Climate policies are not what drive change. The profit motive is. Now that renewables are the cheapest energy source, their use is growing exponentially. 2022 was the first year that world-wide investment in renewables matched those in fossil fuels. From here on it will be the dominant place money is going to, and will squeeze out fossil investment.

Keeping billions and billions of land animals cooped up in incredibly dense aka "highly efficient" factory farms requires massive amounts of antimicrobial drugs, and even that isn't enough to keep pandemics from spreading in such terrible, unsanitary conditions. We've made a series of mistakes with animal agriculture, and things are really bleak.

The good news is that humans can greatly reduce or even eliminate their consumption of animal products while still meeting their nutritional needs. There is a better future out there.

Same. I clicked because I was shocked that 65.5% was an improvement. I had no idea spontaneous vaginal delivery rates were that low.

Increased intake of non-dietary carbohydrate is associated with childhood choking hazards, chewed pencils and vampiric death. Of these chewed pencils are considered associated with low risk of mortality outcomes, whereas staking is associated with abrupt flamboyant termination.

It’s really depressing that we’ve created this much plastic waste when clothes were completely biodegradable since literally the dawn of civilization.

Humans aren't going to even slow down emitting until so many of us die that isn't economical to do so. No treaty will ever be enforced.

[removed]

My coal stocks have been the best performers in my portfolio the last two years . . . .

Unfortunately, the current industries are churning and are fueled by the modern mechanics we’ve designed. We have to examine the mechanics of the universe and mimic it, just as our ancestors had to.

Hell, just last night I was singing with a water bottle on the table and watched it vibrate when I hit the perfect pitch. Doesn’t take a rocket surgeon or a beyond-basic knowledge of physics to come to these conclusions.

> A new study shows that current policies are not enough to phase out coal and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Note that this is not entirely surprising, as event the lowest-emission IPCC pathway does not reach net zero by 2050 (p.13) That scenario -- SSP1-1.9 -- has an expected max warming of 1.6C (p.14), falling to 1.4C by 2100.

So while it's certainly worth pushing for coal to be phased out earlier (the reduced carbon emissions and the reduced air pollution will each prevent enormous suffering) and for pushing for net zero ASAP, there is a large difference between "we will not meet a target that is more ambitious than even the most ambitious one considered by the IPCC" and "we're fucked".

In particular, the IEA expects CO2 emissions to fall 15-20% by 2030, putting the world roughly in line with the IPCC's SSP1-2.6 pathway which projects an estimated 1.8C of warming, in line with Climate Action Tracker's policy-based estimate.

Less warming would absolutely be better, of course, but it's worth recognizing there are more than just the two extremes in the space of possible futures.

[removed]

I don’t think that much of a change, if the correlation is good, would be considered slight. In a public health care system it could financially represent billions in saving.

[removed]

Don't purchase animal products.

[removed]

It was a joke

I blame voters for constantly electing fossil fuel executives into our government, who then nominate more people with fossil fuel ties to the judiciary.

Not only are current policies inadequate, at least in America, I bet it will be illegal to attempt to close power plants by 2050, and we will most certainly be using our military and international presence to keep the world using our products.

Pretty much the same situation we have now, just with more judicial precedent preventing any civil or public action against the fossil industry.

Voters have shown they do not want change, so there will be none

Because plants.

[deleted]

Eh those people with money only have it as long a civilization is still around. Once that collapses all bets are off.

Hard to assert your authority over land you own vs a warlord who has way more guns and troops than you.

Even phasing out all coal by 2050 is far far too late.

This slow change stuff would've worked fine in the 90s and 2000s.

Was looking for the baseline in the comments, cheers.

[deleted]

I completely agree. That's why I said look it up. Then gave an oversimplified "it's very high in carbs" statement. I could have pulled it up and copy/pasted, but I'm lazy.

Forget the washing machines - have you seen how many plastic fibers escape the lint trap(s) on modern dryers?