Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.

  • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    My favorite part was when corporations lied their asses off to the entire world for over 50 years while simultaneously telling is this is all our fault but if we recycled and didn’t use too much water, gas, or electricity we could undo the harm that we were personally responsible for.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m rather fond of the part where they admitted to those lies, and the US didn’t force them to pay restitutions equal to the cost of mitigating the damage they’ve caused.

        • Zombifrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          But we fined them $10,000 and wagged our fingers at them, surely they won’t do it again!

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        In 2068, I’m sure some entrepreneurial politician will run on the “Prosecute the oil companies!” platform, long after a bunch of them have gone bankrupt and all the damage has long since been irreparably done.

        Until then, we just need to keep looking for the Least Bad politician (the guy who has one hand out to fossil fuel and another to privatized wind/solar) rather than the guy who insists wind farms spread COVID with 5g, and hope we don’t live long enough to reap the whirlwind.

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      6 months ago

      Alright time for corporations to take responsibility and shut down all of their emissions. No more new cars, or gasoline for existing cars, or oil, or meat, a lot of the electrical grid is coming down, construction is halted, no more deliveries or shipping.

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          6 months ago

          What do you wanna aim for, half? Cut all these things in half, prices skyrocket and only rich folks can afford. A quarter? There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.

          • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            There is no world where corporations take responsibility for their emissions and consumers get to continue the same lifestyles.

            This is true in the world we live in now. The powers that be like the way things are, They are mostly very old and very rich, they don’t give a fuck. This makes it easy for massive corporations that have created this mess to manipulate those in power so they don’t have to do anything to be apart of fixing the problems

            But there is a world where we could put younger, more concerned people into power that could start to make some changes to how the world works. This won’t fix the problem, we are too far along for that, but it would at least (hopefully) not make this planet completely uninhabitable to every form of life.

            • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              It’s not like a greedy old fucks are going to just step down. For that dream to happen if would have to be by force.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m curious what your point is. I am not trying to be rude, just not sure what you’re getting at. Do you think there’s no solution so we just ride the whole mess out?

        • blazera@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          as you can see in the comment I was replying to, discussions of emissions always get derailed by putting responsibility on corporations when faced with the prospect of changing their own lifestyle to lower emissions. But the emissions people want corporations to take responsibility for are the same emissions coming out of their own tailpipes, and I dont mean that figuratively. An oil corporation isnt just pumping emissions into the air at the drill site, or the pipeline, or the corporate office. When researchers are talking about carbon footprint of oil companies, they’re literally talking about the co2 emitted from the process which is at the end point, your vehicle.

          There is no world where responsibility is taken for emissions that doesnt cut off access to these high emissions products and services to people, either by corporations no longer providing it, or people no longer buying it, it doesnt matter which side you blame, you dont get to keep driving a gas vehicle, eat red meat, or use non-renewable electricity.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I kinda get where you’re coming from. I believe in personal responsibility and try to limit my own impact (no car, vegan) and just in my own life it’s frustrating talking to people who turn around and say ‘but corporations’.

            But I still think holding them accountable would be helpful, it might force people to finally address these issues, money could go toward pedestrian infrastructure and subsidies for vegan businesses and foods. In a lot of cases it’s not as simple as people choosing, corporations have helped create a world where, for a lot of people, there is no choice.

          • tmsbrdrs2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s not such a bad thing either.

            Renewable energy should be subsidized for any home owner/apartment building/business which has somewhere to put solar panels or wind turbines to augment the grid locally. Budget for battery backups and you have a solution for the majority of use cases. Next, why not make EVs an even better proposition than they currently are? Increase the number of level DCFC stations, put level 2 charging everywhere it’s feasible, including restaurants, the library, all public buildings, grocery stores. Battery size can be reduced if you can charge literally everywhere you go. Your third point with beef. Well, doctors have been saying for decades not to eat so much red meat. Now there’s a climate excuse for being able to replace all those burger chains with something healthier.

      • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’ll go vegetarian and ride my bike, fuck it.

        That said, these motherfuckers need to fix what they fucked up, not just stop making it worse.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Unironically, that’s partly due to our emissions coding system. According to the system, a light truck with more seats gets more emissions allowance, incentivizing auto makers to lean into the larger class. That’s why there are so many extended cab pickups, yet so few two-seaters with an eight foot bed. We all know that six-seater Ram MegaCab or the Escalade that seats eight is often only driving one selfish person to work.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Its because people are buying more larger SUV’s. Cars are still cheaper than SUV’s but consumers are choosing to buy bigger.

            • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              6 months ago

              I don’t think you’re listening. Small vehicles are not sold in America anymore. When was the last time you saw a new two door car? Americans are buying larger vehicles because that’s the only option. That’s the only option because the fuel economy rules in this country are broken.

              • blazera@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Ah no, see i specified SUVs. By a large margin most new vehicles sold are large SUVs https://www.motortrend.com/news/best-selling-cars-trucks-suvs-in-america-2023/

                I know about the emissions standards exception for trucks and SUVs, its shitty. But there are still new cars being sold, cars that dont qualify for the more relaxed emissions standard, cars with a much higher mpg as a result, that cost less than the larger SUVs they are buying instead. Mitsubishi mirage or nissan versa are 2 that pop up. If consumers wanted smaller cars, that’s what we would have.

                • tmsbrdrs2@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Having driven a Nissan Versa, they aren’t fun on the freeway, country roads or anywhere you’d be around anything the size of a standard SUV or current truck.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well, also, increased trans-oceanic shipping (lots of old ships still use bunker fuel, some of the nastiest fossil fuel on the market) and increased air travel and also plus too a bunch of wars keep happening.

          I should note that we do have a solution to the first problem. But it’s predicated on the rapid deployment of a very modern kind of nuclear engine.

          And that means replacing tens of thousands of old ICE engines. Which means spending money. Which private industry hates.

          So don’t hold your breath waiting for any of this shit to change. But do hold you breath around bunker fuel, because jesus fucking christ that shit is gross.

    • Delusional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hmm I think we need even bigger trucks and also more religion and less gay people. That’ll fix it.

  • shish_mish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    We are so fucked unless we force “all” the big corporations to pay for the pollution they caused while making trillions in profit over the decades they polluted and hid the scientific knowledge showing climate change. And even then,if we stop polluting right now, we still might not Make it as a civilisation.

          • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Listen I’m not huge fan of China but credit where credit is due, they are kicking ass at transitioning to renewables, subway and highspeed rail and EVs.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s great, I’m here in Beijing and the air quality is terrible. They are burning so much coal for electricity

              • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I’m here in Alberta, Canada and we are also using enormous amounts of coal and natural gas for electricity despite having almost perfect conditions for solar and wind generation. Funny that.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        You’re right. They are.

        They’re also the largest producer of clean renewable energy and … well everything else. They’re simply the largest on pretty much everything in absolute terms - good or bad. That’s no excuse and they need to do better in regards of pollution, but the thing is, they are also already trying.

        Them doing bad in absolute terms is no excuse for any other countries with higher pollution pr.capita not to start doing better too.

        This should not be a competition of how much a country can pretend to allow itself to pollute in absolute terms in comparison to others. It should be a competition of polluting as little as possible.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Why do you think that is? Over 50,000 US companies manufacture in China. Paying them to do our dirty industrial work, shipping the wares halfway around the world, and then pointing your finger as if they’re the problem is absurd.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        What’s your point?

        Just because someone else is being bad doesn’t obligate us to do nothing about our own contribution to the problem.

        .

        Pull your weight and set a good example for others.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Actually it’s not an argument about obligation, but rather about cause and effect. If oneself isn’t the biggest polluter, then one’s own adherence to principles won’t have the effect of reversing climate change. It’s a matter of the effects caused by one’s choices, and when someone else is the biggest polluter it removes the opportunity to do anything about it, resulting in reduced value.

          That obligation you speak of exists in a context of cause and effect, and those are the things being reasoned about here.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Somebody better tell the climate that, because so far it hasn’t been respecting national borders, kinda unfair tbh. I mean, as long as we’re not the literal worst by one or two statistics, we shouldn’t bear any of the consequences of our actions, right? Until we can teach physics about global politics and bullshitting with statistics, though, maybe we should all focus on doing whatever we can to reduce the effects of climate change.

      • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Absolutely not. If we look back since the Industrial Revolution the US are, closely followed by Europe and then China.

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Clearly, but the burden doesn’t lie on China alone. They became the factory of the world because we needed cheap shit for everyone.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    We have already gone past that for the last couple of years. It seems like 6% of respondents are very naïve.

  • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Anyone who hasn’t had their head up their ass has been aware of this. Life will be extremely shitty by the mid century. If you haven’t made the horrible choice to reproduce, be sure that you don’t. There will be no future worth living for those born today.

      • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        It isn’t my personal predictions. It is the predictions made by climate scientists and even the military industrial complex (based on climate models). We’ve already begun to see the effects and they will get worse. Extreme weather events, massive migration, famine, drought, and war. This is what the future holds, even if developed countries can dampen the impacts for a time, they won’t be immune. It isn’t great.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Based on the scientific sources you’re referring to, are there any specific predictions in terms of certain numbers by certain dates?

          Like are we talking 50% loss of farmland? Are we talking 50% increase in farmland? Are we talking by 2030, by 2050, by 2070, what?

          • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I don’t have specifics memorized, of course. If you’d like specifics; the EU, NOAA, UN, USDOD, EPA, NASA, etc, have all released predictions along with sources you can dive into. It has been getting worse over the last 15 years, as far as predictions.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        You have the Great Depression and 2008 financial crisis. That’s going to be the permanent state after 2050. Few jobs, high prices, that kind of misery.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Any quantifiable predictions? Words like “few” and “high” don’t really lead to falsifiable claims.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      But for a brief period of history we made a few people even more disgustingly rich than ever, so it’s totally worth the climate catastrophe and of course economic ruin to come in the next few decades.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago
    • 77% of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5C above pre-industrial levels, a devastating degree of heating;

    • almost half – 42% – think it will be more than 3C;

    • only 6% think the 1.5C limit will be achieved.

    This is not how science works.

  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is no longer a sigpost on the way to oblivion, but a giant neon billboard in our living room. violent explosion shit! The billboard exploded and set our house on fire… Better blame some Arsonists

  • mathic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    The only chance we have that I see is the rapid development of fusion into a proper, usable power source, the supplantation of effectively all carbon emitting power plants with non-emitting plants (fusion or otherwise), the effectively complete electrification of the global commercial transport system, and a massive scaling of production direct carbon capture, leveraging the various aforementioned non-carbon emitting electricity sources to make it happen.

    • Naz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yep.

      Our experts estimate that the various societies on Earth have a 96% chance of solving the Great Filter using humanity’s great superpower of technological innovation, but paradoxically only a 3 to 7.5% chance of successfully implementing the necessary societal and political changes before complete extinction.

    • FortuneMisteller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The only chance we have that I see is the rapid development of fusion into a proper, usable power source,

      Fusion is a marketing story to distract the attention. It is so difficult to realize a practical commercial fusion technology that it will not be available this century for sure.

      In any case as I explained in the other comment the root cause is overpopulation. Solving the energy problems might mitigate for a while the situation, but it will not solve the situation. Famines, conflicts and mass migration will happen anyway.

  • Fenrisulfir@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Sweet! If this is at all obvious to anyone paying attention and I’ve been saying I expect it to happen for years, I’m putting “One of the worlds top scientists” on my resume.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m getting big “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” vibes here