chinese more and more. I'm not sure what the answer is. We're about 20 years too late to boycott Chinese products.

johns624 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If you read the linked article, perhaps you might have drawn the conclusion that China has nothing to laugh about, no one on earth has. It is a global problem, no escape here.

IMO China clearly doesn't care, or hopes the West will pick up the slack so that they can stay cool under the belching smokestacks of their coal-fired plants.

That was my earlier point. The West can keep cutting emissions and China will just increase theirs. In the meantime, because of our pollution controls, we will become less and less competitive and be beholden to the Chinese more and more. I'm not sure what the answer is. We're about 20 years too late to boycott Chinese products.

Yes and no. Coal is a stopgap for the PRC - there has been strong public backlash in China - including work stoppages - over environmental conditions. They started changing course a few years ago and now have more nuclear plants under construction than anyone:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... think/amp/

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet

Human activity is changing the Earth’s climate in ways “unprecedented” in thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, with some of the changes now inevitable and “irreversible”, climate scientists have warned.

Within the next two decades, temperatures are likely to rise by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, breaching the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and bringing widespread devastation and extreme weather.

Only rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases in this decade can prevent such climate breakdown, with every fraction of a degree of further heating likely to compound the accelerating effects, according to the International Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science.

Link

Given the overwhelming evidence given by the scientist in the latest comprehensive IPCC report, nobody can deny that humankind is on the path of self-destruction. So given that, what are we going to do about it? We are currently experiencing the admitted greenhouse gasses of 30 years ago.
The Governments from 197 countries will meet this November in Glasgow for vital UN climate talks, called Cop26. So they will try to formulate an answer. I feel it will be too little too late, unfortunately.
I think a good step forward is to give pollution a price, currently, it is free or nearly free to pollute. Giving it a price, more sustainable things will become more attractive.

That has been known for decades to the experts. The wine and cheese swilling diplomats want to make it too complicated. In reality, the world needs to return to 1950 carbon emissions at the most. That means draconian co2 tax and reward systems. Much farmland needs to return to natural state.

The only thing simple enough to achieve the goal is co2 tax, including cumulative emissions. So the US, UK, Canada, Russia need to pay somewhat more for their emissions.

Eventually reforestation (“afforestation?”) or sequestration needs to suck co2 back out of the atmosphere, which is a large job. But doable. This is just a money issue which is the big argument, who pays. Rich countries will pay to green up their technology and pay the rainforest countries to keep the Earth’s lungs breathing. Important to note Canada, Russia and Brazil have the largest such lungs AFAIK.

Russia is a huge worry. The data from their scientists on rates of melting permafrost in Siberia are not promising. Massive releases of stored Co2 from tundra regions could greatly accelerate the rate of warming. Deforestation in the tropics and reforestation in temperate zones will likely not come back into balance soon enough.

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Link

Given the overwhelming evidence given by the scientist in the latest comprehensive IPCC report, nobody can deny that humankind is on the path of self-destruction. So given that, what are we going to do about it? We are currently experiencing the admitted greenhouse gasses of 30 years ago.
The Governments from 197 countries will meet this November in Glasgow for vital UN climate talks, called Cop26. So they will try to formulate an answer. I feel it will be too little too late, unfortunately.
I think a good step forward is to give pollution a price, currently, it is free or nearly free to pollute. Giving it a price, more sustainable things will become more attractive.

That has been known for decades to the experts. The wine and cheese swilling diplomats want to make it too complicated. In reality, the world needs to return to 1950 carbon emissions at the most. That means draconian co2 tax and reward systems. Much farmland needs to return to natural state.

The only thing simple enough to achieve the goal is co2 tax, including cumulative emissions. So the US, UK, Canada, Russia need to pay somewhat more for their emissions.

Eventually reforestation (“afforestation?”) or sequestration needs to suck co2 back out of the atmosphere, which is a large job. But doable. This is just a money issue which is the big argument, who pays. Rich countries will pay to green up their technology and pay the rainforest countries to keep the Earth’s lungs breathing. Important to note Canada, Russia and Brazil have the largest such lungs AFAIK.

Russia is a huge worry. The data from their scientists on rates of melting permafrost in Siberia are not promising. Massive releases of stored Co2 from tundra regions could greatly accelerate the rate of warming. Deforestation in the tropics and reforestation in temperate zones will likely not come back into balance soon enough.

Just as the rich countries have to do some difficult work, the tropics need to quit cutting down the rainforest. A certain amount of money will need to flow to tropical countries to pay their military to use force to protect and regrow the rainforest. A whole bunch of rainforest was cut down to feed and graze meat. That will need to be reversed. This sounds arrogant, but is is just a basic requirement.

I don’t have a lot of faith in the diplomats. I would suggest an engineering summit where only engineers are given a credential to participate in solving the crisis. Engineers do not see themselves as charismatic savior figures. They only take credit after the job is done. Elon Musk is a rare exception. His style can fix the problem. Wish he would tackle it.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

That has been known for decades to the experts. The wine and cheese swilling diplomats want to make it too complicated. In reality, the world needs to return to 1950 carbon emissions at the most. That means draconian co2 tax and reward systems. Much farmland needs to return to natural state.

The only thing simple enough to achieve the goal is co2 tax, including cumulative emissions. So the US, UK, Canada, Russia need to pay somewhat more for their emissions.

Eventually reforestation (“afforestation?”) or sequestration needs to suck co2 back out of the atmosphere, which is a large job. But doable. This is just a money issue which is the big argument, who pays. Rich countries will pay to green up their technology and pay the rainforest countries to keep the Earth’s lungs breathing. Important to note Canada, Russia and Brazil have the largest such lungs AFAIK.

Russia is a huge worry. The data from their scientists on rates of melting permafrost in Siberia are not promising. Massive releases of stored Co2 from tundra regions could greatly accelerate the rate of warming. Deforestation in the tropics and reforestation in temperate zones will likely not come back into balance soon enough.

Just as the rich countries have to do some difficult work, the tropics need to quit cutting down the rainforest. A certain amount of money will need to flow to tropical countries to pay their military to use force to protect and regrow the rainforest. A whole bunch of rainforest was cut down to feed and graze meat. That will need to be reversed. This sounds arrogant, but is is just a basic requirement.

I don’t have a lot of faith in the diplomats. I would suggest an engineering summit where only engineers are given a credential to participate in solving the crisis. Engineers do not see themselves as charismatic savior figures. They only take credit after the job is done. Elon Musk is a rare exception. His style can fix the problem. Wish he would tackle it.

Agreed that engineers and professional problem solvers need to take lead on this. Musk would be a huge asset for sure.

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Russia is a huge worry. The data from their scientists on rates of melting permafrost in Siberia are not promising. Massive releases of stored Co2 from tundra regions could greatly accelerate the rate of warming. Deforestation in the tropics and reforestation in temperate zones will likely not come back into balance soon enough.

Just as the rich countries have to do some difficult work, the tropics need to quit cutting down the rainforest. A certain amount of money will need to flow to tropical countries to pay their military to use force to protect and regrow the rainforest. A whole bunch of rainforest was cut down to feed and graze meat. That will need to be reversed. This sounds arrogant, but is is just a basic requirement.

I don’t have a lot of faith in the diplomats. I would suggest an engineering summit where only engineers are given a credential to participate in solving the crisis. Engineers do not see themselves as charismatic savior figures. They only take credit after the job is done. Elon Musk is a rare exception. His style can fix the problem. Wish he would tackle it.

Agreed that engineers and professional problem solvers need to take lead on this. Musk would be a huge asset for sure.

Musk doesn't seem very interested in solving that problem. Like a few of his fellow billionaires, he seems more fixated on fleeing Earth that trying to fix it.
Granted, he masterminded Tesla and has almost single-handedly jumpstarted the EV revolution, for which he deserves credit, but if you're looking for a real philanthropic uber-rich man that is genuinely trying to help solve our planetary problems (without profit-seeking intentions) , then Bill Gates is where most credit is due.
Through his foundation, he is financing a host of climate-related programs which seek to find real-world solutions to our carbon dependency.
I wish more billionaires would spend some of their wealth on helping the World that made them rich in the first place. I like rockets and space programs and all, but those are doing little to prevent the global catastrophe we are diving head first into...
There are enough smart engineers out there to solve these issues, what we need is more commitment from everyone to give them the means to do so.

Francoflier wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Just as the rich countries have to do some difficult work, the tropics need to quit cutting down the rainforest. A certain amount of money will need to flow to tropical countries to pay their military to use force to protect and regrow the rainforest. A whole bunch of rainforest was cut down to feed and graze meat. That will need to be reversed. This sounds arrogant, but is is just a basic requirement.

I don’t have a lot of faith in the diplomats. I would suggest an engineering summit where only engineers are given a credential to participate in solving the crisis. Engineers do not see themselves as charismatic savior figures. They only take credit after the job is done. Elon Musk is a rare exception. His style can fix the problem. Wish he would tackle it.

Agreed that engineers and professional problem solvers need to take lead on this. Musk would be a huge asset for sure.

Musk doesn't seem very interested in solving that problem. Like a few of his fellow billionaires, he seems more fixated on fleeing Earth that trying to fix it.
Granted, he masterminded Tesla and has almost single-handedly jumpstarted the EV revolution, for which he deserves credit, but if you're looking for a real philanthropic uber-rich man that is genuinely trying to help solve our planetary problems (without profit-seeking intentions) , then Bill Gates is where most credit is due.
Through his foundation, he is financing a host of climate-related programs which seek to find real-world solutions to our carbon dependency.
I wish more billionaires would spend some of their wealth on helping the World that made them rich in the first place. I like rockets and space programs and all, but those are doing little to prevent the global catastrophe we are diving head first into...
There are enough smart engineers out there to solve these issues, what we need is more commitment from everyone to give them the means to do so.

Also agreed on the great work the Gates Foundation has done to date. What I was agreeing with was the effectiveness of Musk's style. Young engineer founders and thinkers need to plunge headlong into the climate change solutions space and Musk is a good model if he gets involved because of his following. Gates is a great thinker but he doesn't have the presence to drive interest and conversations at a grassroots level. He uses reasoned and long-winded conceptualizations whereas Musk leads with bold and simplistic visions. Unfortunately it's where we are as a development culture - nobody is interested in the pitch if you can't sell it in a minute or less. But as you say it doesn't seem he is likely to take up that mantle.

johns624 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If you read the linked article, perhaps you might have drawn the conclusion that China has nothing to laugh about, no one on earth has. It is a global problem, no escape here.

IMO China clearly doesn't care, or hopes the West will pick up the slack so that they can stay cool under the belching smokestacks of their coal-fired plants.

That was my earlier point. The West can keep cutting emissions and China will just increase theirs. In the meantime, because of our pollution controls, we will become less and less competitive and be beholden to the Chinese more and more. I'm not sure what the answer is. We're about 20 years too late to boycott Chinese products.

This is the problem. But there are websites to quantify:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-e ... EU~FRA~IND

China has caught up on a per Capita basis with a huge population. The chart lags (to 2017 as I type). Obviously, USA the worst per Capita, but with over 3X the population, China has over 50% more emissions.

Lightsaber

The good news in the report is that when we stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere climate will respond within a few decades. Sea level rise happens slowly and perhaps centuries of rise is baked in.

Musk: almost single handedly brought about the earlier electrification of surface travel on land.

Bill and Melinda extended the benefits of public health to the 3rd world far faster than anyone thought possible.

Different tasks and different challenges. Different people. May their tribe increase.

[threeid][/threeid]

lightsaber wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

IMO China clearly doesn't care, or hopes the West will pick up the slack so that they can stay cool under the belching smokestacks of their coal-fired plants.

That was my earlier point. The West can keep cutting emissions and China will just increase theirs. In the meantime, because of our pollution controls, we will become less and less competitive and be beholden to the Chinese more and more. I'm not sure what the answer is. We're about 20 years too late to boycott Chinese products.

This is the problem. But there are websites to quantify:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-e ... EU~FRA~IND

China has caught up on a per Capita basis with a huge population. The chart lags (to 2017 as I type). Obviously, USA the worst per Capita, but with over 3X the population, China has over 50% more emissions.

Lightsaber

In my opinion just looking at the CO2 emissions per capita on country basis makes it far to easy for the West. Consumption of products produced abroad should at least partially be added to CO2 output of the place of consumption if we want to talk about sharing the burden between all of us.

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

I think we are at the beginning of DeGlobalization. Not just for ecological but also political reasons. It makes no sense to ship labor offshore, make trinkets in China and ship them back to Europe or the USA. Letting high quality technological products (such as semis) to be made only in say Taiwan is plainly foolish IMO.

Dieuwer wrote:

I think we are at the beginning of DeGlobalization. Not just for ecological but also political reasons. It makes no sense to ship labor offshore, make trinkets in China and ship them back to Europe or the USA. Letting high quality technological products (such as semis) to be made only in say Taiwan is plainly foolish IMO.

Companies who only chase next quarter's results thought it made sense for a long time because it kept supply and distribution costs low, for better or worse.

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I think we are at the beginning of DeGlobalization. Not just for ecological but also political reasons. It makes no sense to ship labor offshore, make trinkets in China and ship them back to Europe or the USA. Letting high quality technological products (such as semis) to be made only in say Taiwan is plainly foolish IMO.

Companies who only chase next quarter's results thought it made sense for a long time because it kept supply and distribution costs low, for better or worse.

Are you sure you are not confusing "companies" with "billionaire oligarchs"?

Dieuwer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I think we are at the beginning of DeGlobalization. Not just for ecological but also political reasons. It makes no sense to ship labor offshore, make trinkets in China and ship them back to Europe or the USA. Letting high quality technological products (such as semis) to be made only in say Taiwan is plainly foolish IMO.

Companies who only chase next quarter's results thought it made sense for a long time because it kept supply and distribution costs low, for better or worse.

Are you sure you are not confusing "companies" with "billionaire oligarchs"?

Revenue management and purchasing principals in companies are rarely billionaires.

johns624 wrote:

No mention of India or China? Interesting...

China is currently one of the biggest builders and exporters of nuclear power plants. So they are doing something to promote clean energy. It's a shame that in the west politicians don't want to even entertain the idea of building additional nuclear power plants.

The melting of permafrost in arctic regions not only releases large amounts of CO2 but vast quantities of methane which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and is a major concern.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180978381/

The deforestation in the tropical rain forests is certainly an issue, but clearcutting in temperate forests should not be ignored. Seems to be a topic of far less discussion.

I think the train has left the station as far a stopping the warming of the planet, and unless the brakes are put on hard and soon, even slowing the trend is likely not going to prevent catastrophic changes. We are certainly already seeing them. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but that's my view. I would love to be proven wrong.

ER757 wrote:

... Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but that's my view. I would love to be proven wrong.

I think most people believing in man made climate change hope to be proven wrong! I mean how much pain could we avoid, if climate just decided to behave.

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

If you are going to state facts, post a link or make it clear it is your opinion.

Adaption will have to be the answer.

People wont make significant sacrifices and governments will neither introduce unpopular legislation, for fear of not being re-elected and international agreements will never be fully honoured.

noviorbis77 wrote:

People wont make significant sacrifices and governments will neither introduce unpopular legislation, for fear of not being re-elected and international agreements will never be fully honoured.

why not? It’s been done before to battle acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

It does require cooperation though.

Aaaah, I see what you mean now.
The number one polluter has a political reality where the two main parties can’t even agree on the colour of an orange. As if international cooperation was not hard enough yet.

petertenthije wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

People wont make significant sacrifices and governments will neither introduce unpopular legislation, for fear of not being re-elected and international agreements will never be fully honoured.

why not? It’s been done before to battle acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

It does require cooperation though.

Aaaah, I see what you mean now.
The number one polluter has a political reality where the two main parties can’t even agree on the colour of an orange. As if international cooperation was not hard enough yet.

Sure, will be hard. But there is no alternative. We have no planet B. The real choice is, doing something now, or address it tomorrow when it will be much harder than today. Collectively, till now, we have chosen tomorrow............

Dutchy wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

People wont make significant sacrifices and governments will neither introduce unpopular legislation, for fear of not being re-elected and international agreements will never be fully honoured.

why not? It’s been done before to battle acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

It does require cooperation though.

Aaaah, I see what you mean now.
The number one polluter has a political reality where the two main parties can’t even agree on the colour of an orange. As if international cooperation was not hard enough yet.

Sure, will be hard. But there is no alternative. We have no planet B. The real choice is, doing something now, or address it tomorrow when it will be much harder than today. Collectively, till now, we have chosen tomorrow............

Can every nation agree?

Will governments want to upset voters with unpopular legislation?

Look at yellow vests in France.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

why not? It’s been done before to battle acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

It does require cooperation though.

Aaaah, I see what you mean now.
The number one polluter has a political reality where the two main parties can’t even agree on the colour of an orange. As if international cooperation was not hard enough yet.

Sure, will be hard. But there is no alternative. We have no planet B. The real choice is, doing something now, or address it tomorrow when it will be much harder than today. Collectively, till now, we have chosen tomorrow............

Can every nation agree?

Will governments want to upset voters with unpopular legislation?

Look at yellow vests in France.

Yes, the populist movement has brought us, except destruction, exactly nothing. So given what needs to be done, the politicians need to implement regulations to make the transition fair. Not, like populists offer a charlatan option of doing nothing, because that will end up with a massive bill (and other quite negative consequences).

So what do you see as a solution?

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

why not? It’s been done before to battle acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

It does require cooperation though.

Aaaah, I see what you mean now.
The number one polluter has a political reality where the two main parties can’t even agree on the colour of an orange. As if international cooperation was not hard enough yet.

Sure, will be hard. But there is no alternative. We have no planet B. The real choice is, doing something now, or address it tomorrow when it will be much harder than today. Collectively, till now, we have chosen tomorrow............

Can every nation agree?

Will governments want to upset voters with unpopular legislation?

Look at yellow vests in France.

Yellow vests movement in France is a good reminder to everyone out there that the fight against global warming must also be socially fair.

The law that prompted the revolt was going to give the shaft to the poorer rural and suburb people, and rightfully so people fought against it.

France has been cutting through public infrastructures for 2 decades at least, rural people have to go further and further with no public transportation. Of course they will snap if you create a tax that will solely weight on them while they are barely scraping by.

All the help systems to change towards a less emitive vehicle are directed to the high and middle urban classes, while the ones that suffer the most from the law are the poorer rural inhabitants.

That was dumb from the government, and couldn't go well, even more since the response was always brutal and sometimes violent. It was easy to point the attacks on Paris street after they let the situation rot for monthes, and after they failed to understand and adress how genuine the cry for help and justice was.

If other governments make such unfair laws, they surely will also face unpleasant consequences.
Fight against climate change has to be socially fair.

I agree we can't stop the use of coal overnight, but IMHO this isn't gonna help. A bit like old grumpy man not being able to cope with a changes....

https://www.reuters.com/article/australia-coal-idAFKBN2G209Z

marcelh wrote:

I agree we can't stop the use of coal overnight, but IMHO this isn't gonna help. A bit like old grumpy man not being able to cope with a changes....

https://www.reuters.com/article/australia-coal-idAFKBN2G209Z

No, we can't stop the usage overnight, but we can make damn sure we don't add to the problem. So no new investment in new coal infrastructure.

As for Australia, don't count on it for your future exports.

Dieuwer wrote:

I am sure China will laugh at the virtue-signaling Western World and their pet-project electric cars. As if that will make any substantial difference.
The only tidbit in the report that matters is towards the end:

Just 25 big cities - almost all of them in China - accounted for more than half of the climate-warming gases pumped out by a sample of 167 urban hubs around the world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... f=i4qXzk6d

China also do electric cars. But many of those are people buying their cars for the first time, so it did not reduce emission from less green cars but increased emission due to use of more power to power new personal vehicle which its user wouldn't otherwise be using, and many of those electricity being used for charging still come from coal.

marcelh wrote:

I agree we can't stop the use of coal overnight, but IMHO this isn't gonna help. A bit like old grumpy man not being able to cope with a changes....

https://www.reuters.com/article/australia-coal-idAFKBN2G209Z

The elevated tension between Australia and China is definitely pushing both China and Australia away from reliance on bilateral coal trade.