[myshpa]

> more definitive action will be taken against climate change

a) our problem is not only the climate change, but overshoot / polycrisis

b) there is a profit to be made even from the collapse, maybe bigger than ever

Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.

[bloopernova]

> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.

I don't want you to be correct, but I fear that you are. My heart breaks thinking about it. My stepdaughter is 23, and she's going to live through some very tough times.

People in positions of power and influence seem to think they can flee to New Zealand and life will continue as before. I don't know how to disabuse them of that notion.

[ta988]

A lot of people are making money by building fear in the ultra rich. They are really gullible. Really hard to bring people that have been scammed up to reason.

[lacrimacida]

Fear is being being built everywhere and everyone is very gullible, including the poor.

[myshpa]

Maybe the biggest problem is how big a problem it is. The extent of the problems we're facing may be too overwhelming for the average person to fully comprehend.

Overshoot encompasses many aspects, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, resource depletion, and much more.

The fundamental issue is the need for constant growth in a finite environment. Almost all money in the system is created through loans by banks, and there is an interest on that money that must be paid, typically around 3% or so, and this interest compounds exponentially.

As a result, our growth is exponential, and there is no sign of it slowing down. Our GDP doubles every 30 years, while our finite natural environment is the first to be sacrificed in an attempt to service one's debts.

All we see is an attempt at solving the energy, and only partially - because it's the easiest problem. We don't see any real debate about degrowth, reforestation, equity, food system, financial system ... no real progress on any front.

- We should stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible.

- Transitioning to plant-based diets can free up an area the size of both Americas, allowing for reforestation that would halt biodiversity loss and sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.

- Agriculture must be reformed to eliminate our reliance on harmful pesticides and practices that destroy biodiversity.

- Overfishing and pollution must be stopped to preserve marine life and ecosystems.

- Developed countries should pursue degrowth while supporting the development of less developed nations.

- Education and restoration should be prioritized over exploitation.

Animal species have witnessed a 70% decline in just the last 50 years. How long until our insect and pollinator populations collapse? How long until forests completely lose their ability to retain moisture and generate rain? How long until oceans are devoid of fish or sharks (with 90% already gone), leading to the collapse of the entire marine ecosystem? How long until major crop failures occur?

There have been collapses of civilizations before, but there has never been a total collapse of the biosphere as well. So I too worry for the future of today's young.

Sorry for the rant.

[bloopernova]

Don't ever apologize for caring. I didn't think it was a rant really.

[M95D]

> allowing for reforestation that would [...] sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.

That's a common mistake. It won't. Plants sequester carbon only while they are alive. When they die, the carbon returns to the atmosphere. A forest, even with that size won't make a significant impact on carbon stored compared to how much oil and coal we burned. The only solution would be to re-create the carbon deposits, but that can't happen anymore.

[ok_dad]

The oil we mined from the ground in about 150 years took hundreds of millions of years to form and from what I recall from the subject, it happened in a time where bacteria and fungus didn’t exist to release that carbon from downed trees Abe plants or whatever. The only way to sequester carbon now would be to spend more energy than was released (putting those bonds back together is hard) from our oil use to create something like inorganic carbon bricks we could try and bury underground somewhere that bacteria and fungus cannot reach.

Good luck to us, I’m not confident we can do it. I’m hoping we can though, I have a toddler. I hate climate deniers, to me they are trying to make my son’s life worse and worse because they don’t want their life to be lesser than they expected.

[p1mrx]

> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.

For now, American citizens can ask congress to support a carbon fee and dividend [1], which would create a financial incentive for the system to dismantle itself. There are few forces in the world more powerful than individuals deciding to save money.

[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/energy...

[pixl97]

Congress doesn't even have a speaker of the house to put forth a bill to vote on.

[p1mrx]

Sounds like they'll have plenty of time to read some email.

[SirMaster]

So if it’s inevitable, what are the possible positive effects?

Are there regions that benefit from the changes that will happen to the weather?

New places that can be used to grow things, new places that might be more appealing to live than it is now?

Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes that you say are inevitable?

[myshpa]

> So if it’s inevitable, what are the possible positive effects?

I cannot see any positive effects. We should try to prevent the inevitable, while there's still some time. Not long. But some.

> Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes

I’m starting to think we're likely to face a future akin to that depicted in Threads (1984) or The Road (2009), and I’m not sure anyone can truly prepare for it.

[SirMaster]

What do you mean though when you say you see no positive effects?

You see negative effects because scientists who have spent great time and effort have found connections to and predicted negative effects.

Has anyone spent a similar amount of time and effort looking for positive effects? If not, how can we expect to know about any positive effects?

[lacrimacida]

> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system

Oh well, the system may simply collapse and not be able and it won’t be pretty. But that will be a starting point for rebuilding.