[gmuslera]

They focused on the water color, acidity, and the effect on the fishes, but they are not putting enough stress in the elephants in the room, the 2.4+ºC increase of average temperature northern regions over very few years (not since preindustrial times) and the massive permafrost thawing that is happening there.

Yes, it is causing this. And many more things in those regions and all the world, for more time than a single framed picture.

[smallerfish]

As a sibling pointed out, they state that as the cause.

Further, right under the image at the top of the article: "Tukpahlearik Creek in northwestern Alaska's Brooks Range runs bright orange where permafrost is thawing".

It doesn't help climate's cause to be hysterical without actually reading things you want to critique.

[_dp9d]

Yep, climate change is coming very fast across the North. It's already very noticeably different up there since I lived there from 2011-2015. Way, way warmer temperatures in the winter, the glaciers have retreated and shrunk drastically to the point I don't recognize photos of places I've spent a lot of time.

Heck, I live 2000 miles south now, and we can see our local glacier retreating yearly with our own eyes. Also it's raining today. In the middle of winter. Not good.

[crazygringo]

They literally say exactly all of that at the start of the article:

> Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost, the layer of earth just under the topsoil that normally remains frozen year-round. McPhee wanted to protect the Salmon River because humans had “not yet begun to change it.” Now, less than 50 years later, we have done just that. The last great wilderness in America, which by law is supposed to be “untrammeled by man,” is being trammeled from afar by our global emissions.

[kortilla]

Are you suggesting that there is some kind of global warming going on?! Someone should really say something.

[jklinger410]

We got a snow storm last week, how would that be possible if the globe was warm?

[graphe]

No, it snowed.

[aaomidi]

Man if only we knew about it a few decades ago....

Oh wait.

[mc32]

Good news is it's not because of what happened to the Rio Tinto in Spain... This is ecology running its course.

[dionian]

Is it time that we finally addressed the massive escalation of fossil fuels by countries like china?

[g8oz]

This line of argument tends to be a delaying tactic by those that don't want the West to do anything substantial domestically. Also China's not the country that pulled out of global climate accords.

[genman]

No. China continues to increase its fossil fuel usage while fossil fuel usage in US and EU has stagnated.

[tejtm]

I would settle for cleaning our own house and setting a good example

[genman]

Fossil fuel usage in US and EU has stagnated but is increasing in China. I would say that the house is pretty tidy and waiting for major renovation - but the fact is - what ever pace of usage reduction does not counterbalance exponential usage increase.

[maxglute]

EU has stagnated.

PRC fossil usage is tapering.

US became the largest oil and lng exporter in the world.

10 million barrels of oil per day, 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day.

Enabling exponential usage.

If PRC fossil imports is counted against her usage, then US fossil exports should be counted against hers to balance the account (and other major fossil producers). And that front, US is both the greatest fossil fuels user - 30% more than PRC in aggregate, and 6x more per capita, while also enabling other to use fossil fuels post shale boom. More than ANY other fossil exporter.

[genman]

You are missing the forest behind the trees, I'm afraid of. The reason behind the increase of US fossil fuel production is geopolitical to suppress Russian profits and its ability to finance its genocidal war. Russia can't lower much of its production cost. Major part of the Russian state budget is based on profits from the fossil fuel sales - no profits, no war.

If US didn't increase its production then Russia could sell at higher price and many countries would be forced to buy it as there would be no alternative. This would allow it to continue the war longer and possibly attack more countries.

Unfortunately the formula of the problem is complex with many variables. There are no easy solutions.

The best strategy we have right now is to convince China to reduce its fossil fuel usage so everyone else could scale down.

[maxglute]

All this is saying is countries will produce/consume fossil fuels according to self interest. US shale/oil export boomed years before RU/UKR war, same with planned LNG expansion. That kind of infra didn't get planned and built in the last 2 years. It just so happens the war validated US prior geostrategic goal of being fossil fuels exporter. Eitherway, why would PRC be convinced to reducing use when it's at 1/6 per capital of US. West has to ramp down per capital usage to PRC levels for that proposal to make sense.

e:

And the only effect of PRC consuming more energy for manufacturing is other countries can manufacture less. Why do we need to reshore / diversify / build redundant factories/supply chains. Clearly that's in jest, but the logic works both ways, why would PRC not harness energy to improve her geopolitic posture when US is using it to enhance hers. Long term demand also works on efficiency paradox, the more supply there is, the cheaper something becomes and the more it tends to be used. US ramping up more supply/reduces, or rather increase cost of green transition. Large reason why oil demand is set to plateau long term is PRC is using oil to make renewables with cheap RU and Iranian oil. The point is, as long as US benefits from being fossil exporter by playing up her geologic advantages, PRC is going to reap benefit from converting fossil to goods by playing up her manufacturing advantages.

[pests]

Why do you want to go force China to do things when we have a ton of improvement to do ourselves?

[genman]

Let's imagine in simple numbers that "our" usage is 10 right now and by "tons of improvements" we could reduce it to 8. In this example China has 10 too, but is increasing its usage 10% in year and would use close to 20 after 8 years. Now how much sense would these "tons of improvements" make?

[pests]

What are you gonna do, force them?

[graphe]

Focus on 95% of 5% or focus on 20% of 95%? You're choosing #1.

[gmuslera]

Do what you can control.

If everyone waits till all the rest take a step forward no one will. Until is too late, of course, then everyone loses.

[genman]

It does not come for free. If China can at the same time use cheaper cost of production to compete against countries that have to increase their cost then other countries will loose. In both scenario everybody loses in the end but in the first scenario China will come out on top until then. The only winnable long term strategy is when China will play along all the time.

[gmuslera]

There will be no savings nor winners is no one moves a finger. Doing nothing will have infinite cost.

[throwawayqqq11]

China is hit by climate change too. Every side has to fix theirs first or how could you (rich west, that profited mostly from unsustainable economic growth) ever make demands to anyone else. Take it from the game theory perspective. Everyone or noone. And which side is the easiest to change?

To me, the answer is simple and just pointing at whataboutthem is just short sighted, like building a wall to fix internal crime rates.

[genman]

Everybody took advantage. The West had stagnating population growth that made it possible to have wealth growth. Everybody else had exponentially exploding population (also unsustainable, but prohibited to become rich on the individual level) that from the evolutionary perceptive gave everyone much higher benefits.

Now the fossil fuel usage in the West is stagnating or even decreasing. If China will not play along then everybody will loose. Even when the West would stop its fossil fuel usage tomorrow, the total amount of fossil fuel usage will keep growing. Everybody will loose but until it happens, China will stay on top while everybody else will start suffering already today. Everyone who is smart will not play along in this game.

The only real solution is possible when China start cooperating.

[graphe]

A dike had a large and small hole with that logic will be underwater.

[throwawayqqq11]

A large hole that one cannot reach. Game theroy requires at least two participants. Sounds logical now?

[kirubakaran]

I don't think there are elephants in Alaska, let alone indoors, in rooms or otherwise.

[rolph]

we have mammoths and mastodons, but most of them are not available until thawed from the permafrost