Countries are falling short on reducing emissions, but British data scientist Hannah Ritchie looks at the numbers and sees the world making real gains on climate change. In an interview, she talks about the unheralded progress she sees in the global shift to clean energy.
  • juniper [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    32·
    4 months ago

    Can we send these hopium peddlers to a reeducation camp for political economy? “Green tech” is necessary but not sufficient. I mean really, a “data scientist” tells us everything is actually not as bad as we think? Has she actually looked at the ecological and climate data, instead of just economic metrics like EV adoption and a shifting energy mix?

    Until humanity radically reorients its means of production, we will slide into climate collapse. I need to stop reading articles like this because they just drive me crazy. I hate techno-optimists.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OPEnglish
      19·
      4 months ago

      Radically reorienting means of production isn’t going to happen overnight, however that doesn’t mean that energy transition under the current system has no value. Outside the west, Chinese solar panels are increasingly helping nations build out clean energy infrastructure from the start. It doesn’t mean that everything is peachy, or that we won’t have disasters resulting from the climate crisis we’ve created. However, it’s obvious that the transition that is happening is going to reduce the scope of the disaster.

      • juniper [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        18·
        4 months ago

        I generally agree with you. China is humanity’s only hope on this front. But:

        However, it’s obvious that the transition that is happening is going to reduce the scope of the disaster.

        Remains to be seen. Harm reduction in the face of an existential dilemma is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. Solar panels and battery storage won’t protect you from localized famine. Nuclear power won’t stop hurricanes and typhoons. AI isn’t going to put the methane back in the permafrost. It’s irresponsible to claim that any of this will meaningfully help without a species-level coordination.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OPEnglish
          13·
          4 months ago

          Yes, there will be more and more disasters like hurricanes, floods, droughts and so on. What I’m saying is that preparing for that is better than doing nothing. Having a resilient electric grid can help with avoiding famines actually because it facilitates doing stuff like indoor farming in a controlled environment. China’s already starting to invest in building out indoor farms incidentally. It will also allow use of air conditioning during heat waves, which will absolutely save lives.

          Saying that technology will play no role is just as silly as claiming that technology is a magical solution to the problem. The truth is that we need to restructure how our societies work, but we also have to try to mitigate the damage the best we can in the process.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OPEnglish
                  61·
                  4 months ago

                  At this point we don’t know that we’re necessarily headed for 4c, and a lot can happen in the coming decades. For example, if the west implodes economically, that could significantly change emissions going forward. At the end of the day, we have to try to do the best we can given the situation we’re in. There’s zero value in fatalism.

                • BountifulEggnog [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  4·
                  4 months ago

                  Yea at 4c it’s over and that’s where we are heading. I need to dig up some sources for just how bad the temp increases will be because I keep seeing people wildly overestimate how adaptable they are.

    • carpoftruth [any, any]@hexbear.netMEnglish
      11·
      4 months ago

      The ecological indicators for climate change are going to be bad no matter what because of what was happening 20 years ago, and the ones in 20 years are going to be worse because of what is happening now. Nevertheless, there is a difference between bad, really bad, and literally ending human civilization. estimating that difference in future trajectory is more dependent on current economic/energy utilization metrics than on current environmental metrics.

      a major input into IPCC projections (basically, the how-fucked-are-we-o-meter) are IEA projections of how humanity’s energy mix will change in the future. with respect to renewables, these projections have consistently underestimated the speed of price decrease, availability and implementation of renewable power.

      don’t get me wrong, the biosphere has already been heavily damaged by humanity and further damage is baked in. nevertheless, there is a gulf of difference between scenarios of 2, 2.5, 3 and 4+ degrees of warming.

      • juniper [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        4 months ago

        You write this as if it’s my first rodeo. I understand this all already Mod Carp.

        What I am saying is, we are on a path towards 3+, that the feedback loops are already visible, and thus with all that in mind it is important to ground ourselves. IPCC and IEA projections are all well and good but presuppose conditions that we know are no longer likely. 3+ degrees will be difficult even for a coordinated, technologically advanced human society. Trying to survive it with our neoliberal, fractured global order of fragile supply chains is laughable.