There's some latency in temperature, much more in sealevel rise, but generally it isn't as bad as frequently depicted. I only learned this recently, I used to think we are unavoidably messed up for centuries, but that's really not the case. For my son I believe there's a scenario it will get better, not worse, in his lifetime. Though it's not a scenario I think is likely to happen.
I'm not optimistic about our societies willingness and ability to do so, but all action does matter and we definitely have the possibility. Ironically, drastic and massive climate action is also the cheapest thing to do.
At the moment that part of the world is the most ambitious part.
> after we move to zero emissions
I wonder if that will happen on a planet scale even in your sons lifetime
She pretty much pointed out that climate change is a social issue in no uncertain terms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE
As an EU citizen, I applaud the ambitions, but I feel apprehensive at the same time. Regardless how you spin this, affordability is an absolute requirement.
For instance, on the consumer side of things, you see this concern expressed by the 'gilets jaunes' movement who were initially road users (commuters, truckers,...) protesting rising fuel prices as those add to the cost of living (whether real or perceived). Low income households can't afford to buy a new fuel efficient or electric car; or renovate their home to be more energy efficient (solar, isolation,...); or even buy groceries with a minimal carbon footprint (cheap food prices translate into externalized costs e.g. meat industry + availability / convenience).
Like, over the past few years, several cities have enacted a localized carbon levy for anyone who wants to drive into their city centers. While I'm a proponent of the idea, the net result is that visiting family by car has now become an expensive proposition. Public transport is a partial alternative, but it just doesn't offer the same availability / convenience as a personal vehicle.
A concern here is that this levy targets vehicle classes whose emissions are above an established norm. Turns out that a sizable proportion of low income class families living in those cities who find themselves owning a car they can't afford to drive anymore. This was explicitly raised as a policy concern in a parliamentary hearing in late 2020.
That's just one concrete example of why climate change is a social issue.
The problem raised by the Indian director in the documentary is rooted in the exact same challenge: finding balance between enabling 8 billion people to attain a sustainable, modern living standard while at the same time reducing humanity's reliance on fossil fuels.
One also has to understand that in order to attain Western living standards, "the rest of the world" is very much on a trajectory on par with historic social and economic dynamics and changes seen in America and Europe from the late 19th century hence. India and China together constitute about 35% of the global population. As the Indian director rightly questions: How can the West hold a moral high ground at this point in time while not having taken any notable affirmative action over the past 40 years to curb the impact of its own way of living profoundly?
Barring any finger pointing towards who does what, the filmmakers also interview the then-mayor of Miami Beach who first-hand faces the consequences of rising sea levels whilst being confronted with party politics. All he can do is install 400 million dollars worth of pumps just to keep his constituency's feet dry for the next 40 to 50 years.
He simply ends up stolidly remarking: "The ocean isn't Democratic or Republican. It just keeps rising."
Just today, I heard one person say they keep the AC on 18C all day because they don't like sweating, one person bought a bigger car to give more space for their dog, one person said she keeps the hot water on in the sink to reduce the hot water flow and regulate the shower temperature more easily.
People in the West need to reconnect with reality, and people in developing countries need to look up to more meaningful ways of life.
And you have a good point, but eventually, also people in the West will have to accept that climate change will impact them somehow. Sealevels will continue to rise, weather extrems will become worse, viable farmland will become more rare, and overall living cost will rise even without an increase in taxation.
Carbon tax is just a tool to account for climate change in a capitalist framework. Increased taxation on obsolete and inefficient technologies should be offset by deductions and subsidies. If the carbon tax becomes burgeoning, reducing or dropping the VAT could be worthwile.
How long will it even take for us to do less talking and more reducing? 5 years? 10?
Will we discover that the big co2 emitter (USA, china) might even get further behind and my country is on track (Germany)?
Will the normal and valid economical growth of countries like china eat all co2 winnings for x decades until it reaches a peak?
Or will we see catastrophic events which will erode our society peace by peace?
In Germany the flood destroyed bridges and parts of a Autobahn. Deutsche Bahn Said that's the worst infrastructure impairment they ever head.
Will we be able to keep our existing infrastructure?
All the trees we are loosing to fires and drought how critical are they?
Do we already have calculated in all of this? I read last year that they now incorporate the Siberian Methan and co2 emissions from the "permafrost".
How fragile is our supply chain? Remember the toilet paper shortage.
Those questions are stressing me out sometimes and I do plan do become more robust through getting out of the city as there is not much you can do when sitting in your flat without tools and stuff.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cl3ger/z/evsoc1g
The ocean is already currently absorbing, and acidifying as a result. It is not currently in equilibrium. Of course, as it warms, its ability to absorb lessens. Warm water holds less CO2, used as a denialist talking point to say that the CO2 is from the oceans, not from humans. But it actually makes the problem worse.
But what's even more important about the nature of this problem that local emissions don't matter. If the US stopped but EU and China etc continued, the US heat dome problem would still go on. That's why this needs to be coordinated internationally. It really matters a lot what the US president and congress does regarding international treaties.
I heard there is a brain mechanism that allows us to "ignore the inevitable". This makes doom-saying predictions a hard sell.
The first step to manipulating people is not to say it's manipulation. Call it "marketing" and "lobbying". Everyone does it, climate activists have to do it too :)