UN chief says fossil fuels are "incompatible with human survival" as world breaks temperature records (www.techspot.com)

submitted 1 year ago by botlt_test@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Is this still news?

[-] Cybermass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I like how the first sentence they say the UN chief was 'publicly attacking' the oil companies when he's literally just stating fact lmao

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

the reality is that will take decades. I'm not going to stop driving my gas fueled vehicle & neither is anyone who reads this

[-] concealmint@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You would be right. If the government were to never get involved. "It'll take decades for the whole country to prepare for nuclear fallout" "It'll take decades for the country to protect itself from HIV" etc. etc. Every public health crisis needs to the government to get involved and mediate, that's what civilization has been since the time of the Greeks.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

it's not in the government's interest to royally fuck the economy back into the shitter, which is what rushing the transition from petroleum to more sustainable resources will do.

lol you think covid shortages were bad? international shipping, domestic train shipping, and local truck shipping ALL USE DIESEL - almost exclusively. merely changing all fuel systems without significant interruption to supply (untold millions dying of starvation) will will take decades - that's WITH the government taking action.

[-] concealmint@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The government's interest is protecting it's own system. If their has to be loss in profits for oil companies than so be it. Also you're implying that the first to go off Diesel would be the supply line when obviously not. It would be power grids, the army then consumer cars than the supply chain. Do you think that any one with a functioning brain would try to make the supply lines go green first? You're just doing a strawman.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

un huh, sure.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Ahh you're already wrong on that one. Sorry

[+] Shinhoshi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] elihu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

EVs tend to beat internal combustion cars even when the electricity comes entirely from fossil fuels, since the big power plants tend to be able to convert heat to electricity much more efficiently than a car engine can. But we don't get all our power from fossil fuels these days -- renewables, nuclear, and hydroelectric are all producing a significant portion. Depending on where you are it might be about half fossil fuels on average, but with huge regional variation.

We do need to transition away from fossil fuel power generation, but that's a thing we can do in parallel to replacing our vehicle fleet.

(We also need to drive a lot less and use smaller vehicles on average, but that's another topic.)

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

corporations will always utilize the cheapest method to generate revenue - legislating for or against that isnt going to do anyone any favors. it may be beneficial to instead offer tax deductions for utilizing solar or wind over coal, that seemed to work pretty well for the individual adoption of solar power...

for electrical generating companies, sometimes the cheapest method is coal/oil and sometimes it isnt. the infrastructure for using both already exists, after all. I think there was a headline recently that mentioned that solar power production was nearing competition levels in the USA with coal recently, or had surpassed it (in the summer months). until power storage tech has sufficiently matured you cant actually expect anyone who lives where it freezes to switch from oil/propane heat to electric heating in the winter months - and that's well over half of the country.

[-] beigegull@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

This sort of rhetoric is absolutely counter-productive. The human species is obviously not going to get wiped out even with the most extreme climate change scenarios.

Further, the tradeoffs of using fossil fuels are not even close to simple. Energy is wealth, and in a very real sense wealth is both health and quality of life. The whole campaign against fossil fuels frequently seems like the ultra-wealthy trying to consign the entire world middle class to poverty in order to keep polar bears pure (not even to save the species, just to keep them from going south and merging into a grolar bear population).

[-] Pmmeyourtoaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Okay, let's cut through the jargon and keep it plain.

First up, your point about humans surviving extreme climate change. Sure, we won't go extinct, but it's gonna get messy. Imagine more hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. Plus, food could become scarce with messed up weather patterns. You're right; it's not the end of the world. But, it's also not a picnic.

Next, you mention fossil fuels being tied to wealth and quality of life. Yeah, they've helped us a lot in the past. But it's like running your car on dirty oil; it might keep going, but it'll break down sooner. Also, let's not forget, breathing polluted air ain't great for health.

Your take about the rich trying to push the middle class into poverty to save polar bears seems off the mark. It's not just about bears and ice. It's about having a planet that's comfortable for us to live on. Plus, the worst impacts of climate change and pollution hit poor folks the hardest. It's not about making people poor; it's about keeping people alive and healthy.

Lastly, you make it sound like it's fossil fuels or poverty. That's not the case. The cost of wind and solar power has plummeted in recent years. We can switch to renewables without making everyone poor. Actually, making the switch could create a lot of jobs and even save us money in the long run. So, it's not just about hugging trees; it's about green making green.

[-] beigegull@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

What's your basis for making those factual claims about the future behavior of complex systems?

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The oil companies (at the very least Exxon) knew it decades ago. The only reason there's a "debate" is to keep the business pumping profits.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994

[-] Pmmeyourtoaster@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, not that complex after a point. Shit's getting hotter and more intense and it's the result of human activity. We can either change the activity or accept that it'll continue to get hotter and more intense.

[-] beigegull@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

How much hotter? What concrete harms will result? How much can that be reduced by different levels of reduction in fossil fuel use? What are the harms from that reduction? How do those harms compare? What are the second order effects and their consequences for all of the above?

Now, let's step back and accept that nobody actually has reliable answers to most of those questions. Further, nobody actually gets to make global policy choices. Even worse, the people who do make national policy choices don't seem to make those choices based on collecting the best data and then rationally trying to serve the public interest.

Nether the "humanity will die" and "climate change isn't real" claims are honest attempts to accurately predict the future. They are strategic attempts to influence public perception in a way that is hoped to lead to specific kinds of policy choice that benefit coalitions of special interests at the expense of most of humanity. Most people would be significantly better off if neither of those buckets of policies were implemented.

[-] Pmmeyourtoaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I legitimately believe that you've prompted chatgpt to craft a response that is vapid and devoid of any particular conviction, and then just cut and pasted that response here.

[-] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So what do you suggest we do? Nothing?

[-] queermunist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A few million humans can probably survive huddled together near the poles, but for the billions that will die that's not really distinguishable from human extinction.

this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023

34 points (97.2% liked)

World News

38578 readers

3485 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.