[jmward01]

So many of those 'could maybe happen' are, in fact, happening right now. The researcher is also quoted as saying 'more likely than not' which is pretty big when it comes to something like the AMOC shutting down. This really is catastrophic and really should be causing governments to take immediate, massive, steps to avert it including steps to sanction countries that are causing it.

[joquarky]

The government entities that can actually do anything are only reactionary now.

[spwa4]

The big consequence here is for the EU. And the only way to deal with this is for the EU to force US, India and China to seriously reduce energy use, and with that, their economy.

This is not going to happen. The EU can't even convince itself to stop buying from China.

[jmward01]

I don't think China needs convincing. They have likely already hit peak emissions and will start dropping, potentially rapidly, going forward. Europe is big. It just needs to move forward with purpose and things will happen. Getting that purpose is the hard part because world leaders have consistently said 'it will destroy our economy' and never actually tried. China, again, is showing that this isn't true. You can have both, a strong economy and a plan, backed by action, to decarbonize. Had Europe and the US had the forethought to actually invest in solar and batteries then they could be leading the energy transition and profiting, with literal profit meaning hard cash, right now by selling to the rest of the world. Instead the boogyman argument of 'it will destroy our economy' keeps rearing its head. I am absolutely done with that argument.

[spwa4]

I don't get what's with all the China fanboys here. China is increasing it's CO2 output quite a bit. And for completeness, so is India. For both countries the CO2 output is bad enough that it's not just adding to global warming, but this coal plant smoke what's causing the famous smog in Beijing and New Delhi. It's causing breathing problems, cancer, ... in their population.

[runarberg]

They demonstrably are not.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-indias-co2-emissions-in...

[spwa4]

First: look at the CO2 graph for China. That's not falling in any reasonable definition of a word, that's called "flat", even if it is technically less than before.

Second: it's normal for graphs to fall off in their last 1-5 data points because measurements are still coming in.

Third: it's using Chinese data. China has, by the way, publicly declared that they're lying about all public economic data. Please don't use Sinopec data to argue your point.

https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions

China CO2 emissions are rising fast.

Second: India's CO2 emissions are growing according to the article you posted.

[runarberg]

That trend stopped last year in China and will probably stop this year in India.

Showing graphs which start in the year 2000 (when China had relatively low CO2 emissions) and ending in 2023 (a year before they peaked in 2024) is simply lying with statistics. The most resent data shows that China’s emissions are no longer rising.

Now I know we need to do better then that and emissions need to drop extremely fast if we want to stay under catastrophic 2° C warming. But the truth is that China and India are doing exactly as bad as the rest of the world (including Europe here). And considering the economic factors (that Europe can in fact afford the changes required; but still fall way short) India is doing much better then the rest of the world.

[raven12345]

You wouldn't say that if you looked at the data

https://www.statista.com/statistics/690823/china-annual-pm25...

[esseph]

They are not..it has peaked. Coal firing plants are slowing down and renewable generation is outpacing non-renewable. Emissions are dropping as of 2024-2025. They look to have plateaued.

[2ndorderthought]

China has made huge efforts toward sustainable power. Google it.

The us on the other hand is well you know blowing up oil all over the world with military conflicts that are wars but aren't wars but are wars that are over but evolving and over and evolving. They are also rolling back green energy projects , fueling data centers with gas, etc.

[scoofy]

China’s greatest geopolitical weakness is lack of access to petroleum. That’s why they are going so hard on renewables. We just get the benefits for free.

[pipodeclown]

Sure but that doesn't change the fact that they are charging s Ahead while the rest of us sit on our hands.

[spwa4]

China has slowed the rate at which China is making global climate worse. That's where we currently stand. No more than that.

This is not even remotely close to helping the climate.

If your argument is that there should be a "yet" added to that sentence, sure. Let's hope so. But that's still where we currently stand.

[leereeves]

> China has made huge efforts toward sustainable power. Google it.

While also increasing carbon-emissions. China is investing in creating more energy from every source.

[2ndorderthought]

When is the last time you checked the statement you just made for truthfulness? All sources I've seen for years is decreased carbon emissions and stabilized output.

[kjetijor]

It seems naive to think this will only have big consequences for the EU, it'll be disastrous for everything around the Atlantic, and likely beyond.

[pllbnk]

It won't be the case that a global scale ocean current collapses and its impact is local. It's like a butterfly effect where the butterfly is the size of an ocean - its wing flap will resonate throughout entire world with unpredictable natural and social consequences. There will be no winners, only losers.

[fatuna]

While there is definitely a big consequence for the EU (and surrounding countries), the article mentions big impacts for the whole world. When it comes to climate, nobody is left untouched...

[t0bia_s]

I guess all those goverment actions should limit freedom of individuals more and more. Excellent strategy for tyranny.

[tommit]

What do you mean? What kind of limiting of your freedom are you afraid of regarding steps that should be taken to avoid this?

I fear we need some government imposed limitations. Hoping that every individual will do the right thing doesn't really work it seems.

Or do you mean the policies should affect companies more so than individuals? In that case I agree fully.

[t0bia_s]

I believe law cannot teach behaviour. Education, dialogue, trust, transparency could. Any kind of centralised regulations and governance do more harm than good. Cognitive shame and collective guilt killed millions in 20th century, we should learn from it.

[xoa]

>I guess all those goverment actions should limit freedom of individuals more and more. Excellent strategy for tyranny.

...what?? Are you ok with murder and theft as well and whine about how laws against that limit your freedom and are "tyranny"? It's a pretty basic tenet of any groups of humans that's it's fully compatible with freedom to have limits on the extent to which people can cause harm to others. As with all complex dynamic things there are very debatable shades of gray at the edges, but total anarchy objectively does not work.

And it's a fundamental to a functional Free Market that costs be internalized, not externalized. Producers and consumers determine value and generate wealth by comparing the total price of production to the utility offered, but that only works if (amongst other things) the sticker price really is the total price (or at least quite close). If a producer is able to stick their costs onto others then their product will be artificially cheap even if they are less efficient, which will warp the market. That's what we are seeing in energy: fossil fuel producers are dumping cost (in terms of, global warming, ocean acidification, and other forms of pollution) onto the present and future world that they don't have to pay, artificially depressing the cost and alternative solutions that would be net more productive. We could for example be far along on the path of wind and solar power, with enough excess to generate net neutral synthetic hydrocarbons using atmospheric CO2 and water that could then be used in applications like jet engines where they might remain superior.

But the whole point is the market would then be able to determine that naturally, the cost would be built into the price so where and when syngas vs electric vs whatever else provided the best value could emerge. That's not "tyranny", to the extent there is tyranny in the market it's in allowing selfish actors to ruin other people's lives with pollution and preventing those harmed from retaliating.

[t0bia_s]

No, I'm not ok with murder or theft and I don't understand why you write about it. Also I'm not sure why you compare free market, where you are free to participate against centralised governance where you must participate. I really don't understand this "totalitarian" thinking.

[muwtyhg]

> No, I'm not ok with murder or theft and I don't understand why you write about it

Because you seem to think doing ANYTHING to limit people is tyranny, and preventing someone from being able to murder or steal would fall under "anything".

> I really don't understand this "totalitarian" thinking.

Way to avoid engaging with any of the things the poster said, instead nitpicking their first sentence.

> where you are free to participate against centralised governance where you must participate

Adding regulations to what companies can do regarding pollution is not a "centralized government" ala the USSR. All functioning societies and governments impose rules like this. The person you are responding to is mentioning that the externality of climate change is not properly factored into the free market, and we need SOME form of regulation/rules to compensate for that.

[t0bia_s]

If consumers find company do more harm than good, they will not buy their products and company ends. If company ends due to regulations and decisions based on ideologies, then yes, it wis hat USSR does and pay for it till today.