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.

  • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fucked.

    We’ve already experienced the hottest three weeks in recorded history. It does not get better from here.

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think we are heading headlong into worst case scenario territory.

    And I think we’re going to see a lot of terrible effects by 2050 if not earlier.

    I feel that places like the Marshall Islands will be uninhabitable by 2050.

    I feel we’ll see wars break out in developed nations over water rights by 2100.

    The world is on fire and those with the power to enact change are unable or unwilling to do so.

    And with the rise of the far right all over the world it’s only going to get worse.

    The world will be unrecognizable in 2100 to the people alive today provided we live that long.

    I still hold onto some hope that we may be able to pull off a turn around and actually save humanity. But the longer everything goes on the more that hope feels like a delusional fantasy.

    Hug your loved ones, try to push for a better world, be kind to others, and enjoy the time we have. For tomorrow is not guaranteed, but the least you can do is allow love to enter your heart.

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do what I can to prevent the worst case scenario, but when anyone asks how I think this is going to go, I always answer “I objectively think we are all going to burn and die, but I’m not going down without a fight.” That’s all it is. I don’t think we are going to save the world, but I want to go down swinging.

      • pickelsurprise@lemmy.loungerat.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I want to be able to say I’m going down swinging, but at this point I have no idea how we’re supposed to do that aside from like… Blowing up pipelines or whatever. Having a year’s world of recycling be undone by one minute of a coca cola plant operating normally doesn’t exactly feel like swinging lol.

  • Kilamaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I give it the tiniest slimmest of chances to succeed. Below 1%

    Too much regressives & right wingers. Entire, countries sometimes.

    Plus, a handful of country(USA, China, india) are so overwhelmingly disproportionately polluting compared to the rest of the world ( or will massively increase in the next decades in the case of India ) that if all 3 are not all in into it, nothing anyone else does matters. And I don’t believe any of those 3 will do enough.

    So regardless of what the rest of the world does, I do t believe it matters. I still think they should tho, because if all 3 DO in fact make it, if the rest didn’t, it still won’t work either. So, achieving a largely global goal is even impossibl-er in my opinion

    We are are fucked as is. A way to ‘solve’ this is a global collapse in population, but that wouldn’t be very nice either.

  • masquenox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    At this moment? I’d say we should make peace with the fact that there aren’t too many generations of humans ahead of us.

    At one point or the other, we will have to accept the fact that saving humanity is not within our power - but wreaking vengeance on the elites that caused it is.

  • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’ll not meet the goal limit, climate will change, the poor will suffer all the consequences, the rich will be mildly inconvenienced. Habitats will be destroyed, species will go extinct, life will go on.

    • puppy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      species will go extinct, life will go on

      Bro did you just contradict yourself on the same sentence?

      • joshinator@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Species also went extinct when that rock killed the dinosaurs, life still went on. Took a few years to recover, but it went on.

        Only question is, will humanity go exting before we pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere to end up like Venus.

  • JuliusSeizure@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I expect the billionaires to be successful in their genocide of the poors via their engineered famine and seizure of private property. So very well.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Actual government intervention is starting to show up, and technology has worked in our favour. Maybe we’ll do it. The biggest question is geopolitics, I think.

    Of course, we might have hit a tipping point already, so net zero by 2050 will still lead to a very different Earth.

  • VoxAdActa@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Like today, but worse. We’ll have five-sigma events occurring once a week, but we’ll still insist on calling them “five-sigma” instead of “new normal”, and the denialists will still be denying that it’s any different than it’s ever been, and utopianists will still be screeching about how the technology that will save us is just “a few years” away, and lots of people will die of prosiac, totally preventable things like famines and droughts while the super-rich will have retreated to the bunkers they started building back in 2012 exactly for this scenario.

  • redballooon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I daresay India and China will be CO2 free before the western states. The West is too concerned with not loosing an inch of the status quo of current behavior. It’ll shoot itself in the foot by electing fascists with their go-back-to-the-good-old-days-without-migrants promises.

    But the developing countries also will be much too late.

    I don’t think 2-2.5 degrees are realistic. I mean for 2050, probably yes, but it won’t stop there. There are several tipping points that’ll help shoot far beyond that.

    I think the world will settle between 4 and 5 degrees late this century and it will be a world with quite a smaller number of humans than we have nowadays.

    It wouldn’t have to be that way. Siberia could become farmland and take on half of the African population, for example. But Russia won’t stand for that.

    • dom@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But how can we make saving the planet a profitable business venture? -the west

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      4 degrees is the apocalyptic scenario. The vast majority of oxygen in the atmosphere is provided not by trees or any plants, but by the algae and cyanobacteria in the ocean. At the 4 degree threshold, they can’t do aerobic respiration anymore, so they switch to anaerobic respiration. This means they stop producing oxygen, drastically reducing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and drastically increasing the carbon dioxide. This does two things: kills any large fauna, humans included, and the additional carbon dioxide continues to act as a greenhouse gas, accelerating the effect even further. Eventually, after almost all oxygen breathing life is dead, we reach equilibrium, assuming your definition of 'we" includes insects, because that’s basically all that would be left. If there’s a risk of reaching the 4 degree threshold, we would be forced into taking our chances with the literal nuclear option of deliberately inducing a nuclear winter.

    • Hogger85b@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yep in the UK.the electorate just punished a party in a by-election for brining in controls.om.vehicle.emiasions.(ULEZ) in one of the most connected cities on the world. The area of.uxbridhe and Ruislip has no less.than 3 tube lines another mainline rail and busses with wait.times measured in minutes. But no when the. Chips.were.down the mayor is bad for.trying.to clean air.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If capitalism is still the dominant economic system and wealth inequality is even higher then it is now, then there is no chance at all of meeting climate goals, there never was.

  • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nope. There is no hope.

    Only time anyone will make real, substantiative movement on climate change, is when we’re in the middle of the absolute worst of it with nothing left to do but sit in and die slow, miserable deaths from heat, or quick miserable deaths from F7 tornados, Hypercanes, and biblical level flooding.

    But just imagine all the profits that the shareholders would have made in the mean time, Thats really the most important part! /s

    • SocializedHermit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The fix was in on our climate by the 90’s, the Co2 levels are above 450 ppm. This doesn’t have an equivalent in many millions of years. The effects of heat building is cumulative, the earth still has plenty more room to store heat energy, and we’ve already put more than enough Co2 in the atmosphere to warm well past 2C. We’ve got years left, not decades. Wait till food distribution systems break down, that’s when it’ll hit everyone that this is already a done deal. Things will begin to break down rapidly in the next few years.

  • FollyDolly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, I do not think we will avoid catastrophic change. The ice sheets, the ocean heating, everything is moving faster than the predictions estimated. We have now entered into several severe feedback loops we have no way of stopping.

    Every tech we might have to pull carbon out of the atmosphere is in it’s infancy, when we needed it to be online and operational ten years ago. And we’re STILL pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

    During Covid we showed that humanity can’t or won’t pull together to fight a commen threat. Our species will survive, but it will be difficult, and many, many poeple are going to die in mass. Huge swaths of this planet are going to become uninhabitable.

    And I’m sorry. I did everything I reasonably could. Ate less meat, grow/grew my own food, wrote to legislators, tried to spread awareness, and what good did it do? Did any of it do? Not a goddamned thing.

    I am going to keep doing everything I can, but I think it’s over. We just don’t know it yet.

    (I have sources for The Deadly Feedback Loops if anyone is interested.)

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As long as conservatives have any say in the matter, we can expect the most destructive, deadly outcome possible.

    We should expect no reasonable progress when conservatives (including neo-liberals) are able to intervene.