I opened this article hoping it would mention the point about the rules concerning reduced sulfur content of the fuel used in super tanker marine shipping, and it didn't disappoint:<p>"A lot of people have looked at the impact of the marine shipping regulation change. If you take that and you put it into some climate model and you estimate the temperature change, right now you’d expect about 0.05 of a degree, 0.08 of a degree [of warming per year], and then building over a decade to about 0.1 degree. So that seems like it helps, but it doesn’t seem like it’s sufficient."
Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.
We all live in the same planet, the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share. For far to long certain countries have taken up much more of their share. To such a point that our whole carbon budget has been used in a single or two generations. Now is the time for those better of to contribute their fair share in solving this mess.
> But the big uncertainty that determines whether 2100 is a happy place or a less happy place is our decisions on what we do with emissions. And they dwarf the uncertainties that we’re talking about here. We’re talking 0.1, 0.2 degrees. Well, the difference emissions make is 1 degree, 2 degrees, 3 degrees. So it’s an order of magnitude larger. And given the non-linearity of impacts, that’s a much, much larger amount of impact that we would see.<p>What’s staggering to me is that the climb towards 1.5 C is of course not evenly distributed across the globe. But what it does result in is some places going up as much as 15 F+ above average since 1970.
The explanation more than a single factor could be all over the place, positive feedback loops are adding their own weight to emissions and direct warming. Less ice and permafrost, more forest fires, warming waters and so on may be having by now a noticeable enough impact to explain that divergence.
It's still going to get worse, until we find a fix, a ultimate fix, but as far as i know, we haven't found it yet. It's like in the movies, until it becomes a global crisis and disaster, nobody pays attention, just scientists.
Capitalism is now trying to avoid doing the absolute minimum that we would need to do if the climate catastrophe shall be avoided. In fact I am convinced that if you had to invent a system that that optimized a societies reaction to climate annihilation in such a way that it does the bare minimum as predicted to be needed by climate models it would probably look a lot like what we have today.<p>The inly issue with that kind of optimization is, just like with all optimization, that by cutting out too much slack from the system you — well —don't have any slack in the system. Slack that would save the day if models are wrong or unpredicted things happen.
Governments still don't take it seriously though.<p>Here in Spain, we still plan to shut down our nuclear reactors (while many other countries are restarting their nuclear programmes) and at the same time the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs so the transition to electric vehicles remains unaffordable for most people.<p>When appeasing an ideological voter base or German shareholders remains more important than lowering emissions, we don't have much hope of making further progress.
The skeptical view:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ</a>
I have zero fear of global warming.<p>BUT if I did, the only real way to reduce energy usage is to reduce the population of earth drastically. People cannot be made to live in squalor willingly.<p>From the Georgia Guide stones: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.<p>For those who are keen on math, that means we need to eliminate 7.6 billion people to return to "balance".