You must log in or register to comment.

shirk-work t1_iuz8rmv wrote

Between this and the permafrost I think we're seriously underestimating the situation. It's more like a climate apocalypse.


BrownThunderMK t1_iuzo4os wrote

We also lost 70% of the world's animal population since 1970. Capitalism is actively destroying the planet, at this rate we're giving the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs a run for its money.


shirk-work t1_iuzpqub wrote

We won't be the first organism to cause a mass extinction but we will be the first "intelligent life". The first photosynthesizing life poisoned the atmosphere with oxygen and nearly killed everything.


f1del1us t1_iuzvd8l wrote

What will be interesting will be the life that evolves to deal with the mess we leave behind (looking at you, plastic)…


MeisterLogi t1_iv0rbpd wrote

>"Plastic is not natural, it is made, this proves that their must have been intelligent life before the Sixth Mass Extinction Event."

>"Plastic is natural! It's absolutely everywhere. And if you don't understand where it comes from, maybe that was just Gods plan. And if life was so intelligent, where are they? They would have noticed the rising carbon levels and taken action. It's absolutely preposterous to say we are not the first intelligence on this planet."


0b_101010 t1_iv0xgqa wrote

LOL. This would actually be a great prompt for a novel.


Buddahrific t1_iv1160c wrote

Imo the real problem for the far future is when the plastic-dependent life uses up all the plastic we're leaving without any way to make more. We could be creating not one but two extinction events.

Makes me wonder what kind of evidence of this all will be left in millions of years. If there's anything that eventually digs up our fossils, will they know what caused the current extinction event? Would they be able to figure out a peak plastic extinction?


EcoEchos t1_iv0td3k wrote

And yet, most people are perfectly happy financing the industries who are responsible for the mass extinctions of wildlife we are seeing in nature. Most people are financing these industries several times a day.

> “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.


[deleted] t1_iv0x1ix wrote



EcoEchos t1_iv1wfpl wrote

This suggestion is great, because it literally requires everyone to do absolutely nothing, thus resulting in zero change. All while they pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves.


joleme t1_iv16osf wrote

Let's hypothetically say everyone stopped consuming meat and dairy.

Do you (or anyone else) really think that the people that owns that land who are now going to be 100% broke because their livelihood has been taken away are going to just say "oh, I'll just start planting trees that will make me no money"?

Do you expect that the government would pay the going rate for the land? Should they just use eminent domain if the owners don't want to sell?

Throwing around "solutions" with no real way to implement them is pretty pointless. This isn't even touching on the fact that the elite with $$$$$$ rule the world. They've peddled misinformation for decades and decades. They got world governments wrapped around their fingers.

We can all do our little bits to try and help (I do, but it's a drop in the bucket) but unless the billionaires stop polluting we're fucked.


Kemyst t1_iv2x6yk wrote

We’re fucked. Billionaires become billionaires by being greedy and greedy people don’t give a fuck about anything outside their bubble. It’s coming, the only question is when.


EcoEchos t1_iv1w93q wrote

Ah, yes, the typical "my actions do not matter" response in the face of simple information. 🙄

Keep deluding yourself that it's OK to finance ecological destruction across the globe just for your temporary moment of pleasure. 👍

Again, these industries exist only to feed consumers, but you are so eager to ignore that fact, alongside the long list of variables that you ignored in your comment. Your comment literally only focuses on land use and ignores how animal agriculture is just raping and pillaging our planet across tons of other variables.

Keep financing these industries to destroy our planet then put on your shocked pikachu face when you see articles like the one OP posted. 🙄


Odeeum t1_iv0qugz wrote

"But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of wealth for shareholders"


EcoEchos t1_iv0tnf0 wrote

The shareholders are not the only ones responsible for the mass extinctions of wildlife we are seeing.

Animal agriculture is responsible for the mass extinctions we are facing and those industries would not be possible without their consumers financing them for it. These industries aren't digging up the bones of our planet just for fun, they do it for your dollars.

The real culprits are all of the people who are continuing to eat meat and animal products, since they are financing these industries to destroy our planet, several times a day.

edit: Yep, keep downvoting as if it changes the truth.


bluesquare2543 t1_iv2j82b wrote

It’s cognitive dissonance. The shareholder observation is just as truthful as the fact that the animal agriculture industry is raping animals and our planet.


Gemini884 t1_iv21wr6 wrote

“In the last 50 years, Earth has lost 68% of wildlife, all thanks to us humans” (India Times)
“Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds” (The Guardian)
“We’ve lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years” (World Economic Forum)
These are just three of many headlines covering the Living Planet Index. But they are all wrong. They are based on a misunderstanding of what the Living Planet Index shows. - explainer article from ourworldindata

"Recent analyses have reported catastrophic global declines in vertebrate populations. However, the distillation of many trends into a global mean index obscures the variation that can inform conservation measures and can be sensitive to analytical decisions. For example, previous analyses have estimated a mean vertebrate decline of more than 50% since 1970 (Living Planet Index).Here we show, however, that this estimate is driven by less than 3% of vertebrate populations; if these extremely declining populations are excluded, the global trend switches to an increase. The sensitivity of global mean trends to outliers suggests that more informative indices are needed. We propose an alternative approach, which identifies clusters of extreme decline (or increase) that differ statistically from the majority of population trends.We show that, of taxonomic–geographic systems in the Living Planet Index, 16 systems contain clusters of extreme decline (comprising around 1% of populations; these extreme declines occur disproportionately in larger animals) and 7 contain extreme increases (around 0.4% of populations). The remaining 98.6% of populations across all systems showed no mean global trend."


ShelSilverstain t1_iuzsaon wrote

There's too many people. If we didn't even eat food or use fossil fuels, our impact on other species is nothing but selfish


cutekitty1029 t1_iv051iu wrote

It's really lazy and harmful to just say "there's too many people" as though some poor subsistence farmer in the global south has the same culpability as a gas guzzling westerner with two cars and a meat based diet.

There are too many hyperconsumers in the west. That's the primary issue and driver of emissions and the thing we need to stop immediately.


masala_mayhem t1_iv07cmk wrote

Thank you @cutekitty1029 for saying that. Have had an opportunity to travel across villages in rural India, sri lanka, Bangladesh and their impact on the planet is absolutely negligible when compared to the impact of the average Redditor.

Also, there are far too many hyper consumers everywhere - and now Manila and Mumbai want the same level of consumption as Manchester and Memphis. We need to cut down consumption


Artanthos t1_iv0xh0c wrote

Any species will expand to the destruction of its environment without natural controls.

Humans are no exception.


CaseyTS t1_iv11sp2 wrote

Yes, we all see this happening. The question is how to not do that as humans. We have made HUGE strides in the past century. Probably won't be enough, who knows. Certainly not you or me.


ImJustSo t1_iv0xq4z wrote

Well, I'd like to point out the culpability of corporations as well...

Unchecked and unregulated corporations. They're "producers" of carnage and consumers of the planet to feed their profits. Nestle? Enron? Gazprom?

Corporations (and entire industries) give those "hyperconsumers" the means to consume their product.

The oil/auto industry murdered early public transportation and early EVs. If these leaches on society hadn't set up shop and pillaged the planet, then the United States would have passenger trains and bus access to every inch of the country without anymore impact than your neighbor and his neighbor and hers.

What about Nestle? Bottling water and selling it back to the people the steal it out from under?

I don't think people should be driving around real life Tonka trucks to their 9-5 jobs, but I don't think they should even exist in the first place. It's murder.


TarantinoFan23 t1_iv0ez58 wrote

How about sports? Athletes should just be farmers.


Mediocremon t1_iv0qn9a wrote

Make them play football with hoes strapped to their back, and move the field every day.


ImJustSo t1_iv0ycex wrote

Push plows are a thing. Football sleds are also a thing. I feel that they're just a few nuts and bolts away from being a great way for rural football teams to help out their farming communities.


Mediocremon t1_iv0yxgv wrote

We're solving world issues one goofy sport at a time.


ImJustSo t1_iv10lrn wrote

Right to repair? Who needs tractors when you've got teenagers that want a state championship?


Mediocremon t1_iv11ds1 wrote

The fight for the "right to repair" suddenly becomes "healthcare for all" to fix the broken child labourers


ISiupick t1_iuzuq4t wrote

Im approaching 30 and recently spoke with my parents about having kids. Sure, they want grandkids, but Im not too comfortable putting a new life on Earth if we're speeding head on towards self-anihilation through climate change.

Maybe it's for the better. We truly don't deserve this planet.


shirk-work t1_iuzv5ie wrote

I mean I don't think humanity is going to go extinct but I do believe the population will drop by 2 or 3 billion mainly in poor areas and those most deeply affected by climate change. If your living in a wealthy county with a decent climate or even a climate that may become more arable it'll be on par with the great depression for instance. If your in a second or third world country already prone to droughts or floods then yeah then maybe it isn't as great of an idea. If you're highly educated, have good finances your the person we most want to have children but is simultaneously the least likely.


ISiupick t1_iuzvtmn wrote

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about extinction. Those 2-3 bln climate refugees you mentioned - they're not going to just keel over and die. They'll have to go somewhere and we're going to have a few wars about it. Russia is already flying migrants in and sending them on their merry way to Europe, basically using them to drain resources and fuel anti-migrant sentiment. In the meantime we ourselves will have to deal with droughts and scorching hot weather with all that other shit going on.

Just thinking about it stresses me out, I don't want my kid living through it.


shirk-work t1_iuzwyyc wrote

The universe has always been against us. We just got lazy the last hundred years or so. Complacent with a very unusually comfortable situation. There's definitely going to be tensions, war, famine, and so on but that's been the norm for humanity more so than the current situation. we've been through worse multiple times. Check out the worst year ever. Dang most of the time you wouldn't expect all of your kids to make it to adulthood yet here we all are. It's not about life being tough it's about giving it a big fat middle finger and existing anyways.


ISiupick t1_iv0691j wrote

I have to disagree on the universe thing - the universe keeps trucking along, whether we exist or not. I do have to agree on the fact that we have to give it the middle finger and exist anyway. Thing is, we've been against ourselves this whole time.

Wars, famines and especially climate change are mostly man made. Oil companies have known the consequences of burning fossil fuels for at least 40 years and not only did they not help, they actively hid the research and kept fucking us over. The war in Ukraine, as an example, can be blamed on one man, yet millions suffer.

Just to put a bow on this discussion - "save the planet" seems like such a stupid idea. Earth became a thing 4 bln years ago, humanity is all but a blip in it's history. We should focus on saving ourselves.


CagedBeast3750 t1_iv0hztd wrote

But that is and always has been our nature. In the big picture, "man made" is natural. It doesn't really counter his point - its how we exist, and probably won't change until we're gone. Who knows maybe when the floods come a few will survive and we'll take our game of thrones novels, add some morality lessons, and call it the new testament.


sotek2345 t1_iv0l9v1 wrote

On the flip side, one person not existing makes it easier for the rest of the species (less resource use, no carbon emissions, etc.) Spending too much time thinking about this lately. Probably not healthy.


MeSpikey t1_iv0xkpa wrote

Definitely not healthy but very understandable.


Gemini884 t1_iv22z1r wrote

Where did you read that there will be more than a billion(upper end estimate) refugees?
Read IPCC report on impacts instead of speculating-


ISiupick t1_iv2floh wrote

I was taking about the 2-3 bln people the previous comment mentioned. By no means its an accurate number


Blekanly t1_iv0jbfl wrote

Tbf the population is dropping in the west, Japan, China is about to be hit hard.


HeartoftheHive t1_iuzvtt7 wrote

I don't think you grasp how well and truly fucked humanity will be on the whole once shit starts cascading out of control.


shirk-work t1_iuzwols wrote

Definitely for a time but I don't think this is a society collapsing situation. It's too slow. If we want to set up a whole bunch of modified algae making essentially Soylent then we can. We choose not to because there's no need for that now. Food is the key issue, humans can figure out where now is the best area to build and avoid natural disasters. Maybe if the atmospheric oxygen drops drastically then yeah most things will die and humans will build underground cities. Maybe 100 million to 2 billion will hold on and emerge. I think we will likely attempt some drastic geoengineering first which will buy time. There will be some extreme military states to deal with to situation while maintaining order. The value of a human life will drop for a while. Tbh that's been more so the norm than the current situation.


Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv015xz wrote

Honestly I bet nuclear apocalypse occurs before any of that. I'm thinking the climate crisis will set off wars that won't end well for anybody.


shirk-work t1_iv04v7z wrote

Now that's fast enough and possibly devastating enough to wipe us out. Seems like an odd choice then again people will all rush an exit during a fire essentially ensuring nearly everyone burns.


Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv1f6kb wrote

It does seem like an odd choice, but so does carrying nuclear armaments because everyone else has them. I don't think the collapse of modern civilization wouldn't lead to nuclear war as countries escalate violence to try and fend other countries off of their resources. Not to mention the countless armaments that would likely fall out of governmental hands across the globe.


shirk-work t1_iv1ie5j wrote

I guess nuking someone who can't nuke you back and no global economy to punish you is more likely. Nuking someone who can and will return the favor seems like a zero sum game


HeartoftheHive t1_iv0213d wrote

> It's too slow.

That's an assumption right there. As I said, there are a lot of things that are currently at a tipping point. You don't see imminent disaster once they all start toppling? Water is already starting to become a huge issue and that effects everything, obviously including our food supplies. And this is before the real big dominoes start falling.


shirk-work t1_iv04kvn wrote

I mean we have solutions. Modular nuclear desalination to get as much water as we want. Right now building takes time because a lot of red tape but if we were in a rush a lot of solutions could be deployed within a much shorter timeframe. Once again this isn't to say it's not going to be a shit show and there will be large scale geo engineering not to fix the problem but to buy time.


HeartoftheHive t1_iv05c6f wrote

I don't have any hope that the governments of the world will spare a dime to do more than the bare minimum. They could and should be doing so much more and they simply won't. The signs are obvious and they continue to stick their collective fingers in their ears, saying "tralala" and refusing to do anything more.

I'll be surprised if the world isn't on the way to a Fallout type scenario just from climate change alone when I'm on my death bed.


sotek2345 t1_iv0ljfu wrote

As a whole, we can't think beyond the next quarterly earnings statement. The environment won't collapse in 3 months, we will just boil slowly if we don't nuke ourselves over resources.


HeartoftheHive t1_iv0oncq wrote

I won't say as a whole, but those that are already on top of the corporate pile will do anything and everything to stay at the top. Even if it means burning the Earth in the process.


50bucksback t1_iv0j9jz wrote

Plenty of kids already here and waiting to be adopted


supermarkise t1_iv2eemk wrote

Looking at the process, costs and prerequisites.. looks kinda impossible, sorry. And I'm not equipped to deal well with too much special needs, so the chances go down even further.


FredPolk t1_iuzzvkw wrote

Only the poor will be fucked. Are you poor? If not, make babies.


LeopardThatEatsKids t1_iv00hao wrote

How remarkably unempathetic.


[deleted] t1_iv01t8v wrote



FredPolk t1_iv05gyv wrote

Just stating facts. People shouldn't change their family plans for climate change. Climate change is going to happen whether he has kids or not. If he wants kids, it's ridiculous for him to change his life plans because of climate change. The highest birth rates in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa. Climate change will take a toll there. Famine and poverty will only get worse. They couldn't sustain their population decades ago, let alone current or future populations combined with droughts and other climate change effects. People will be displaced. It's just about whether they can afford it or not.


FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0s38h wrote

I don’t think ‘facts’ means what you think it does in this situation. sure it’s going to happen, but it’s hard to talk out of one side of your mouth saying you want to help prevent and improve it and then also having kids knowing what we know is OK because, well, ‘I can afford it’ like you said. And that’s not even to say those living in situations currently will be safe or habitable in 10 years.

“Having a child is 7-times worse for the climate in CO2 emissions annually than the next 10 most discussed mitigants that individuals can do,”


FredPolk t1_iv1unuw wrote

If he doesn’t have the kid though, someone else will. It’s the same for any animal species. There is a limit and a certain sustainable population. If humans are going to experience some die off, it’s still better to have more population than less even if population is the catalyst. I think it is obvious at this point that we aren’t going to change the course by choice. It will be forced upon us. The losers will be those in 3rd world countries who can’t afford to relocate or simply get stuck in the path of destruction and they can’t afford to rebuild homes and infrastructure. E.g. Haiti after earthquake and hurricanes. Climate change isn’t a nuclear armageddon and deciding not to have children will do nothing to change the course. It just means someone else will unless the entire world agreed to a child policy which isn’t practical or realistic. Eugenics should have been further researched and enforced 100 years ago.


ISiupick t1_iv06f8u wrote

Do you really think the rich will survive? Even if they manage to build some epic apocalypse bunker, they have to power it and feed themselves somehow. With the Earth in a global warming nosedive, none will survive.


FredPolk t1_iv06mq5 wrote

Climate change doesn't equal apocalypse. The poorest on Earth will suffer the most and the wealthiest will suffer the least.


ISiupick t1_iv09pa0 wrote

Climate change with no action to stop it (current situation) equals apocalypse. Shell released some promo about them going net-zero. Putting aside the fact that net-zero in practice is bullshit, they hade some small print. When you got into the small print, it had even smaller print that said "It's just marketing. We don't care if we hit those targets".

The poor will be the first to suffer, the rich will just delay their demise. And by the way, all that wealth is useless if you don't have any poors to push around. Or you know... actually gerenate that wealth for you to steal from them.


FredPolk t1_iv0bh4d wrote

When I say poor, I mean the REAL poor. Nigeria poor. India slums poor. Vietnam poor. Your job at Wendy's is rich compared to the real poor of the world. You are on a computer and likely own a newer iPhone or Samsung phone with brand sneakers on your feet. There will be plenty of Wendy's and McDonalds workers. Western countries will be fine even with the worst predictions. Doesn't mean it is going to be a cake walk, but it's not all or nothing like you seem to believe.


ISiupick t1_iv0ct7t wrote

I think it is all or nothing. Billions of climate refugees are going to try to relocate, creating conflicts, straining supply chains and furthering the energy crisis. Not to mention all the humanitarian and medical crisises that will arise from that migration. Looking at current politics, I feel like we're going to wake up with a wall of people at our borders and the only people with an "answer" will be assholes the likes of Orban, Trump, Kaczyński, Le Pen, BoJo, Putin, etc.

Yes, a Wendy's worker is rich compared to some slave-wage worker from Bangladesh. That still doesn't change the fact that "The poor will be the first to suffer, the rich will just delay their demise." - however you choose to define rich and poor. Pakistan produces 0.5% of global emissions, yet they're the first ones to suffer - almost 30% of the country is flooded, millions of people displaced, thousands of schools, hospitals, etc. destroyed boyond repair.

Same thing can happen in Florida when the inevitable rise of the sea floods it from below, when levies break in the Netherlands, when the soil in Ukraine is bone-dry and unable to produce crops, that get exported globally.

Wether we have iPhones or have to beg for money on the streets in some 3rd world country, the climate doesn't care. Global warming is... global. Droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes are everywhere and everywhere they're breaking records every year. We (western nations) have the resources and knowledge to do something about it. It's just that rich cunts don't want us to do anything, because it will hurt their profits.


Beer-Milkshakes t1_iv0772h wrote

In 40 years time when the methane deposits melt the ozone, the ocean levels rise and annual city wrecking storms are commonplace. The politicians will say "well who could have predicted such widespread disaster, its impossible, anyway here is why we need to put security cameras at the end of every street.


FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0rd24 wrote

‘However, in the years leading up to this dismal moment, I and those around me have profited greatly and we will use those profits to keep you on the other side of this fence guarding our food and water’


rakelake t1_iv1j0xu wrote

Also the Great Salt Lake in Utah has drastically declining lake levels, exposing toxic arsenic and other minerals that has dormant under the salt water all this time. Once the lake bed dries, poisonous dust particles will fill the air and quite literally poison the valley, since air can’t easily escape due to the mountains creating a bowl effect trapping the poisonous air (like the notoriously bad inversions they have). People will either die, have to move, or live life with a gas mask on whenever we go outside.


shirk-work t1_iv1ji0x wrote

The Mormon containment unit will fail.


rakelake t1_iv1lt9z wrote

it already has, they run our state, hence the doom


shirk-work t1_iv2lsft wrote

People say it's Mormons. People say it's scientologist. I say why not both.


sector3011 OP t1_iuyvkis wrote

The Congo peatlands are a huge carbon “timebomb” that could be triggered by the climate crisis, research has shown.

The peatlands, which span the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo, are the largest in the tropics and cover 17m hectares (42m acres). They store a vast amount of carbon – the equivalent of three years of global fossil fuel emissions. They are also threatened by logging and oil and gas exploitation.


warling1234 t1_iuz42vn wrote

The west could care less until it impedes every day life. This article is still too young.


Ishidan01 t1_iuzgg9z wrote

which of course is way too late, like ignoring the cut on your foot until the gangrene makes it hard to even hobble


Joeb667 t1_iuzq778 wrote

That’s… actually an interesting way of putting it.


mammaluigi39 t1_iuzsz9q wrote

I know someone has already stated it but that is an amazing analogy.


foxrun89 t1_iv0qqpt wrote

Yep. It’s going to get worse every year until we all die or kill each other for basic resources.


Roboticpoultry t1_iv0xqzf wrote

Now, I’m not a betting man but with the tensions in Asia and Iran and the war in Ukraine I’d put my money on self-imposed extinction while fighting over whatever resources we haven’t plundered yet


Bigmouthblog t1_iv0q6kd wrote

No one is ignoring it you jackass... Technology and the world is working on it everyday it just is a slow process .. you're just the type that uses cars n planes etc JUST as much or more than anyone else. You just want to FEEL superior to others by're not


arbyD t1_iv0qt6u wrote

Wow, you sure gleamed a lot of insight based on that comment.


RainbowDissent t1_iv0v2bv wrote

> No one is ignoring it you jackass...

Maybe when sea levels rise, the water will force you out of that rock you're living under.


FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0qtyj wrote

Can you clarify one thing, please:

You don’t think people are ignoring climate change?


Your_Comment_isWrong t1_iv0brjo wrote

>The west could care less until it impedes every day life. This article is still to young.

The same could be said about the non west. Let's not act like it's always the bad west. Because atleast they try changing for the good.

Non west? Could give two fucks less.


sovietmcdavid t1_iv0n5kf wrote

And india and China who polute more than the US or Canada. It's not just one region


cyberpunk6066 t1_iv0trsh wrote

Culminative pollution USA/Europe/Japan is still way ahead


nagi603 t1_iv0ptus wrote

> The west could care less until it impedes every day life.

I think you severely overestimate the amount of care.


Bigmouthblog t1_iv0pib8 wrote

Do you drive a car and fly in planes and use electricity Warling?? Humm?? Why don't you live without those things? I already know the answer...cause you're a hypocrite .... And because you can't. You just like to act all high and mighty and lecture others to seem like you're better than everyone else...while you are actually EXACTLY like everyone else.., you 'climate activists are all the same.


yesmrbevilaqua t1_iuzyfve wrote

It’s only a problem if they burn the peat for fuel, which seems difficult to the unbearably humid Congo


Thelaea t1_iv02fq4 wrote

Peat is organic matter which is preserved due to wet/waterlogged conditions. If the environment becomes drier it will start to decompose and release carbon all on its own.


Xzmmc t1_iuzs40z wrote

Another day, another disaster no one will do anything about because stonk line go up.

I hope that if another sentient species emerges in a few million years, it's not as short sighted and selfish.


SeneInSPAAACE t1_iv06l8u wrote

Then it's not going to emerge.
Before you can worry about the future, you must survive until tomorrow.
Trick is in being selfish AND capable of perceiving longer timespans.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzg7wh wrote

>"We know today that these peatlands are very close to that tipping point [...] We don’t know exactly how close"

That's not a very useful science. It gives no perspective to the reader who wishes to be informed. "Very close" is not informative at all.


atridir t1_iuzil78 wrote

It’s the same thing with possible Gulf Stream collapse. The problem is that we have no metric to predict where the “tipping point” is or what it might look like in practical terms.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzk9gd wrote

Whole purpose of science is to give answers to practical questions through observation and experiment, so that people could decide what to do. Science is a practical tool.

If science is not able to give an answer to a practical question for whatever reason, it means we will not be able to use it to decide what to do about it. We might still act on it, but it will not be a science-based act, with all the consequences of that.


atridir t1_iuzpjb0 wrote

I would say that I agree with your sentiment with the caveat that I think that science is about understanding the form, function, circumstance or modality of some aspect of reality, via observation and experimentation, for the express purpose of expanding our species’ knowledge of the nature of our existence. Simply: knowledge for the sake of knowledge; what we use that knowledge for is often to elucidate solutions to practical problems but that is a secondary function rather than the primary purpose.


mescalelf t1_iuzy9p9 wrote

100% agreed with you. For me at least, it’s just fascinating and intrinsically worthwhile.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2shac wrote

>knowledge for the sake of knowledge

First of all 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is not science. Science if a specific set of specifically organized knowledge. I was discussing science, not knowledge in general.

Second, what you call 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is curiosity, and it is an evolutionary trait. Evolutionary is a crucial word here. It means that it has appeared and spread in the population, meaning it was practically useful for survival. The survival benefit of the trait stems from the practicality of knowing the threats as opposed to not knowing the threats. So even 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is a practical tool.

But majority of science is not knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but rather an investigation for practical reasons: grow food, cure disease, build house, etc.


atridir t1_iv2zt01 wrote

Point of clarification: you were discussing the “purpose” of science and I disagreed with you on the reason not the process.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv3myid wrote

And that's ok, but if we talk science specifically, it's a tool. A specific tool. And as every tool it was created for a purpose, and it was not 'knowledge for knowledge'. Technically speaking the very base of scientific method (empirical analysis and experimentation) was developed by Dominican monks to get closer to God through discovery of truth about the World, but I don't want to look like I'm preaching.

But the point still stands. We value science because of its results. Not because we like knowledge for knowledge. The latter existed since the beginning of time. Science did not exist since the beginning of time. It's an invention. A tool. For a purpose of getting 'truth' i.e. concrete, verifiable results.


Graekaris t1_iv0f7kl wrote

You're neglecting the fact that science is highly statistical. It's never certain about anything, and environmental collapse is no exception. The message is that there's a high probability of this ecosystem being destroyed in the near future due to human influence.

You can wear sunscreen to reduce the chance of getting skin cancer, but the probability will never be zero. That doesn't mean it's "not a science based act" to wear sunscreen.


DrHalibutMD t1_iv0l437 wrote

You’re absolutely right. The argument being put forward that this information isn’t useful is the same as climate change denial. We can’t do anything because the science hasn’t proven anything yet. Of course we won’t fully know until it does happen and we’re past the point of being able to do anything about it.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2qx17 wrote

"Those who are not with us are against us" is a single telltale of a totalitarian sect.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2qhdn wrote

>You're neglecting the fact that science is highly statistical.

Thanks Captain Obvious, you neglectinc the fact there is no statistics in the article, "very close" is not statistics. Of course you gonna say there are some statistics somewhere, and well, duh of course, but they are not here. Not in this article. the article is useless. It's not science at all.


Graekaris t1_iv30vmq wrote

No one said they did. But the rate of change is greatly effected, and that's what humanity will struggle with.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv3nkdg wrote

>the rate of change is greatly effected

You don't know that. It's not verifiable with the information in the article. You just want to believe what you already believe to be The Truth, even when scientific proof is nowhere to be found.

I'm not even asking much. Just give me some freaking numbers: what's the rate, what's the base, I don't even need proofs those numbers are real. But give me something. But there aren't anything. Yet "activists" still upvote "because science". Facepalm.


OriginalCompetitive t1_iuzjhdl wrote

Farther down, the article quotes the scientists as saying it’s “uncertain” and “slow” on the list of potential tipping points:

“The new study provides support for the Congo peatlands being vulnerable to climate drying,” said Prof Tim Lenton, at the University of Exeter and part of the team that undertook the September analysis. “For now, I would keep the Congo peatland and rainforest on the ‘uncertain’ and ‘slow’ list of potential tipping elements in the climate system.”


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzkjnl wrote

Wow... the article is even less scientifically useful than I initially thought.


OriginalCompetitive t1_iuzmoaz wrote

The purpose of the article is political. The COP27 meeting is about to start, and is located this year in Africa and devoted to the theme that developed countries should provide assistance to developing countries to assist with climate change, on the theory that they are primarily responsible for climate change. So an article about destruction of Congo peatlands appears now to fit that theme.

Mind you, I’m not begrudging them the example. This is how politics works and this arguably is an example of that theme. But in this case, it’s serving a political purpose, not a scientific purpose.


YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2ue74 wrote

Politicians are actually smarter than an average redditor, and realize that solid politics should be based on science, because that is what science is for. Science is a proven framework to figure out solid knowledge about something that allows to make conclusions and decisions.

Political article that is not backed by science in favor of climate change is no better than political article that is not backed by science against climate change. For the sake of making solid decisions they are the same.

And I'm leaving alone the fact that even if the claim is right, even if what article claims is correct, then the article did not explain in the slightest how exactly the money are going to help.

A hollow piece of political propaganda, that can only be cheered by mindless activists who only care about amplifying their message with any means, no matter how questionable they are.


LavaLambChops t1_iuzyd75 wrote

I wish it was as easy as giving up my life for the planet to heal and find peace


FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0serp wrote

I wish we could pick and choose whose lives we should give up to improve the climate, starting with some oil executives, Nestlé, Monsanto, et. Al

/s kind of


MisterBlizno t1_iv0vkj4 wrote

Nobody has to make huge sacrifices!

We've known for decades what we must do. Shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. We have started to do so. We must, MUST greatly accelerate this process until we use little or no fossil fuel. Failing to do this will cause much more destruction.

The people who will suffer the most from doing the right things are the ultra-wealthy who have been sucking vast money from the people of the world, knowing that they are pushing Earth toward devastating disasters. As we shift away from fossil fuels they'll harvest fewer billions, boo hoo.


RL_Elf t1_iv0feuz wrote

I think about this far too often, too. A lot of people would probably feel similarly if they knew their sacrifice meant anything, but... you know... billionaires, corporations, and profits above everything.


LavaLambChops t1_iv21cy0 wrote

Yeah exactly, billions of us, we're gonna have to fight so hard for so long. Someday it may be worth all the suffering, but I'll probably never see it in my lifetime. Best of luck to humanity


No-Owl9201 t1_iuzx4zy wrote

This shows how Climate Change is a 'Whole of World Issue' everything is connected, humanity needs to address these issues collectively, it is not enough just to clean up our own backyards.


EcoEchos t1_iv0uj0w wrote

I find it sad that in all of these threads, there is never any mention of animal agriculture or it's responsibility in the picture.

Animal agriculture is what is driving the mass extinctions of wildlife we are seeing in nature, it is causing ocean dead zones, driving climate change, responsible for 80% of the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest, destroying ecologies across the globe, killing indigenous tribes to take their lands, it's responsible for most of the plastic in our oceans, etc etc.

I really don't understand why I'm the only person in this entire thread who has to bring these issues up.


Daelisx t1_iv0wnd4 wrote

Yes we should fix the animal agriculture problem, but can we hold the 10 largest carbon polluters accountable altogether?


EcoEchos t1_iv1wlaa wrote

We can start holding ourselves accountable too.

It's a bit silly to blame the corporations that are destroying our planet while concurrently paying them to do it several times a day.


shuckley_Jays t1_iuzlqns wrote

This was the first thread that popped up right after I chugged an Irish carbomb


grambell789 t1_iv0omgx wrote

here we go again. faster and boomier than expected


FuturologyBot t1_iuz007v wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/sector3011:

The Congo peatlands are a huge carbon “timebomb” that could be triggered by the climate crisis, research has shown.

The peatlands, which span the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo, are the largest in the tropics and cover 17m hectares (42m acres). They store a vast amount of carbon – the equivalent of three years of global fossil fuel emissions. They are also threatened by logging and oil and gas exploitation.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


PolymerSledge t1_iv0vngy wrote

I wonder about the ethical dilemma of first world nations telling developing nations that they can't use their resources. e.g. Brazil and the Amazon


Chadz4Dewin t1_iv3jauj wrote

Climate crisis, you sure it’s not the Chinese planting rubber tree plantations


[deleted] t1_iuz9uae wrote



YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzhnuz wrote

They will do it themselves naturally. China is very dependent on the imports of fuels. They are throwing more resources than anyone at green energy production. The intentions are of course energy security, but it will help with pollution as well, so overall win-win.


Alexi-de-Sadeski t1_iuzantx wrote

It’s pretty convenient to ignore how much influence global capitalism (which was imposed on China by the west) has on this statistic. Do you think American consumerism has no impact on China’s emissions?


Goldenart121 t1_iuzb6dz wrote

I’m just pointing out that that is where 1/3 of global pollution comes from. Factories in China are held to such low standards compared to ones in the US.


Alexi-de-Sadeski t1_iuzc65t wrote

...Because the US is willing to import goods that were manufactured with low standards, as long as the goods are cheap.

Chinese manufacturing is a necessary part of our current global economy. This isn’t accidental, it’s the result of western countries imposing strict environmental standards in their own countries while supporting exploitative manufacturing in China.


grundar t1_iuzkovw wrote

> it’s the result of western countries imposing strict environmental standards in their own countries while supporting exploitative manufacturing in China.

I'm not sure if you realize quite how much you're infantilizing China and acting as if it has no agency.

You're writing as if China's actions are of course the doing of the West...with the subtext being that China is somewhow not capable of making its own choices. That's...astonishingly racist. China -- and Chinese people -- have far more agency than you're suggesting.

Does that mean we should criticize them for using as much coal as the rest of the world put together? No, because it would be pointless to do so -- like every other major nation, China responds mostly to internal needs, not to harsh words from a rabble of outsiders.

So what do we do?

First, give up the racist delusion that the West is the world's puppetmasters.
Second, engage with nations like China to find parts of the problem where we agree and can work together for mutual benefit.
Third, keep installing clean tech as fast as possible, both to directly reduce our own emissions and to entice others to join by lowering their costs.

Interestingly, China's the one leading the world on point 3, not the West.


Alexi-de-Sadeski t1_iuzmy7b wrote

You’re conflating the country of China with the people of China. I’m talking about the country of China and it’s economic relationship with the west.

It’s not racist to point out the economic reality of capitalist exploitation. I’m not saying that China has been subjugated by global capitalism because the people of China are inferior. Might does not make right.

EDIT: Your #1 point might as well say “ignore the entire past and present of western imperialism in China”.


ShitImBadAtThis t1_iv0j69n wrote

Well, as the peat dies it'll release carbon, but wouldn't new peat be growing where it's more habitable due to the shifting climate?

Peat dies and regrows all the time, I don't necessarily see how this is a massive problem unless the peat dies so fast that it's not able to grow elsewhere, like in the case of a fire, but if what we're talking about it a semi-gradual shift to drier climates, I don't see why the peat wouldn't grow elsewhere with the shifting climate.

Is this maybe why it's considered low on the list of climate tipping points?


confused_ape t1_iv0woyf wrote

That's not really how peat works.

Only 30% of peatland is actually "growing" and even then it is only accumulating at @ 1mm per year.


Rincewindt t1_iv05em8 wrote

Let's be honest - nobody, not any county or nation and moreover whole humanity will never accept decision to live without goods, cars, electricity, planes etc. Humanity will sink in this pit but will never change it's lifestyle. We just can sit and watch, or speak into the wall. Both decisions are make no sense. Climate change is not controllable or reversible.


Change my mind, why you are just downvoting? I want someone to show me realistic way out of this situation, I don't want me or my children suffer from climate change too. Are you ready to live without benefits of civilization? Are you ready to throw your iPhones and vehicles? Are you ready to stop travelling in comfortable Airbuses?


Hot-Ad-3970 t1_iuzuw1d wrote

Maybe one day people will realize we cannot change the earth, but instead have to adjust to it.


Graekaris t1_iv0fp0i wrote

Our actions do change the Earth. We must adjust to the environmental change that we're causing.


squidking78 t1_iv097q8 wrote

Uh… we literally can’t stop the change would be a better argument.


[deleted] t1_iv0228j wrote

Honestly let’s just accelerate it. We will only change when it finally hits the fan


[deleted] t1_iuz7922 wrote



Chezazul t1_iuz8mta wrote

That would probably involve burning the peat and releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, having the same effect as cutting down the trees.


EcoEchos t1_iv0uqt0 wrote

In the Amazon alone, 80% of current destruction is driven by the cattle sector.

The rainforests are being cut down to feed the world meat.

Animal agriculture is also what is responsible for the mass extinctions of wildlife.

> “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.


[deleted] t1_iuznmfg wrote



Zacajoowea t1_iuzpy3j wrote

What’s your point?


[deleted] t1_iuzq3sz wrote



OneSpaceTwo t1_iuzwr2e wrote

We certainly don't "control" the climate in the Congo. But it's not as simple as "it gets wet and it gets dry". Even though there are approximately repeating cycles at a certain timescales (and you're only mentioning some of earth's cycles of solar insolation), the impact of humans on the face of the earth and its land-sea-air balances over the last hundreds and even thousands of years has been huge and continues to expand. When certain boundary thresholds are crossed, some of those cycles shift into new behaviors because it's a system with many different points of stability to settle into, not just one. It is a mistake to assume the system is so stable and predictable that new widespread events on the surface of the earth can't change it. The geological record is littered with traumatic climate shifting events and the explosion of humans will certainly be one of them.


bloonail t1_iv06mug wrote

Word soup does not compensate for never actually studying this phenomena. What you're really saying is these are special times and the regular processes should be ignored. Lets all worship clickbait alarmism.


Graekaris t1_iv0fmdf wrote

You're wrong. A cycle in balance can be pushed out of equilibrium. This is how mass extinctions have occurred in the past. The difference is that this time we're the perturbation rather than an asteroid or volcanism etc.


bloonail t1_iv30bph wrote

I just found one of you bttsurfies got my comment removed on the basis that its anti-science. Yes. large scale intrusions can and do temporarily modify the climate. They can push a possible path into more common usage. These factors do not obliviate the influences of long term climate change.


OneSpaceTwo t1_iv4igf9 wrote

Word soup? How do you know what I've studied?

No, regular processes shouldn't be ignored, but regular earth-solar cycles aren't the only game in town. There are the oceans, land masses, soil chemistry, ice cover, flora and fauna, and all the interactions and feedbacks associated with these things. Climate cycles change and even break for different reasons. Continents reorganize the face of the earth. Organisms evolve that produce oxygen. Over-evolved apes dig fossil fuels from hundreds of millions of years ago out of the ground and dump it in the atmosphere. The geological record is full of interesting, baffling changes. Predictable cycles are always shifting subtly for a period of time then radically reorganizing. You can't just point to the most basic earth-sun cycles and assume everything is caused by them. If you read a climate science textbook you will discover this. Ruddimans Earth's Climate Past and Future is a pretty awesome and accessible overview.


bloonail t1_iv4ju62 wrote

You didn't study climate science. Everything you know is from what you've read online through click-bait and filled in with a bit of wikipedia.


OneSpaceTwo t1_iv4kqxl wrote

OK, I guess I'll throw away my fake masters degree in atmospheric and oceanic science from the University of Wisconsin Madison.


bloonail t1_iv4kxg8 wrote

You don't have a Master's degree. You can't organize your thoughts to exclude nonsense when you're discussing functional relationships of dynamic things.


OneSpaceTwo t1_iv4ltjw wrote

An example would be helpful


bloonail t1_ivmmmwm wrote

You're tossing all sorts of bits of climate basics into the equation. Its the Chewbacca defense. Meanwhile the Saharan forcing has well understood factors. Its not wrong to mention them- how much sun reaching the ground has a delayed but strong effect. There are a lot of papers that search for humanities effect. None are compelling. Maybe the 'humanity-did-it' thing isn't well understood. Maybe guessing about how we effect it might turn out to be the opposite.

Work from the known to introduce exceptions. Don't dismiss the real simply because it fits poorly.


OneSpaceTwo t1_ivnpqnm wrote

You seem to be arguing against things I never said. Of course we can't dismiss solar forcing, it has a major influence on the system. But you want to reduce everything to it. Humans also aren't solely responsible for a great deal of historical climate change (many other natural factors are at play, some of which I mentioned before). However, if we rely on "the known" as you prefer, like basic chemistry and physics of energy transfer, we can predict the effects of dumping a crap load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (capturing more energy, i.e. heating the atmosphere, on average). You accuse me of oversimplifying things, yet that's what you're doing. You accuse me of being an armchair commentator that hasn't studied enough, yet why do I have the feeling that it is you who are basing your beliefs solely on internet articles and hearsay?


bloonail t1_ivqkrqh wrote

I'm not arguing against what you are saying. You are not constructing an argument. Stating a bunch of climate factoids then adding- but its different now because..<<< what>>> . That's not an argument.


Mrbailey999 t1_iuzsmij wrote

Maybe we are just flipping switches, the peat lands, the boreal forests, the Amazon basin… all that carbon used to be in the atmosphere, we are just helping it get bacck there, thus completing the carbon cycle.


Lanster27 t1_iv035cw wrote

Yes and puts us back into a prehistoric Earth that might not be suitable for humans.


Mrbailey999 t1_iv4zj3l wrote

Might not?? Humans can go, carbon cycle is over.


SeneInSPAAACE t1_iv06nve wrote

I prefer the idea that humanity's purpose is to help the planet produce plastics.