Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Sheilbh]

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

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

To be absolutely clear I would 100% say the mainstream media has a liberal bias

[Berkut]

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

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

To be absolutely clear I would 100% say the mainstream media has a liberal bias

Shocking.

[viper37]

And reuters is definitely the mainstream media, so this is likely some kind of fake news.

Reuters was caugth "enhancing" pictures, though...  It ain't a stretch from fake news

[Syt]

https://www.voanews.com/a/amazon-rain-forest-turning-into-carbon-source-un-agency-warns/6284858.html

Amazon Rain Forest Turning into Carbon Source, UN Agency Warns

GENEVA —
The battle to stem climate change may be lost as new information indicates the Amazon rain forest is turning from a carbon sink – or area that absorbs CO2 – into a source of carbon dioxide, the World Meteorological Organization warns.

The latest edition of the WMO's Greenhouse Gas Bulletin reports emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide once again broke all records last year.

The U.N. agency's report warns the concentrations of these greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere are driving climate change. It says carbon dioxide, the single most important greenhouse gas, accounts for approximately 66 percent of the warming effect on the climate.

The secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, Petteri Taalas, says about half of CO2 emissions remains in the atmosphere for centuries. He says the other half is taken up by oceans and land ecosystems.

He says it is not clear for how much longer forested areas, often referred to as the lungs of the Earth, will continue to act as effective carbon sinks.

"We have already seen some alarming indications that, for example, Amazonian rain forest ecosystem, which used to be a major sink of carbon, has become now a source of carbon, which is alarming," Taalas said. "And this is related to deforestation in the area and also changes in local climate because of this deforestation."

Oksana Tarasova, who heads the WMO's Atmospheric and Environment Research Division, says the WMO only now is revealing this new finding because it has taken nine years of observation to gather the measurement data set needed to understand the changes taking place. She says not all of the Amazon forest is turning from a carbon sink to a net producer of carbon.

"So, the Western part of the Amazonia still continues to work as a carbon sink at this point. But we do not know for how long that will continue this way," Tarasova said. "We are making the measurements there and keeping our track on what is happening there. ... I would take the whole Amazonia as a whole that is seen that it is a sink, but its capacity is substantially reduced."

Meteorologists say climate change negotiators at an upcoming conference in Scotland must take concrete action and make concrete pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

They say setting carbon neutral targets will not work in stemming climate change. They also warn the world is heading toward a temperature rise of 2.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. This, they say, is far more than the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

[The Brain]

We have the tools to deal with this new menace.

[Josquius]

Can we bomb Brazil already

[Tamas]

The so called mainstream media will increasingly have a so called liberal bias as the so called moderate right continues to be silenced and dominated by increasingly unhinged far right lunacy. When you intend to have at least some indirect relationship to facts in your reporting, you are bound to go straight against the current non-liberal forces of today's politics.

[Eddie Teach]

Can we bomb Brazil already

Because they're not emitting enough currently?

We need an invasion force to stop deforestation.

[Jacob]

That's a wonderfully vague article on the Amazon. Is there any indicatin WHY this is happening? Is this just a rephrasing of "deforestation releases carbon" + "and deforestation is continuing at an alarming rate"? If so, it might have been worth mentioning.

Or is this a statement that untouched rainforest is emitting more carbon than it's absorbing? And we have no clue as to why that is happening?

[Sheilbh]

That's a wonderfully vague article on the Amazon. Is there any indicatin WHY this is happening? Is this just a rephrasing of "deforestation releases carbon" + "and deforestation is continuing at an alarming rate"? If so, it might have been worth mentioning.

Or is this a statement that untouched rainforest is emitting more carbon than it's absorbing? And we have no clue as to why that is happening?

I think it's been reported before - the Guardian article has a little more details:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs

Basically fires largely set for deforestation for beef and soy. Plus climate change and the effects of deforestation mean there's less rain and temperatures are higher, meaning other bits of the forest are not sucking in carbon as they should/did.

And deforestation is continuing at an alarming rate under Bolsonaro - both deforestation in general and deforestation at 12-15 year highs.

It's very bad.

[Syt]

Not to mention that several activists against the deforestation have been killed in recent years.

[Sheilbh]

Not to mention that several activists against the deforestation have been killed in recent years.

Yeah - and it links profoundly to human rights and the rights of indigenous communities.

Only a year until the election and Lula should win, but Bolsonaro's already been running (sparsely attended) rehearsals of his 6 January moment.

[Jacob]

I think it's been reported before - the Guardian article has a little more details:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/14/amazon-rainforest-now-emitting-more-co2-than-it-absorbs

Basically fires largely set for deforestation for beef and soy. Plus climate change and the effects of deforestation mean there's less rain and temperatures are higher, meaning other bits of the forest are not sucking in carbon as they should/did.

And deforestation is continuing at an alarming rate under Bolsonaro - both deforestation in general and deforestation at 12-15 year highs.

It's very bad.

Thank! So the story is "Brazil is deforesting the Amazon at a massive rate, fuelling global warming."

[crazy canuck]

Add to all that the tipping point problem.  The Amazon creates its own rain forest climate zone.  But it is reaching the point where it does not now cover enough area to do that.  When it stops creating its own self perpetuating rain, the who thing is going to turn into savannah.

[Syt]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbd9m/vice-guardian-poll-americans-climate-change-man-made-climate-crimes

45% of Americans Don't Believe Humans Cause Climate Change, VICE News/Guardian Poll Shows

VICE News partnered with the Guardian and pollster YouGov to find out how people living in the US think and feel about climate change.

Nearly half of Americans still don't think climate change is caused by human activities, but Democrats were far less likely than Republicans to hold those views, a new VICE News and Guardian poll has found.

This year was marked by several unprecedented natural disasters, including a "heat dome" marked by sweltering temperatures of up to 113 F that plagued the Pacific Northwest, killing hundreds, and record-breaking wildfire seasons that razed entire towns and displaced thousands. Experts linked the string of natural disasters to the climate crisis, and yet, many Americans are still struggling to understand whether and why the generation-defining crisis is happening.

The poll, which surveyed 1,000 Americans on behalf of VICE News, the Guardian, and Covering Climate Now, by YouGov, comes less than a week before leaders and delegates from around the world meet in Glasgow, Scotland, for COP26, the United Nations' climate change conference. The data shows that climate change is a top voter issue in the U.S., behind health care and social programs. For college grads and Democrats, climate change jumped to top spot (for Democrats it was tied with health care).

But while 69.5 percent of respondents believe global warming is happening, they were divided on what's causing it. Forty-five percent don't think humans are mostly to blame for global warming, opting instead to blame "natural changes in the environment" or "other," and 8.3 percent denied global warming is happening altogether.



That's mostly due to Republicans (55.4 percent) and independents (33 percent) though, who were far more likely than Democrats (17.2 percent) to believe "natural causes" have led to global warming. Young people and educated folks too were significantly more likely to believe humans are to blame for climate change.

A significant group of people also believe scientists don't see eye to eye. Many respondents (30.5 percent) think there's a raging scientific debate over the cause of climate change when there really isn't. Globally, there is consensus among scientists—97 percent or more—that global warming is happening because of human activities, according to NASA and international science societies.

But again, this number is split by political affiliation. Exactly half of Republicans said they believe there is discord between scientists, compared to only about 14.9 percent of Democrats.

How guilty is Big Oil?

The poll suggests most people think oil and gas companies are to blame for climate change, as opposed to the government, the meat industry, retail, and individuals. But Democrats (83.4 percent) were far more likely than Republicans (27.8 percent) to place most of the blame on the oil industry, as were Black and Latinx folks over white people and other races.



The good news is that after reading a passage about how oil and gas behemoth Exxon already knew of climate change in the 70s but pretended it wasn't real, 67.2 percent of respondents—up from 60.3—said oil and gas companies are mostly or completely to blame.



Majority believes climate change has harmed US

Most respondents (59.4 percent, and 83.8 percent of Democrats) agree that climate change has already harmed people in the U.S., and nearly half believe it's happening in their own community. People of colour were more likely to say that climate change has already harmed people: 69.2 percent of Black and 67.7 percent of Latinx respondents said global warming-related harm has happened in the US.

As such, Black and Latinx people are also more likely to take proactive steps to combat climate change. According to the poll, 57.8 percent of respondents believe they can make change—but that figure skyrockets among Black people (78.1 percent) and Latinx (72.2 percent). (Black and brown people are often on the front lines of the climate crisis in the U.S. disproportionately affected by climate change in the US when compared to white people. VICE World News has previously reported how climate justice activism often excludes people of color despite the fact that they're the ones on the front lines of the crisis.)

The good news is that a majority of Americans say they're already flying and driving less, using less electricity at home, and recycling. About half are also either already eating less meat or willing to do so, and nearly two-thirds support purchasing products from eco-friendly businesses.

But people are less likely to take their efforts to the streets: 78.9 percent of respondents said they wouldn't protest, while 69.2 percent said they wouldn't donate to an activist group or cause. A majority (59.7 percent) also said they won't track their carbon footprint.