Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Syt]

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/un-warns-world-way-off-track-greenhouse-gases-soar-2021-10-25/

UN sounds alarm on missing climate pledges

BRUSSELS/GENEVA, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Global governments' plans to cut emissions in the years ahead are not enough to avert catastrophic climate change which would lead to "endless suffering", a U.N. report said on Monday.

With less than a week until the United Nations COP26 conference begins, the report laid bare the gap between the actions governments are taking today, and what would be needed to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement target to try to limit human-caused global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

"Overshooting the temperature goals will lead to a destabilised world and endless suffering, especially among those who have contributed the least to the (greenhouse gas) emissions in the atmosphere," said Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Under countries' current pledges, global emissions would be 16% higher in 2030 than they were in 2010, according to an analysis by the UNFCCC.

That is far off the 45% reduction by 2030 that scientists say is needed to cap warming at 1.5 degrees and avoid its most devastating impacts like the deadly heat waves and destructive storms already battering countries around the world.

"We are nowhere near where science says we should be," Espinosa said.

Without more ambitious commitments, global temperatures could hit 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, the UNFCCC said.

The warning came as a separate World Meteorological Organization report showed that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere surged to 413.2 parts per million in 2020, rising more than the average rate over the last decade despite a temporary dip in new emissions during COVID-19 lockdowns.

"We are way off track," said Secretary-General Petteri Taalas on prospects for meeting the Paris cap. "We need to revisit our industrial, energy and transport systems and whole way of life," he added, calling for a "dramatic increase" in commitments at COP26 which runs from Oct. 31 to Nov. 12. read more

INCOMING PLEDGES

The reports on Monday emphasised the high stakes for the COP26 conferences, where world leaders and thousands of delegates will attempt to secure pledges from countries and enough action from polluters to keep the Paris goals alive.

Scientists say capping global warming to 1.5 degrees would require global net emissions of CO2 - the main greenhouse gas - to fall to zero by 2050.

The UNFCCC said it had received a flurry of new climate pledges in the last month, and that as of Oct. 12 some 143 of the nearly 200 countries that signed the Paris agreement had submitted new pledges.

Most of the pledges received in recent weeks were from small countries responsible for a tiny share of global emissions, however, while submissions from bigger polluters like Saudi Arabia had not moved the needle for emissions over the next decade. read more

The European Union and United States - the world's second and third-biggest emitters after China - also set new targets this year to reduce emissions this decade. China and India are among those facing pressure to commit to cut emissions faster.

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to rise for as long as countries keep putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than they can remove.

Emissions, which fluctuate depending on the current level of fossil-fuel burning, are distinct from the carbon dioxide concentrations accumulated over centuries.

The WMO report confirmed that last year's temporary dip in emissions "did not have any discernible impact on the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and their growth rates." Concentrations of other gases methane and nitrous oxide also rose in 2020 and beat the last decade's average, it showed.

It also flagged concerns about the ability of the ocean and trees to soak up roughly half of carbon dioxide levels, thus protecting us against potentially more dramatic temperature hikes.

"It's not automatic that the strength of sinks will continue at the same rate," said Taalas, describing "alarming" new data showing that a portion of the Amazon rainforest was now emitting carbon rather than absorbing it due to deforestation and fires.

[Berkut]

That seems alarming.

Of course, is there a source for this information that isn't the mainstream media though? They are all biased, so cannot be trusted. And reuters is definitely the mainstream media, so this is likely some kind of fake news.

[Barrister]

That seems alarming.

Of course, is there a source for this information that isn't the mainstream media though? They are all biased, so cannot be trusted. And reuters is definitely the mainstream media, so this is likely some kind of fake news.

You realize that precisely zero people on languish are saying that, right?

[Berkut]

That seems alarming.

Of course, is there a source for this information that isn't the mainstream media though? They are all biased, so cannot be trusted. And reuters is definitely the mainstream media, so this is likely some kind of fake news.

You realize that precisely zero people on languish are saying that, right?

languish is not the target audience for the "MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ALL LIBERAL BIAS!!!!!" screed.

The people who are the target are definitely hearing it loud and clear though.

[Barrister]

That seems alarming.

Of course, is there a source for this information that isn't the mainstream media though? They are all biased, so cannot be trusted. And reuters is definitely the mainstream media, so this is likely some kind of fake news.

You realize that precisely zero people on languish are saying that, right?

languish is not the target audience for the "MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ALL LIBERAL BIAS!!!!!" screed.

The people who are the target are definitely hearing it loud and clear though.

So, umm, you didn't actually answer the question.

You realize that precisely zero people on languish are saying this stuff, right?

[Berkut]

That seems alarming.

Of course, is there a source for this information that isn't the mainstream media though? They are all biased, so cannot be trusted. And reuters is definitely the mainstream media, so this is likely some kind of fake news.

You realize that precisely zero people on languish are saying that, right?

languish is not the target audience for the "MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ALL LIBERAL BIAS!!!!!" screed.

The people who are the target are definitely hearing it loud and clear though.

So, umm, you didn't actually answer the question.

You realize that precisely zero people on languish are saying this stuff, right?

The question isn't interesting. The fact that YOU don't believe the narrative isn't the point, since you aren't the target audience.

Your target audience does in fact believe it - they actually believe you when you and the right wing media tell them the media is all biased and cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

And you know this perfectly well. WHen you say "The MSM has a liberal bias" they don't hear "the MSM, being composed of human beings doing human work, of course have some kind of innate bias just like everyone else does, and if you were to absolutely quantify that bias, it could be sort of called liberal, but largely because the right has so far divorced itself from reality that actual reality itself appears to be biased against them!".

Nope, what they hear, and what the crafters of that narrative counts on them hearing, is that the MSM is a bunch of left wing propaganda tools lying to them constantly, and hence should be ignored.

So yeah, I really don't care how many people on languish believe that, because it is irrelevant to the problem the right wing media has created, and you and other supposed "reasonable" conservatives continue to exacerbate by chanting about MSM liberal bias.

"There are good people on both sides!"

You can pretend to hide behind some idea that really, that doesn't mean exactly what the propaganda is intended to mean, but it doesn't excuse your complicity in the outcome one bit.

[Barrister]

Who exactly is my "target audience"?

I'm posting on a small fringe message board with maybe 30 regular posters.  I would think my one and only target audience for things I post on languish would be the people who read languish.

How saying 'the mainstream media has a left-of-centre bias' makes me complicit in... something (you're not very clear on what I'm supposed to be complicit with) entirely escapes me.

[DGuller]

Don't we already have a Covid thread to discuss media bias?

[Berkut]

Who exactly is my "target audience"?

I'm posting on a small fringe message board with maybe 30 regular posters.  I would think my one and only target audience for things I post on languish would be the people who read languish.

How saying 'the mainstream media has a left-of-centre bias' makes me complicit in... something (you're not very clear on what I'm supposed to be complicit with) entirely escapes me.

Yes, I am sure you have never used the term anywhere else ever.

But again, you are not the point, you are entirely tangential.

This narrative, this lie, is what has brought us to where we are now. Or at least has some significant role to play in it.

If YOU don't think your repeating it ad naseum has anything to do with its acceptance broadly, then why are you so defensive about it? It must be others out there in the world spreading that lie, so you are fine.

Me talking about it as being something important that rational people should be concerned with because it has had a huge part in bringing us to where we are today is not meant for you - you are fine, since you only ever repeat the lie among people who know that it's broader message is just right wing propaganda.

I think we talk on Languish quite a bit about problems that are not evidenced ON languish itself though, right?

Rest easy Beebs, this isn't about you. Right? You've never once used the "MSM is liberal biased" outside of completely academic discussions where everyone involved knows that it means so little as to be basically irrelevant and meaningless.

[Berkut]

Don't we already have a Covid thread to discuss media bias?

That's the beauty of the propaganda - you get to use it everywhere! Climate change, covid, stolen elections, it's the narrative that pays off over and over and over again.

[Barrister]

If YOU don't think your repeating it ad naseum has anything to do with its acceptance broadly, then why are you so defensive about it? It must be others out there in the world spreading that lie, so you are fine.

Man this argument is absolutely Trumpian.  I get relentlessly attacked by Berkut, I object, and then my being "defensive" is used as an argument about why Berkut must be right after all!

[ulmont]

Don't we already have a Covid thread to discuss media bias?

[Berkut]

If YOU don't think your repeating it ad naseum has anything to do with its acceptance broadly, then why are you so defensive about it? It must be others out there in the world spreading that lie, so you are fine.

Man this argument is absolutely Trumpian.  I get relentlessly attacked by Berkut, I object, and then my being "defensive" is used as an argument about why Berkut must be right after all!

The irony of you invoking Trump while you tell us all about media bias is delicious.

And I did not attack you at all in this thread anyway. I attacked the problem of people not trusting the media because they've been fed a lie for last couple of decades about how the media cannot be trusted.

Why you decided that had to be targeted at you I am sure I have no idea....

[Barrister]

 

[Berkut]

I know! This is all so hilarious!