[-]

mushroomsarefriends@reddit

The Earth is warming at a pace unprecedented in tens of millions of years, because atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing at a pace that has never before happened in tens of millions of years, because nothing else has ever walked this Earth before that figured out how to make use of the energy stored in fossil carbon.

When you create unprecedented changes like this, you'll find that ecosystems can't adjust to those changes rapidly enough to sustain themselves. Vegetation has to move to adjust to shifting precipitation patterns, but it takes centuries for the topsoil to form. This means we now find the carbon contained in vegetation and soils entering the atmosphere too, which results in positive feedback.

It really should not be hard to figure this out. It doesn't take a stable genius. But almost half the population apparently just really doesn't want to see it. You would expect this to be what presidential debates mainly revolve around, which candidate has a better plan to solve this problem, instead of who's better at playing golf and whether Haitians eat people's pets or not.

I would say we deserve what we get, but the people who "get" this haven't even had a chance to vote yet, so there's not even that consolation. A third to half the population just isn't interacting with consensus reality anymore. They are now just dead weights on the political process, only able to throw sand into the machine to make life miserable for everyone. It's very sad.

[-]

tony87879@reddit

If it keeps up and agriculture fails or the oceans stop producing, then people will be eating the pets. So in a way that is what the presidential debate was about. One party is going to keep making things worse and whether we are eating pets now or later, it’s going to happen. The other party is at least going to try and do something about climate change.

[-]

ruskibaby@reddit

idk if the other party will do much of anything though. they’ll keep the status quo, BAU, and keep the quiet part… well, quiet.

[-]

hysys_whisperer@reddit

When the IRA passed, most climate agencies had to publish new models, because the old STEPS models saw a significant shift downward.

Does it get us to net zero? No, but it at least is moving in that direction a 10% chunk at a time.

[-]

theclitsacaper@reddit

Citation please

[-]

NoseyMinotaur69@reddit

Why that comment is dead wrong

https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7

[-]

Pizzadiamond@reddit

Interesting. A scientist Evangelist with a realistic vision of reality.

[-]

NoseyMinotaur69@reddit

No, they aren't evangelical. Nothing in that paper has to do with religion

[-]

Pizzadiamond@reddit

You mean the paper read by evangelist Michael Dowd? Michael Dowd the christian scientist?

[-]

NoseyMinotaur69@reddit

What? Who the fuck cares what affiliation someone is who has read the paper. Just because some random stupid fuck has decided to weaponize people's ignorance and preach secularism doesn't discredit or automatically affiliate a scientific paper with religion

[-]

HumanityHasFailedUs@reddit

Can I have a hit from your hopium pipe?

[-]

mercury_pointer@reddit

This exchange from Harris' interview CNN is particularly infuritating:

BASH: In 2019, I believe in a town hall you said — you were asked, “Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office?” and you said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. So yes.” So it changed in — in that campaign?

HARRIS: In 2020 I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word.

BASH: What made you change that position at the time?

HARRIS: Well, let’s be clear. My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.

The Inflation Reduction Act, what we have done to invest by my calculation over t— probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years investing in a clean energy economy. What we’ve already done creating over 300,000 new clean energy jobs. That tells me from my experience as vice president we can do it without banning fracking. In fact, Dana — Dana, excuse me — I cast the tie-breaking vote that actually increased leases for fracking as vice president. So I’m very clear about where I stand.

BASH: And was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, “Oh, okay. I get it now”?

HARRIS: What I have seen is that we can — we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.

[-]

Nadie_AZ@reddit

Why does anyone think our energy policies are going to change, regardless of who is President?

https://www.vox.com/climate/24098983/biden-oil-production-climate-fossil-fuel-renewables

"The US is the largest crude oil producer in the world, pumping out nearly 13 million barrels on average every day in 2023, an all-time record, according to new data from the US Energy Information Administration.

"That’s an awkward milestone for President Joe Biden, who has arguably done more than any modern president to facilitate America’s transition away from fossil fuels to greener alternatives.

"For the last six years, America has outstripped Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries in crude oil production. And it has picked up the pace under Biden, who had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands by last October than former President Donald Trump had by the same point in his presidency."

[-]

tony87879@reddit

They will when there is no other option.

[-]

LemonFreshenedBorax-@reddit

There'll always be "other options." Of course they'll be ineffective and increasingly grotesque, but they'll always be more politically expedient than fixing the underlying problem.

[-]

CommieLurker@reddit

There is no major party that wants to do what would be necessary to mitigate the looming effects of climate change. They are both fundamentally captured and controlled by the very same large capital interests who got us into this mess in the first place

[-]

SimplifyAndAddCoffee@reddit

You would expect this to be what presidential debates mainly revolve around, which candidate has a better plan to solve this problem,

Anyone telling people what they don't want to hear, aka the truth, that there is no technological solution to this problem that can magically solve things while allowing everyone to keep doing business as usual... could never get elected.

The pooch is long past the point of being un-screwable. We're all in for a real bad time, and the defense mechanism 99% of society has for that kind of reality is to reject it and live in a fantasy.

[-]

dumnezero@reddit

“I have spoken with many old reindeer herders who have never experienced the heat that we’ve had this summer. The sun keeps shining and it never rains,” says Sanila-Aikio, former president of the Finnish Sami parliament.

I've been trying to point out for some years that most of the "renowned" pastoralists are done for in this climate.

2021: ‘This new snow has no name’: Sami reindeer herders face climate disaster | Arctic | The Guardian

2022: ‘The treeline is out of control’: how the climate crisis is turning the Arctic green | Climate crisis | The Guardian

It is these forests that helped underpin the credibility of the most ambitious carbon-neutrality target in the developed world: Finland’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2035.

Non-linear effects ignored by optimists.

The collapse has enormous implications, not only for Finland but internationally. At least 118 countries are relying on natural carbon sinks to meet climate targets. Now, through a combination of human destruction and the climate crisis itself, some are teetering and beginning to see declines in the amount of carbon that they take in.

I hope this leads to retracting or correcting all those relevant studies based on fulfilled pledges and promises of reductions (SSP2-4.5?):

Current policy will lead to a warming of 2.7°C in our combined estimate in 2100 but will also continue to rise after that date. This means, current policies do not limit warming to the level of 2.7°C. Considering only the high estimate of our current policy projection would lead to a warming of 2.9°C and rising, while the low estimate results in a median warming in 2100 of 2.5°C and rising (these are the estimates given in the range for our 2100 warming graph). https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/

[-]

TuneGlum7903@reddit

Great links, thanks!

[-]

jarielo@reddit

Forests being some sort of savior has been a scam all along. Atleast in Finland.

We have lot of forests, yes. But only few percent of those are in natural state. Everything else is just treefarming. It's heartbreaking to walk in Lapland and come by kilometers of freshly flatted forest.

[-]

pragmojo@reddit

I don't understand why tree farming wouldn't be generally good for carbon capture. If you cut down those trees and put the lumber into something durable like a house, that carbon is out of the atmosphere. Not like a log decomposing on the forest floor which releases most of the carbon back into the atmosphere.

[-]

TuneGlum7903@reddit

It's even worse than u/NatanAlter is indicating. I discuss it in my paper

040 - What if I told you there was a way to pull enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to cool the planet down over the next century. How many lives would you be willing to sacrifice to save the FUTURE? - On Reforestation.

Reforestation is a popular idea right now.

“Heal the Planet/Restore the Forests” is an easy to understand, very appealing slogan.

The problem, according to Mr. Canham, a forest ecologist at the Cary Institute, is that while planting new trees does create potential “carbon sinks”. It typically takes 20–30 years to reach the state where more carbon is stored than released annually.

20 years is the MINIMUM lag time between planting a forest of seedlings and their annual “break even” point as a carbon sink.

The amount of carbon that they draw down from the atmosphere and store will slowly increase year-after-year as the trees grow and mature. It takes about 120 years for temperate zone trees to reach full maturity and peak carbon sequestration capacity.

This is a brutal reality of reforestation. Young trees do not sequester nearly as much carbon as old growth forests. For the first 20–30 years of a tree’s life it actually contributes CO2 to the atmosphere.

This seems counterintuitive. Young trees spring up and grow fast. They have to be pulling lots of CO2 out of the air. It seems obvious.

It turns out, that what you see above ground is only half the picture.

[-]

NatanAlter@reddit

A boreal pine or spruce can live anywhere between 200 to 500 years of age. Dead full grown tree trunks will rot for decades, transferring part of their carbon to forest soil. In fact an old growth forest has an astounding amount of large fallen trees on the ground, slowly decomposing in the cool northern climate.

In Finland a commercial forest lifespan from planting to harvest is on average 80 years. A ”durable” product such as a wooden house from a century ago is considered old, 200 year old wooden house is ancient and the rare even older ones are sights to be visited. Not much carbon stored there.

However most wood is turned into pulp, a raw material for short lived products such as paper and cardboard. A fair share of wooden material is burned for energy. A non-irrelevant part of the mentioned 43% emission reduction is actually biomass energy.

[-]

Riordjj@reddit

So Venus by Tuesday.

[-]

oluies@reddit

Bs title https://x.com/hausfath/status/1846213335584211316

[-]

Sad_Bookkeeper_8228@reddit

It's the same in Norway regarding the little old forest left, they are not very good at saving it and generally prefer clear cutting huge areas. They actually do large clearcutting in nature conservation areas as well. I think it's the same in Sweden as well. Iceland is most likely better, but they have lost most of their threes. It is frustrating to see an industry which does not want to change. I hope I will grow numb to the destructions

[-]

cr0ft@reddit

Typical. The villains of the piece, the lumber companies, assure us that it's not a problem that they're cutting down old growth forests, it's all those dastardly fossil fuels.

As always, the only reason we can't do the sane thing is capitalism. Not cutting down the forests cuts profits, and we can't have that.

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

And here I was under the mistaken impression that the trees were being cut down because there was a societal demand for wood products. It is only anecdotal, but I have never bought a 2x4 "just because", it has always been because I needed a piece of easily worked structural material in those dimensions and someone catered to that demand.

A demand which I presume would also exist in a non-capitalist system? Or would socialists/communists/etc. in Finland live under the trees rather than in structures made from trees?

[-]

Barnacle_B0b@reddit

This has got to be the most impotent swing against socialism I've ever had the unfortunate privilege to bear witness to.

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

Matched if not exceeded by the lameness of your whinge that is utterly lacking any form of rebuttal.

My core argument is that trees are being cut down because there is a need for lumber products. If there is a need for lumber products, then trees will be cut down regardless of the government or economic system.

Therefore, blaming capitalism for the trees being cut down requires an argument as to how no trees would need be cut down in a non-capitalist system.

Feel free to provide this.

[-]

JustAnotherYouth@reddit

If there is a need for lumber products, then trees will be cut down regardless of the government or economic system.

What if I told you that certain systems are designed to manufacture need in order to create profit.

What if I told you there were a trillion dollar industry called marketing that is specifically designed to convince people they need shit that they never even knew existed.

So no need is not the same in all systems of organization…

[-]

Wave_of_Anal_Fury@reddit

Therefore, blaming capitalism for the trees being cut down requires an argument as to how no trees would need be cut down in a non-capitalist system.

Yeah, but this is a place where almost everyone blames capitalism, but also refuses to give up any aspect of capitalism. It's why I always urge people to click on the profiles of the people who the people who post here to see what you find in their posting histories.

In this topic alone, there are the inevitable gamers, which is one of the funniest things ever. Let's embrace the most useless aspect of capitalism, throwing huge sums of money at an industry that's become the biggest form of entertainment in the world, just so we can have fun by watching pixels on a screen.

There's someone into cryptocurrency, which because of its huge energy demands, is correctly identified as accelerating the climate crisis.

There's also someone who's into ChatGPT, another technology with enormous (and growing) energy demands, and is a frequent source of scorn in this subreddit because "tech bros" are trying to destroy us.

I'd call them out by name, but I've been told that violates the rules of this subreddit because we're supposed to attack ideas, not each other. So I won't do that.

[-]

Pickledsoul@reddit

They cut them down to turn into fuel pellets for Japan. They're not getting turned into lumber.

[-]

Collapse_is_underway@reddit

Ah yes, the supply and demand, the ultimate system that... got us in the hot mess that's intensifying...

Perhaps the "demand" wouldn't be so stupidly high without the aggressive marketing, mandated by the same industries, that requires growth so they can keep making more, and more.

Also, bonus point for talking about "wood products" as if it was the same from an old growed forest as some sort of recent monoculture.

Even from some sort of capitalist standard, losing all the potential for biomimetism/carbone capture by cutting old forest just for the sake of having "always moar" wood products is beyond trash and stupid.

[-]

DingerSinger2016@reddit

lmao just bc we participate in this society doesn't mean we want it.

[-]

ichuck1984@reddit

To be fair, they aren’t selling anything that people aren’t buying…

[-]

ShyElf@reddit

Yeah, the lumber companies are the true "heroes" of the piece. They keep perpetually pulling carbon out of the air and shipping it overseas. To the extent that it gets pulled back out of the air, that's permanently captured carbon, according the accounting of Finland. Whomever they ship it to will of course say that wood products are a circular loop, so they don't count for carbon emissions when they finally decay, even to the extent that they become methane.

[-]

Icy_Geologist2959@reddit

More specifically the profit motive which underpins competition and the need for growth, the engines of capitalism.

This is an interesting video on YouTube that contrasts ambition and greed:

Greed vs Ambition: How our brain drives success

Of course, this is a YouTube video and so should be treated with some caution. But, I do think it provides a good starting point for digging deeper into precisely what it is about capitalism, as it currently exists, that is both so harmful and such a trap for humanity.

[-]

-what-are-birds-@reddit (OP)

Submission statement: article describes the reduction in carbon capture from Finland’s forests and the resulting impact on their climate policy. This reduction has led to a standstill in their net zero target.

[-]

SimplifyAndAddCoffee@reddit

At last we're getting to the truth of the "net-zero" shenanigans... that we're chasing a receding baseline that is falling out from under us. We've broken the ecosystem, and now we need to pay for it.

[-]

roboito1989@reddit

Pentti Linkola sad ☹️

[-]

a-medic-main@reddit

Thanks for the article!

[-]

Myth_of_Progress@reddit

Drought, climate-related outbreaks of bark beetle, wildfire and tree mortality from extreme heat are ravaging Europe’s woodlands on top of pressure from forestry.

Gotta love those feedback loops!

[-]

TuneGlum7903@reddit

LOL, LOL, LOL until I start crying.

They are so delusional it would be funny if it wasn't so BAD for all of us. They clearly still don't understand what's happening.

Finland is largely in the High Arctic (above 66°N)

The article states that this is "one of the fastest warming areas of the planet" but doesn't tell you "how much".

The High Arctic has warmed +4°C ON AVERAGE since 1979. 4X faster than the rest of the planet. Parts of Siberia where heat "builds up" have warmed +7°C.

We are looking at COMPLETE ecosystem turnover in the next 10-20 years.

ALL, and I mean ALL, of the Boreal Forests are going to die and then BURN in that time frame.

That's Finland, Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia. All of it.

We just went from +1.1°C GMT in 2021 to +1.6°C GMT in 2024. A +0.5°C JUMP in 3 years.

That's going to be a +2°C JUMP in the High Arctic.

How much do you think that's going to ACCELERATE the BURNING?

[-]

BenCelotil@reddit

"This is what you want, this is what you get."

Who else has their scavenger outfit ready to go?

[-]

Professional_Door301@reddit

more carbon in the air mean more lung cancer but more carbon for trees to absorb it meaning more trees?!

[-]

tatguy12321@reddit

That’s not how this works. More oxygen wouldn’t be good for humans if it came with more heat than humans are capable of adapting to.

[-]

Purua-@reddit

We’re cooked that’s what

[-]

idkmoiname@reddit

The impact on Finland’s overall climate progress is dramatic: despite cutting emissions by 43% across all other sectors, its net emissions are at about the same level as the early 1990s. It is as if nothing has happened for 30 years.

Isn't it tremendous how stupid humanity has become?

Once there used to be a net zero CO2 emission globally, before civilization some ecosystems released CO2, others somewhere else in the world absorbed roughly the same amount.

Then we started releasing additional CO2 and learned it's bad to add more carbon to that cycle. So we pulled out some abacus and started calculating how much we release and how much every ecosystem, including land and sea releases or absorbs...

But then a dumbfu showed up and thought hey, why don't we just subtract our emission from what our land absorbs completely ignoring that no one owns the oceans to balance this out, or that the problem arose in the fucing first place because what nature does was already almost perfectly balanced and didn't allow for adding more carbon 🤦

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

what nature does was already almost perfectly balanced

No, it most certainly is not. Nature is self-correcting. A perfectly balanced system would never have had ice sheets as far south as Nebraska or a North Pole ice-free year-round.

If humanity survived long enough we would see both of those even if we as a species had zero effect on the climate. However, we are affecting the climate. Nature will eventually correct for this, it will just be on a timescale longer than civilization has existed.

[-]

idkmoiname@reddit

The self-correcting is the almost perfectly balance, sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Sometimes some systems collapse, others thrive, but in the end life itself regulates the flow of elements in the biosphere, it balances it out.

But as every complex enough self regulating system, it has its limits. Break too much at once and it will undergo what biology calls a cascade.

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

Thank you for the clarification. Sometimes it is better to over-explain.

[-]

StatementBot@reddit

The following submission statement was provided by /u/-what-are-birds-:

Submission statement: article describes the reduction in carbon capture from Finland’s forests and the resulting impact on their climate policy. This reduction has led to a standstill in achieving their net zero target.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1g41mkg/what_happens_to_the_world_if_forests_stop/ls041n4/

[-]

HistoryISmadeATnight@reddit

We'll find out sooner than expected.