IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

> "Economic growth" is probably a bad indicator to follow.

Why? Isn't economic activity a very good proxy for normal human life, good living standards, and the capacity to adapt to any conceivable challenges? Limited economic impact from climate change is arguably the most important and positive climate related news you could ever hope to see.

> I would rather follow "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change." I don't know if that can be calculated somewhere.

Excess deaths due to climate change, or perhaps a ratio of excess deaths relative to the total population, might be a great metric to consider. But how could one even begin to calculate this in a way that wasn't agenda driven? One could spin pretty much anything as directly or indirectly linked to climate change. Maybe you won't, but others will.

If there's bad political policies that screws over the global economy (possibly caused by the attempt to react to climate change itself) and masses starve to death the "experts" can spin it as "Economic pressures from climate change killed these people."

If there's government incompetence that poisons some water supply and kills a bunch of people the "experts" can spin it as "Pressures from a changing climate contributed to a reduction in the fresh water supply that contributed to mass deaths."

If there's some civil war that kills a bunch of people the "experts" can spin it as "Civil strife brought about partially from the social pressures caused by economic inequality due to a lack of climate justice caused this."

If there's any natural disaster that kills a lot of people the "experts" can spin it as "Continued impacts from climate change contributed to the massive death toll."

Voila, climate change directly or indirectly killed 2 billion people over some large time period, depending on how you count it.

Whether you agree with it or not, using that metric is going to feel a lot like Covid where both sides see the "other side's" statistical interpretation of reality as completely untrustworthy.

The predictions were not wrong. Society changed, people reacted to Greta and others, and that changed the situation, and thus the predictions. The Pandemia and pausing industries on a global scale did their own share. And as sad as it is, the war in Ukraine was finally a massive boost for changes in Europe's energy-infrastructure. People previously thought it would take decades, what now is finished in some years.

The initial predictions at the time were for the situation then, but if the situation changes, the predictions won't become wrong, just outdated.

[flagged]

Coal is only going out of style because we are building out new natgas plants. The greatest trick that has been pulled on us this century is somehow billing gas as a 'green' source of energy.

Electric cars are an expensive distraction from the problem. The sustainable future of transportation is the electric train, the electric trolley, the electric scooter, and the electric bicycle. Personal automobiles, electric or otherwise, were, are, and will continue to be an environmental catastrophe.

And while we can electrify some fraction of personal automobiles by 20whenever, we aren't lifting two fingers on the task of rebuilding our societies to be less car-manic. A few underused bike lanes, a few rental scooters scattered around town, and a light rail extension 10 years from now aren't it.

Mass property seizure and capital reallocation, i.e. a revolution on a global scale, will inevitably lead to the deaths of millions and a setback on living standards for the rest, i.e. degrowth; which will accomplish the objective of fewer carbon emissions.