this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
2925 points (98.4% liked)

World News

38987 readers
2058 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're not locked in for the next 20 years. Not for the next 10.

The carbon in the atmosphere is going to be there for the next millenium and the temperature won't level out till the 2100s if we stopped all carbon emission right this second.

Furthermore, if we did stop all emissions right now, the planet would get 0.5-1.5 °C hotter within a year or two due to the end of the aerosol pollution cooling effect that's been cutting the effects of carbon induced climate change in half this whole time.

This year is so hot because they put limitations on sulfur emissions from shipping boats in the Pacific. Those emissions were cooling the atmosphere, but the aerosol emissions (which that sulfur is one of) only last in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks before they're rained out of the air.

We're fucked.

[–] sndrtj@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So can't we reintroduce the sulfur?

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It was taken out because the pollution was directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. If we need to geoengineer an aerosol to cool the planet, we can do better.

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Deaths from increasing temperatures are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands a year already, how many of those could the aerosols have prevented? Was that more or less than tens of thousands?

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying it can't be done or it shouldn't necessarily, I'm just trying to express why this decision happened at a political level. Politics only occasionally leads humanity to the logical course of action.

[–] sndrtj@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

So which is the lesser evil?