The scientific community has never said we’re all gonna die. Only media, and people on social media arguing with each other, make those kinds of statements.
Oh we aren’t gonna ALL die, a majority of us will suffer. Which I think is worse than death
I mean, if the problem isn’t addressed then yes it’s an extinction level event. I don’t think any climate scientist is going to honestly say exponential heating is sustainable for life. But it’s something that would take a century, unmitigated.
I read that 40% of US energy and 60% of German energy was generated from renewables in 2023. We still have a long way to go, but that’s definitely cause for some optimism. If we can keep this pace we’ll probably level out at 1.8C.
Great article. I was worried from the headline that this might be yet another climate change denying opinion piece, but it’s just a common sense analysis of progress and downplay the future risks if we don’t continue to do more.
“capitalism breeds innovation” is it
Article completely misses the point of risk management. It is not about what is most likely to happen, it is about the chance of ruin. That chances is decreasing, but still way too high.
Thanks for calling this out, this kind of doomism is really dangerous. Climate change is awful enough already without pretending it’s even worse than it is, these apocalyptic predictions just make people think the situation is hopeless. I’m seriously concerned about how it’s affecting young people’s mental health as well
I don’t buy it. She cherry picks her end points. Of course emissions have decreased in the US, China does all our manufacturing. Of course deaths from natural disasters have decreased over the last century, we have satellite weather forecasts.
She ignores that the rate of temperature change is increasing, that half of the carbon has been contributed in the past 39 years, that nations have come no where near their carbon commitments, that huge sectors of the economy are really hard to decarbonize.
We aren’t doing the easy stuff like phasing out meat consumption, reforming agricultural practices, phasing out most airline travel, etc. in the meantime, ice is melting ever more quickly, endangering ocean circulation and the entire weather system.
We’re headed for famine, mass migration, authoritarianism and war.
Sigh. I am so tired of these pieces. Global emissions are increasing increasing increasing, with no sign of slowing down. Climate change seems to be accelerating. Millions are already facing starvation due to climate related developments. While renewable energy is becoming more common, there are no signs yet that it actually replaces fossil fuels at scale. It will probably happen eventually, but doesn’t seem to be around the corner. Things are bad, and they are about to get worse. Will “everybody” die? No. But a lot of people are already dying, and many more will die in the future.
This piece is very much speculative – it just assumes that certain things will happen – that countries will keep their pledges, that renewable energy and electric cars will displace fossil fuels and ICE cars, that the the tail risks in the climate models will not materialize (which they seem to be doing, right now).
Also, the whole idea that “doomism” leads to fatalism is wrong. There is close to no data supporting it, and lots of empiciral and historical data supporting the opposite view – that a fear of doom is a very strong motivator on a societal level (there are some people which will become fatalistic, but also a lot of people who will go into panic mode and start acting really quickly).
I’m all for hope, but I’m even more for looking realistically at where we’re at and starting from there.
“Poorer countries do not have to follow the fossil fuel-heavy and unsustainable trajectories that rich countries did. They can leapfrog the centuries-long journey that we’ve taken. And they don’t have to sacrifice human wellbeing or access to energy. In fact, by adopting these technologies they can ensure that even more people have access to affordable energy.”
Whose gonna pay for that? Rich countries? The rich countries are the ones financing forest destruction and investing in coal fired power plants in developing nations. Typical blame shifting is what will happen. You can say you did everything right but when other developing countries do it they’re portrayed as the problem.
I have a lot of time for Hannah Ritchie’s data stuff, but this is morally horrible. We don’t have to see the end of the species for this to be the worst thing that humans have ever done or experienced.
> If warming reaches or exceeds 2 °C this century, mainly richer humans will be responsible for killing roughly **1 billion mainly poorer humans** through anthropogenic global warming, which is comparable with involuntary or negligent manslaughter.
To downplay the death of a billion or more people, and the immiseration of billions more is extraordinarily callous. These deaths aren’t just “happening”, without agency. These people will die as a result of deliberate and knowing policy decisions by a psychopathic elite that simply don’t care much about anyone but themselves. They have exorbitant standards for how they should get to live and attach no value to lives of those that are in the way of them living that way.
For this “well, we won’t ALL die” story to be the narrative at this point in history is beyond appalling. A society of people holding such contemptible disregard for others doesn’t deserve to exist.
We’re going to have to darken the skies. It’s really that simple.
Oh so only a billion people will die so no big deal? Love the main character syndrome of those American author
For the record, I do believe humanity will obviously survive but life as we know it will be drastically different, with horrible prices paid by poorer parts of the world. Also, while I study the subject I am by no means an expert and I welcome anyone to correct me where I may be wrong!
However, the writer seems to be hopeful based primarily on the pledges and targets that governments have agreed to, and I worry she’s not focused enough on the changes that have actually been implemented, and how on track we are to those targets. No major polluter state is on track to meet their targets and promises, and we also have no standard way to measure our impacts (some states effectively offshore their emissions to poor nations, or massively overestimate the effectiveness of useless offsetting programs – it’s just a publicity game to most).
Not to mention, it’s not so much about whether the chance of catastrophy is probable or not, but the fact were risking catastrophy at all. We do not know what will happen at different warming levels. We have assumptions and predictions, but we cannot ever be 100% accurate, and we have almost definitely not thought of all the potential impacts and thresholds. It’s a huge gamble, risking all life as we know it (albeit a very low risk), because drastic change is difficult and may temporarily upset global order.
She also says we’re on a good track for things like renewables, but there are major issues around renewable energy and the rare materials required to convert to them with our current demands. Not only are these minerals rare and expensive, but the welfare of those producing them is frequently atrocious and ignored because of how important these materials are. It’s unlikely we can ever convert to full global renewable power at our current technology and consumption levels, and much less chance we can also allow poorer nations to reach that level after us.
The priorities are in the wrong place, by my understanding. The push is for electric vehicles, not public transport. Offsetting, not reduced consumption. We’re trying to keep the destructive life we’re living and not accepting we need to sacrifice SOME comforts (but can still live comfortable modern lives).
I think there is definitely hope to correct our path and either way, for most of us on reddit the main impacts will be economic ones; but this article seems quite misleading about our current position. I don’t see climate change as purely flood and disaster, but it’s a dangerous slide to extreme politics, with neo-colonialism, nationalism and class divide becoming much bigger issues and we’re just getting started. It’s the social and economic changes we’ll see that is the scary part, justified because of a desperation that has come as a result of those with all the power nothing to lose not wanting to lose their advantages. It’s not so much the climate that will kill us, but the turmoil that we are too poorly prepared to deal with justly. Nuclear nations, desperate for resources, pose a very real risk as the world gets increasingly desperate. Water and fossil fuel security has already been linked to many of the major conflicts we see around the world.
Every extinction level event in Earths history happened over the course of thousand upon thousands upon millions of years. It is a stretch to suggest that westerners especially are going to die and the human species will go extinct in our lifetime, however, it’s not that far fetched to believe that eventually, over the course of maybe 100k, maybe as little as a few hundred, years Earth is no longer habitable for any mammal species and beyond, including humans, due to the change in climate triggered by human involvement.
The extinction level warming (+6C) is very likely to be out of the question. The thing what worries me is that humanity is heading towards something like 2.6-2.9 degrees of warming at the end of the century.
The first implication of this level warming is that most of the landmass between tropics will be hostile to large scale human settlements. This means that something like 1-3 billion people has to be resettled or otherwise they will die. Knowing how countries will be responding on large scale migration I would say that resettling won’t happen. Second implication is that Suez, Panama and Strait of Malacca will become un-navigable due to unrest. This will crash the global trade and living standards for those who will survive the direct effects from the warming.
16 comments
The scientific community has never said we’re all gonna die. Only media, and people on social media arguing with each other, make those kinds of statements.
Oh we aren’t gonna ALL die, a majority of us will suffer. Which I think is worse than death
I mean, if the problem isn’t addressed then yes it’s an extinction level event. I don’t think any climate scientist is going to honestly say exponential heating is sustainable for life. But it’s something that would take a century, unmitigated.
I read that 40% of US energy and 60% of German energy was generated from renewables in 2023. We still have a long way to go, but that’s definitely cause for some optimism. If we can keep this pace we’ll probably level out at 1.8C.
Great article. I was worried from the headline that this might be yet another climate change denying opinion piece, but it’s just a common sense analysis of progress and downplay the future risks if we don’t continue to do more.
“capitalism breeds innovation” is it
Article completely misses the point of risk management. It is not about what is most likely to happen, it is about the chance of ruin. That chances is decreasing, but still way too high.
Thanks for calling this out, this kind of doomism is really dangerous. Climate change is awful enough already without pretending it’s even worse than it is, these apocalyptic predictions just make people think the situation is hopeless. I’m seriously concerned about how it’s affecting young people’s mental health as well
I don’t buy it. She cherry picks her end points. Of course emissions have decreased in the US, China does all our manufacturing. Of course deaths from natural disasters have decreased over the last century, we have satellite weather forecasts.
She ignores that the rate of temperature change is increasing, that half of the carbon has been contributed in the past 39 years, that nations have come no where near their carbon commitments, that huge sectors of the economy are really hard to decarbonize.
We aren’t doing the easy stuff like phasing out meat consumption, reforming agricultural practices, phasing out most airline travel, etc. in the meantime, ice is melting ever more quickly, endangering ocean circulation and the entire weather system.
We’re headed for famine, mass migration, authoritarianism and war.
Sigh. I am so tired of these pieces. Global emissions are increasing increasing increasing, with no sign of slowing down. Climate change seems to be accelerating. Millions are already facing starvation due to climate related developments. While renewable energy is becoming more common, there are no signs yet that it actually replaces fossil fuels at scale. It will probably happen eventually, but doesn’t seem to be around the corner. Things are bad, and they are about to get worse. Will “everybody” die? No. But a lot of people are already dying, and many more will die in the future.
This piece is very much speculative – it just assumes that certain things will happen – that countries will keep their pledges, that renewable energy and electric cars will displace fossil fuels and ICE cars, that the the tail risks in the climate models will not materialize (which they seem to be doing, right now).
Also, the whole idea that “doomism” leads to fatalism is wrong. There is close to no data supporting it, and lots of empiciral and historical data supporting the opposite view – that a fear of doom is a very strong motivator on a societal level (there are some people which will become fatalistic, but also a lot of people who will go into panic mode and start acting really quickly).
I’m all for hope, but I’m even more for looking realistically at where we’re at and starting from there.
“Poorer countries do not have to follow the fossil fuel-heavy and unsustainable trajectories that rich countries did. They can leapfrog the centuries-long journey that we’ve taken. And they don’t have to sacrifice human wellbeing or access to energy. In fact, by adopting these technologies they can ensure that even more people have access to affordable energy.”
Whose gonna pay for that? Rich countries? The rich countries are the ones financing forest destruction and investing in coal fired power plants in developing nations. Typical blame shifting is what will happen. You can say you did everything right but when other developing countries do it they’re portrayed as the problem.
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/will-japans-megabanks-stop-financing-rainforest-destruction/
https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/07/07/who-funds-overseas-coal-plants-and-how-the-g20-can-advance-the-global-coal-phase-out/
I have a lot of time for Hannah Ritchie’s data stuff, but this is morally horrible. We don’t have to see the end of the species for this to be the worst thing that humans have ever done or experienced.
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074
> If warming reaches or exceeds 2 °C this century, mainly richer humans will be responsible for killing roughly **1 billion mainly poorer humans** through anthropogenic global warming, which is comparable with involuntary or negligent manslaughter.
To downplay the death of a billion or more people, and the immiseration of billions more is extraordinarily callous. These deaths aren’t just “happening”, without agency. These people will die as a result of deliberate and knowing policy decisions by a psychopathic elite that simply don’t care much about anyone but themselves. They have exorbitant standards for how they should get to live and attach no value to lives of those that are in the way of them living that way.
For this “well, we won’t ALL die” story to be the narrative at this point in history is beyond appalling. A society of people holding such contemptible disregard for others doesn’t deserve to exist.
We’re going to have to darken the skies. It’s really that simple.
Oh so only a billion people will die so no big deal? Love the main character syndrome of those American author
For the record, I do believe humanity will obviously survive but life as we know it will be drastically different, with horrible prices paid by poorer parts of the world. Also, while I study the subject I am by no means an expert and I welcome anyone to correct me where I may be wrong!
However, the writer seems to be hopeful based primarily on the pledges and targets that governments have agreed to, and I worry she’s not focused enough on the changes that have actually been implemented, and how on track we are to those targets. No major polluter state is on track to meet their targets and promises, and we also have no standard way to measure our impacts (some states effectively offshore their emissions to poor nations, or massively overestimate the effectiveness of useless offsetting programs – it’s just a publicity game to most).
Not to mention, it’s not so much about whether the chance of catastrophy is probable or not, but the fact were risking catastrophy at all. We do not know what will happen at different warming levels. We have assumptions and predictions, but we cannot ever be 100% accurate, and we have almost definitely not thought of all the potential impacts and thresholds. It’s a huge gamble, risking all life as we know it (albeit a very low risk), because drastic change is difficult and may temporarily upset global order.
She also says we’re on a good track for things like renewables, but there are major issues around renewable energy and the rare materials required to convert to them with our current demands. Not only are these minerals rare and expensive, but the welfare of those producing them is frequently atrocious and ignored because of how important these materials are. It’s unlikely we can ever convert to full global renewable power at our current technology and consumption levels, and much less chance we can also allow poorer nations to reach that level after us.
The priorities are in the wrong place, by my understanding. The push is for electric vehicles, not public transport. Offsetting, not reduced consumption. We’re trying to keep the destructive life we’re living and not accepting we need to sacrifice SOME comforts (but can still live comfortable modern lives).
I think there is definitely hope to correct our path and either way, for most of us on reddit the main impacts will be economic ones; but this article seems quite misleading about our current position. I don’t see climate change as purely flood and disaster, but it’s a dangerous slide to extreme politics, with neo-colonialism, nationalism and class divide becoming much bigger issues and we’re just getting started. It’s the social and economic changes we’ll see that is the scary part, justified because of a desperation that has come as a result of those with all the power nothing to lose not wanting to lose their advantages. It’s not so much the climate that will kill us, but the turmoil that we are too poorly prepared to deal with justly. Nuclear nations, desperate for resources, pose a very real risk as the world gets increasingly desperate. Water and fossil fuel security has already been linked to many of the major conflicts we see around the world.
Every extinction level event in Earths history happened over the course of thousand upon thousands upon millions of years. It is a stretch to suggest that westerners especially are going to die and the human species will go extinct in our lifetime, however, it’s not that far fetched to believe that eventually, over the course of maybe 100k, maybe as little as a few hundred, years Earth is no longer habitable for any mammal species and beyond, including humans, due to the change in climate triggered by human involvement.
The extinction level warming (+6C) is very likely to be out of the question. The thing what worries me is that humanity is heading towards something like 2.6-2.9 degrees of warming at the end of the century.
The first implication of this level warming is that most of the landmass between tropics will be hostile to large scale human settlements. This means that something like 1-3 billion people has to be resettled or otherwise they will die. Knowing how countries will be responding on large scale migration I would say that resettling won’t happen. Second implication is that Suez, Panama and Strait of Malacca will become un-navigable due to unrest. This will crash the global trade and living standards for those who will survive the direct effects from the warming.