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.

        • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          7 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
            3
            ·
            7 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
              6
              ·
              7 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.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Even if China literally just never produced another gram of CO2 ever, we’d have the same problem slightly later. We really do all need to take part, especially those of us in countries that produce more carbon per person. China produces about as much per person as Europe does, but that’s still way too much

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

        Not really, because we’d transition to EVs and solar quickly enough that we wouldn’t increase the global temperature

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        To be fair, China actually does emit about as much per capita as Europe when measuring by consumption nowadays. Unfortunately that just means both are way too high, and several other major economies are even worse

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 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.

    • Ooops@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s also the leader in building up renewables instead while everyone else sits lazily on their ass crying “why should we do anything when China exists?”

      How about we do better than China first and then cry about them, instead of using them as an excuse to fail even harder than them?

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 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.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 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
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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
          ·
          7 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.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 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
        3
        ·
        7 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.

        • Ooops@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          So… Getting better while China doesn’t creates the effect of reducing emmissions by… let’s say 40%.

          The effect of crying about China as an excuse to not do anything yourself however is 0!

          Which on will you chose?