Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

No_Sense_6171 t1_je65sop wrote

Next week's headline: G20 countries ignore world's highest court.

212

RagiModi t1_je8aqz3 wrote

> Although the advisory opinion will be non-binding, it will carry significant weight and authority and could inform climate negotiations as well as future climate lawsuits around the world.

Ah yes, the non-binding opinions that carry "significant weight". Wonder why governments don't make filing our taxes "non-binding" if that's all ya needed for compliance.

30

SameOldBro t1_je8q5x7 wrote

Which means countries such as Sweden or Germany will feel compelled to comply while China and Russia ignore it.

9

Marthaver1 t1_je6qh9v wrote

And this is exactly why climate change is inevitable.

23

_Svankensen_ t1_je6v5x0 wrote

It is already happening, of course it is inevitable. But we can halt it.

14

The_Humble_Frank t1_je8yia3 wrote

No... we can't halt it. What gave you the idea that we could?

What we can do at this point is mitigate it. I'd use a car wreck analogy but that would still give the incorrect sense that it's over at some point. Mitigating it would be like the difference between turning the thermostat being turned up to 80 instead of 95.

1

MetzgerWilli t1_je9j0n0 wrote

The current IPCC report has a scenario (the very low emissions one) that let's us reduce the global temperature long term (return to +1°C by 2100).

Not like that scenario is happening or anything close to it, but that would pretty much halting climate change.

2

The_Humble_Frank t1_jea1wlq wrote

That's not halting it, that's slowing the rate.

1

_Svankensen_ t1_jeabhob wrote

Nope, that's reversing it a bit. The consequences remain, but the warming slowly goes away.

0

The_Humble_Frank t1_jeaggac wrote

Adding one to anything, does not make it less. the average global temperature heating at a lesser rate, does not mean warming goes away, it means its still getting warmer, just not as fast as it would at a higher rate.

I have actually worked with climate scientists, there is no accepted scenario, given technology that actually exists, where things get cooler.

1

_Svankensen_ t1_jeahaia wrote

We hit +1°C in 2017. We are above that already. So, yes, going back to +1°C would indeed be reversing it a bit. And you got shared a scenario already. "I have worked with climate scientists" is the most pathetic appeal to authority I have seen. I am an environmental scientist. It doesn't give me authority to override facts or to make shit up.

1

The_Humble_Frank t1_jeana4k wrote

And I'm going to trust the climate scientists I've worked with over someone claiming to be one on the internet.

1

_Svankensen_ t1_jeapsqb wrote

Whut? I didn't say I was a climate scientist man. Those most likely studied physics. I said I am an environmental scientist. And as I said, I'm not asking you to trust me. What the other guy said is true.

>scenarios with very low and low GHG emissions and CO2 emissions declining to net zero around or after 2050, followed by varying levels of net negative CO2 emissions23 (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6), as illustrated in Figure SPM.4.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

As we all know, that is very unlikely. But hey, it's conceivable. Anyway, become an environmental activist. Don't give up. There's good reasons to fight.

2

trict1 t1_je7kuy9 wrote

…but can’t stop China from making nuclear bombs should be done in 2 months but, it was a fun run right?

−14

9035768555 t1_je7o77r wrote

China has had nukes for nearly 60 years.

11

trict1 t1_je8j08o wrote

Nuclear missiles though…

−3