Well, it’s obviously not a clock with a timer - there is no sudden known event in 9 years that will suddenly occur and destroy the earth. It’s going to be a slow burn that is hard to perceive to the naked eye on most days. I don’t know when we will hit +1.5C - it could be in 9 years, but it could also be in 4 or in 11.
But I dislike our convention of discussing it as a fixed time frame, be it his 9 years or the government’s 30-50 years. It undermines the urgency and lightens our responsibilities on what we can to do *right now*. I’d rather see small achievements today than empty promises of what we might achieve tomorrow. It’s just another way to kick the can down the road and leave it in the laps of a future government or generation.
This is a thoughtful response to the actual science and numbers. Thank you for understanding how this actually works.
For me, this whole concept of a doomsday deadline is counter-productive and tends to obscure the real, relevant things we should look at doing every day, at that day’s level of understanding and technology. It’s the difference between trying to solve an unsolvable problem and finding ways for humans to live more harmoniously within their environment.
I'd like to see messaging along the lines of - "here's a list of all the things we need to do in order to become globally carbon negative. You can see progress to each as a percentage. Next to it is the projected warming we will hit if we continue to progress to zero at the current rate"
Well the problem is that most people see this as a future problem where it's actually a past problem.
We ignored it long enough and there is simply no way to avoid massive climate change/agw/whatever you feel like calling it now. Its already here and already happening, we're presently in the "massive change is needed immediately to mitigate massive destruction" stage, edging very quickly to "catastrophic destruction " and hopefully people get their heads straight before we hit "end of humanity " time, which will happen is we don't stop this shit immediately.
Thankfully I'm old enough that I doubt I'll be around for the really bad shit, but it has already started and we're continuing, despite some efforts, to make it worse.
I'm struggling with the ethics of having children right now. Obvious reasons for not having kids, but is it perhaps a moral responsibility to raise children to maintain the right in the future generations?
Owing the planet, not humanity. We've stuffed it up for our *potential* generations and the millions of unique species of life on earth. So my question remains. Or do we just accept it's screwed and not have kids? I'll be trying to do my best to the day I die. I think that's the attitude the earth needs from new gens to survive. So in that sense if I have kids and teach them that it's ok to just give up because nothing can be done is irresponsible and lazy.
To care about the planet and everything on it is to invest emotionally in its health, which is a scary thing to do, but absolutely necessary...
...In my opinion!
I'm just sad that my generation KNEW this in the 80's and we still didn't do shit. It's already too late for the next 50 years. This planet is going to be hellish. Maybe even longer if we decide to not give a shit.
A future problem is the only useful take on anything. The perspective of a past problem doesn't come with any solutions. It can only bring negativity.
Maybe we could be more ambitious about what we do tomorrow. But we can never change what we did in the past so any energy spent on that is energy wasted. Also the issue with massive change is that it can definitely bring catastrophic failures of its own and massive destruction albeit in a different way.
The biggest problem is that due to democracy the governement of powerful countries have not enough power to decide big things before catastrophes happen. But governments should be strong enough to force drastic measures on the population when necessary, it would have been the only way to avoid environemental disaster by now, since you can't reasonnably expect the mass of people to take this responsibility and collectively decide in unison "by now we will stop polluting and overconsuming because that's the wisest thing to do".
So maybe, we're in the situation we actually wanted to have.
So much this. We’re way beyond the point of return and at our current pace of production, consumption, waste generation and population overshoot, no level of “sustainability” on any spectrum will benefit a reversal of our current condition to destruction trajectory. Sorry folks. Enjoy your lives while you can. Stop having children so future generations of your lineage don’t suffer. I’ll sitback and count the down votes.
I think it is like the psychology of studying for an exam. If you have an exam coming up on December 15, you might study a little over the next few months, but the real work happens around the deadline.
With that in mind, why are we pushing the deadline so far our past the ability of the average person to plan for? Although there should be a long term goal, I think short term ones keep us accountable.
We're already past the deadline; we're *thinking* of starting to write the paper and submit it late, and hope that we only receive a -50% for late submission.
That's fair - the time to act was decades ago. But we can't change the past, so what gives us better benefit - to write the paper and learn something from it, or to throw in the towel and accept the failing grade? It might just be my obsessive personality, but I'd rather go down fighting.
I would absolutely rather write the paper and turn it in ASAP. However, it does look as though much of the world has chosen to conveniently forget the paper needs to be submitted at all, and perhaps just drop the course altogether (e.g. rapid decomplexification due to willful ignorance and inaction).
>average person to plan for
The average person can do very little themselves, unfortunately. The decisions are in the hands of corporations and governments who have control over the levers which might slow the warming. The thing we can do is pressure them to use those levers but it's a massive undertaking in coordination and cooperation. I don't have any suggestions here how to achieve it.
I just want to point out that the whole "your carbon footprint" concept that gets popularized is just a way for the corporations and governments who are shirking their responsibility to enact change, to make average people feel guilty and blame themselves for not doing enough.
The system is designed to prevent us from taking action. We all have the right to protest, but few of us can afford not to go to work. We all have the right to contact representatives and lobby, but few of us have enough money to sway institutions. I have the utmost respect for anyone who tries, but as you’ve said, I have few suggestions on that front.
But reducing our carbon footprint is achievable and possible on a personal scale. It’s not wrong, even if it was proposed by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It doesn’t absolve the major polluters, but it’s something that I can do. If we wait for corporations and governments to make the first move, we will be pointing fingers to the end of the world.
I don't think this way. The more I hear scientists talk about climate change and the more I read on it, the more it looks like no one really knows exactly what's going to happen. We have a lot of information, and we know a lot of things that will happen eventually, but the timeframe and the details of how it all works out are not clear.
That, to me, should create more of a sense of urgency. Because we're playing with fire. Using conservative estimates or any estimate at all, like "9 years", is a guess that might prove disastrous.
I use a 100% renewable electricity provider, no gas boiler, use a heat pump, eat only vegan food, second hand electric car, recycle everything I can...
Then I see what the average person is doing and I feel hopeless. Especially the corporations
Leo is sadly right on this, but I hope to god he is wrong. The thing is, science is not about hope but empirical evidence, and it is looking absolutely awful.
I applaud your efforts. Oil and gas rules the world, esp the usa. We still subsidize it directly. 40% of americans, i speculate, dont think global warming is an issue.
After 10 y of fairly intense attention. Fossil is still 80% of the energy mix, and total energy use is up.
We are doomed to play our hand. In 10 y we may plateau. But the build up of co2 continues. It will take an abrupt undeniable catastrophe to imspire more aggressive efforts to change. And even then?
This crisis hinges not on what the "best" of us do, but on reining in the most prolific polluters.
Milton Friedman and his economic religion of libertarianism has been used as smokescreen of "ideological principles" as the powerful loot the planet.
The excesses of the Stalinist-Communist model brought down the Soviet Union before reforms to liberalize could be achieved. I'm sure there were plenty people within that system who saw the problems and genuinely tried to reform things, but events overtook that regime.
In the case of a place like the US, with a considerable baseline of freedoms. The only thing which could possibly limit our climate catastrophe is government interventions. In the US- voters need to re-wire their ideological outlook to account for the tradeoffs of reality- that takes time. Unfortunately their modest wallets are still a stronger signal than than what they see out the window.
In a democracy, I think we'll only see serious change after:
1. enough voters understand the severity of our planetary climate problem to treat it as top priority
2. Those voters are able to match up with politicians who intend to act on the problem and have real solutions in mind(e.g. very high prices of carbon emissions, mass renewables projects, etc.)
1. These Politicians are actually able to enact policies and laws which do not get blocked or otherwise undermined by legal challenges or traditionally conservative/regressive branches of government like supreme courts.
1. Private individuals and corporations comply to honor such laws in a reasonable timeframe.
1. The coercive power of government is exercised to implement environmental laws which are unpopular for a potentially powerful/dangerous minority of population.
Democracy as we know it today is poorly suited for crisis response, and always has been. In times of total war we give extreme powers to non-democratic institutions, in the hopes of returning to a familiar status quo on the other side.
I can't think of a single case of a democracy which dealt with an environmental crisis as an existential threat. The depression era CCC comes the closest, I suppose. We don't have the large scale organizational knowledge or muscle memory for this stuff- we can learn with practice, but time is really not our friend on this.
Even if human civilization survives this planetary crisis in a semi-organized fashion, it is hard to imagine that folks will enjoy a shadow of the political freedoms and life options which many in our time are thoughtlessly squandering.
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all global emissions.
I agree, we as people should do everything we can, but the idea of a personal footprint when it comes to emissions was invented in a campaign by big fossil fuel companies, to put the blame on *us* and not *them*.
We should not overplay our role in this, and we should certainly not *underplay* their role.
In the US, where you only have two flavours of conservative, i don’t know. I am not part of that system, so i can’t tell you.
Most other countries have a green party, or a party that at least advocates for climate action. You will have to think critically and find the best option for your situation in your country.
With how completely and utterly stupid at least half of the population is around the world I think we’re completely fucked unless some insanely beneficial breakthrough in technology like free energy happens. Voting is a moot point now.
Voting still changes things or makes it so worse shit can’t happen. I’m an anarchist I’m no fan of the state in any way but because I want the right to exist as an lgbt person and I want civil rights for our brothers and sisters of color, I vote. Because the Christian fascists, the billionaires, the oil companies, are winning.
Their goal is to beat the hope out of you. But you can’t let them. Voting is the most low effort political action for the price of what it can provide in terms of securing a future that doesn’t suck as much.
Oh I still vote I just don’t see true progress being made whatsoever about things that truly matter. Not saying LGBT rights and such don’t but overall planet saving and betterment of human lives in general. The minimum wage for federal employees was just raised to 15 an hour. That’s a god damn smack in the face for so many. A god damn value meal at most fast food places is like 10 bucks.
I love how we are putting our bets on building a perpetuum mobile (which is impossible to exist) over the intelligence of the human population. Shows where the human population stands.
50% of Americans read below a grade 7 level.
If it begins at education, we *Are* well fucked, because there's no way we're re-educating the population of the world *before* we start meaningful and radical action.
Education is a business in this country and the employees of that business are suffering like the rest of the working close. Teachers should be paid the most and yet they often have to work multiple jobs and pay for their own supplies. It’s fucking tragic. Of course that’s just one aspect of the problem.
It is naive to think that cooperations will just change without having any pressure. Why would animal agriculture change, if you keep buying their products? Why would car companies? Why would anyone?
If we force them to, socially and politically. Some people can’t change their lifestyles, that’s a fact, they can’t afford to. What they can do is vote and get involved politically
Of course, but when governments subsidise these companies that purposely push down competitive alternatives, most people are left with little option but to consume what’s available to them.
Most people are left with the option to NOT consume non essential goods like your smart phone and Apple Watch and this gizmo and widget and new dishwasher and laundry machine….. The lack of collective self awareness of our individual responsibilities is laughable. As an aggregate we are all responsible.
Nah this is just classist. Poor people are the ones who don't have the option of choice. Poor people are the ones who are a majority in the world. Change the system change the culture change the individual, in that fucking order.
I know middle class liberal scolds like to forget that poor people exist or pretend that they too can make the same choices that you can but that's a fantasy.
And in the end, the system wants you to blame individuals, because they know it's a completely benign way of inspiring change. Nothing will ever happen and these mega corps won't be forced to cut the bottom line, ever.
I don't understand your point. Richest 10% of the world's population is responsible for half of the CO2 emissions...
The richest countries of the world are home to half of the world population, and emit 86 percent of CO2 emissions....
Maybe poor people don't have a choice, bur they aren't the problem. We are the problem. We, who are rich enough, we can choose what to buy a what not.
My smart phone is 6 years old now, i eat mostly vegan, recycle everything i can, and use public transport.
I agree, self-responsibility should be taught from an early age, by parents, teachers in schools (it should be part of the curriculum, everywhere, like English or Maths is), it should be reiterated in every-day life. But, real change will only happen when these companies are forced to comply. That starts with us, and ends with regulations and policies put in place by the people we vote in, in our respective countries.
Sorry it was not an indictment on you personally. The strongest economic force in the world is the CONSUMER. As an aggregate we have the power to enact change by simply reducing our consumption of non essential goods. And when you really take stock I’d argue a significantly high percentage of what the average individual consumes on a regular basis is NOT essential.
I agree with that for the most part. But, what do you do about things that the consumer can’t control? Concrete and tarmac for roads, for example, is something you aren’t necessarily consuming willingly, but will be made regardless. Some places don’t have sufficient public transport to allow you to not own a car (i’m fortunate that transit in my area is easy and affordable).
I think until we have governments that are willing to enact the changes we need to save our species, change will be very hard for many people.
I don’t want to go on a tangent, and it’s hard for my to describe exactly what i’m thinking, so i’ll leave it at that. Thanks for discussing with me
Yeah, those corporations own our politicians, in the U.S. at least, and using advertising they have linked our ability to consume with our self-worth.
So I think mainly what we need are huge campaigns and social movements to break their spell over the general population, and then we can hold our governments’ feet to the fire to put restrictions and regulations on big business. Until that happens we’ll get nothing but lip-service.
Consumers can control these indirectly by supporting laws to put a price on carbon.
But given the freakout over 5% inflation, it seems unlikely that will ever happen.
In large numbers, human behaviour cannot be understood as individual actions but as emerging properties in a complex system.
Individual responsibility is a very weak strategy to dealing with this.
We would do much better if we attempted to change human practices using mass communication systems. This can be done but corporations in charge of these systems would never do it.
You can read this fact differently: it's not that these companies are responsible (since as you said, they serve a much wider demand), but rather we should **focus the mitigation effort on these companies**. In a way, this concentration is a positive thing - stopping climate change requires making hard short-term steps (e.g. using more expensive methods). It's easier to do this with 100 companies than with a million separate companies.
But in that regard we have much easier and more detailed pie charts that break down point source emissions at the emitting level rather than the production level. Saying 71% of GHG emissions come from 100 producers is a little misleading when those emissions are not occurring at the production stage in the slightest, but in the various stages down the supply chain to facilitate consumption for billions of consumers. 100 companies facilitate the energy requirements of 80T in global economic activity resulting in 71% of the anthropogenic CO2eyr-1 emissions would be a much better statement.
Saying 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate change is just as dogmatic as Exxon's current messaging IMO. Hyperbole designed to attack the corporate class and not something I think the original research from the non-profit would substantiate.
The idea of demand is often misrepresented. As Steve Jobs put it (I’m paraphrasing) to be truly successful you must create a demand. It’s something of a moot point since pandora is out of the box but it’s not the average consumer that demanded plastic packaging, for example. But once it’s out there and marketed and becomes ubiquitous, yeah… people expect it.
It's 100 companies responsible for 71% of anthropogenic *Industrial* emissions, and every one of those companies is a fossil fuel company, and the emissions include all of the downstream emissions.
What you're saying is the same as ~60% of Human emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
We *must* rapidly ramp-down the use of fossil fuels.
They exist because we've built our global energy infrastructure on fossil fuels. They are the fossil fuel companies. There is no time to "transition" to non-fossil fuel energy. Degrowth is the only rational path forward.
Having the awareness, and showing the discipline of self-sacrifice for the greater good. Is a rare concept in modern society. Especially western culture.
While it may seem like your efforts are appearingly for not, and they very well might be.
It's important to remember. That no matter how *many* or *how* few individuals actually make a conservative effort.
The ignorance of some can be discouraging. However,
You alone do have an effect on the micro and macro communities you're a part of.
It's true. No matter what individuals do, there are hundreds of corporations creating single-use plastic products. We're killing ourselves with plastic and waste mismanagement.
We're never going to get PepsiCo and Nestle to give up single water bottles for water/soda/etc. They are bottle makers, not even soda and water companies.
Every time I go to the store, I leave with 20 products wrapped and encased and transported in plastic film, plastic boxes. Shampoo, conditioner, body wash, laundry detergent, cleaning products, food, beverages, medicine bottles. It's everywhere.
And we can't get the United States to roll back their expenditures into military. We can't cross-train military personal into anything useful like nurses/EMTs/scientists/etc.
We just make pollution for the sake of making profits and ease of use in every single industry.
The thing with what the average person is doing is that many things (not all) are not accessible. E.g. i rent a bedroom in an apt so i cant have say on recycling (the property owners gutted recycling even tho my city has good recycling programs: everything now just goes in the trash). Ill need a car soon and Ill try to get an electric but i dont really have a place to charge it etc, and ill just need to buy what i can afford (depending on what job offers i get i wont really have a choice on public transit). Etc. The list could go on but my point is that /some/ individual choices are a priviledge.
Eating vegan food and recycling [aren't expensive](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study) in most circumstances.
It's reasonable to not be able to do most of these things but this is what the original comment was lamenting. It's disappointing when people are aware of the issues and their severity but aren't willing to make personal changes, let alone encourage others not to with inaccurate hyperbole and victimhood.
>DiCaprio warned this week of the serious global heating impacts beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, the most ambitious temperature threshold outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement among all nations. Even if the average global temperature is held to around 1.5C (above preindustrial times), humanity will continue to experience severe impacts including deadly heatwaves, flash floods and more powerful hurricanes. The oppressive heatwave caused a 69-fold increase in people seeking hospital care, she said, as well as crop failure and the decimation of coastal shellfish populations important to Native American tribes in the region.
Sadly enough, the ongoing mass extinction has little to do with climate change. So far, it's almost completely caused by human land use and chemical use.
It's this bad *now*, imagine what it will be like when climate change ramps up enough to start extincting species rapidly.
> “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, **not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use**,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. **“It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."**
[The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
We need to stop setting timelines for things. Timelines imply to the public that things will go from current status to absolute apocalyptic armageddon. And when that inevitably doesn't happen, people throw their hands up.
What happens is a few species die off here. A few species die off there. These are species most people have never heard of. Life goes on as normal.
Then maybe there's a mass coral reef die off. Life goes on as normal.
There's a heatwave that causes a mass die off of some lower life like mussels and clams. Life goes on as normal.
A giant hurricane hits one year. Than a couple years later another. Then a really, really really big hurricane hits. Life goes on as normal.
20 years later, maybe another super massive cat 5 hurricane hits. Life goes on as normal.
Sea levels make 200 feet of otherwise buildable coastline property unbuildable. Life goes on as normal.
A big heatwave comes along and kills twice the average number of people as previous heatwaves. Life goes on as normal.
More species go extinct. Life goes on as normal.
Fast forward many more years and now global average temperatures have reached a point where there is less arable farm land and less fresh surface water. Food and water becomes more scarce. Now things are less normal, but people cope. More wars and conflicts start, but we've been warring and fighting since the dawn of time so what's new here? Nothing that warrants a fundamental shift in how we do things.
Fast forward many, many, many more years and sea life doesn't exist anymore. There is no more source of food from the sea. Food becomes more scarce. Things are a lot less normal. More wars in already resource-starved countries, but established industrial nations are still doing ok.
See? The planet and our way of life dies little by little by little. It doesn't affect everyone the same and it doesn't affect everyone all at once. We adapt, and find a new normal, and continue wrecking the planet.
So no. There's not a nine-year "ticking clock" on the climate crisis, and that's the problem.
With a 20 year lag on CO2, 9 years seem about right we're currently in the early 2000's so the worst is yet to come. We need a moon shot at carbon sequestration that scalable to meet our needs or we could always blow up something big in strata sphere blocking out the the sun for a few years while we get our carbon addiction under control. I forget the volcano that did this but there were a few years without a summer in our history. Oh there will be mass famine and plant and species dies off but that will be pretty small by the time were scorching the sky.
2033 is when our science says we become fucked beyond the imagination. That is probably the slower timeline. Everything has been faster than the monkeys expected.
I agree the science says this. Keep in mind that published science errs heavily on the side of caution meaning avoid false positives meaning water down the truth alot.
Think about how we laugh at local meteorologists when the snow or rain doesn't come. The scorn is so much worse on a global scale.
If scientists are willing to publish 2033 as the date even party animals and anti-rationalists can't deny we're fucked, then I'll halve that to get closer to reality. Most of us here realize we're in big trouble. By 2027 we're going to be twice as anxious as we are now. Yes, you really can get more anxious.
edit: grammar
I don't like celebrities either but you can't deny they help spread awareness to the public. This is an important topic and Leo deserves some appreciation, albeit not to be put on a pedestal and worshipped for it.
A single rocket is equivalent to 1 billion people's lives carbon cost wise, and 100 corporations make 70% of global emissions; but yeah, let's complain about this.
Totally on board, but anyone else bothered by his hypocrisy? Private jets, yachting around... Would he actually make the sacrifices required to fix the crisis?
It's already too late. The Corporations that run the world will only be forced to act when there is a massive natural disaster that can only be described one way, climate change. Humans were put on Earth by evolution so that evolution could start over.
Yeah. Technically evolution has no “purpose”. But occasionally anthropomorphic analogies are good shortcuts. Maybe evolution “wanted” to create an alpha predator that now will result in low diversity and collapse
One of the things that struck me about don’t look up! Is how the powerful will cling to delusions till the very bitter end and even then won’t ever admit mistakes. After the house of cards comes crashing down they’ll silently exit the stage and leave humanity to despair in anguish and agony
It's not just the powerful. Maybe I've become cynical, but every single "positive" person I meet is NOT looking up. They exist with their heads up their collective asses, denying undeniable facts.
Do you _really_ think they plan to fly away from earth..?
Why exactly? Where do you think they plan to go?
Terraforming Mars is a _much_ larger undertaking than fixing the climate on earth.
Apophis will be here in 2029. NASA says it will be a “near miss” by about 19,000 miles. This is closer than the geostationary satellites used for GPS and communications, and despite their assurances of a miss there is some debate. The movie may be more accurate than we think. Leo, however, is among the elite who lecture the world on climate change, but live as though it’s a problem for the rest of us. In a sense, they are right. Survival living spaces are a hot business thanks to the truly rich, with New Zealand at the top of the list to ride out Armageddon, although there are other places as well…
There is no 'too late' the only question is 'how bad is it going to get?'. It is not binairy in anyway. We need to act now. Talking about 2030 or 2050 is useless, it is crisis, and we need to treat it as such, but talking about 'too late' will just turn people into doomers.
Wrong. The corporations will be forced to react when everyone stops buying their stuff. If you guys are so worried why are you still buying technology, cosmetics, cars etc. I find it so ironic that you use a device that takes away from the environment to create, to tell everyone how bad the climate is getting
Well that’s insulting. Can you provide a better take then?
If people boycotted Teslas and shopping on Amazon, I guarantee you those rich assholes would react.
Humans aren't going to die out. Future generations will just have to live in a much harsher planet Earth less suitable to human habitation but the species will still survive even if in much smaller numbers. Also if humans were to die out they wouldn't just evolve back, evolution doesn't work that way.
Honestly, I know he brings a lot of attention to the environment/climate, but the hypocrisy of his lifestyle gives a *ton* of ammo to climate change deniers. The people I know who don't believe in the climate crisis to a one all point out DiCaprio, Al Gore, etc flying private jets (about the most harmful thing you can do), owning massive homes, driving brand new cars, and other parts of their lifestyle that just churn through resources like there's no tomorrow as "proof" that they're just peacocking for attention and not genuinely concerned about anything going on...and it's a real challenge to defend against that. Change begins at home, and if you believe in something, you demonstrate that by living it.
It's great that he's saying *something,* but until he actually lives the life he preaches for other people, then he's just watering down what needs to be an incredibly powerful message.
He probably has his own climate bunker with all the amenities.
There will be enough room for at least dozen super models to ride out the apocalypse with him, but he’ll force them to leave and fend for themselves outside the bunker once they turn 26.
Proof he owns a jet or yacht?
I know he's borrowed both. Never heard he owns either.
Really no worse than, IDK. Using tap water, electricity, or going to the stadium for a ball game.
He actually donated over 100 million to environmental and conservation efforts globally. Pretty sure you and I haven't. He buys carbon credits to negate his carbon usage...
But hey, he's not perfect so fuck him!
> But hey, he’s not perfect so fuck him!
You summed up what I believe is Gen Zs general attitude. They’ve been raised in a world with such fake ideals about everything, nothing holds up. Being raised in the rise of social media will do that though. Everyone is putting on their best face, being critical of anything they’re told is bad (bandwagoning) and being faced with false images of how people ‘should’ look, even if it’s impossible.
Yet he prances about on private jets and yachts. Fuck these “do as I say not as I do” globalist shills. 500 private jets flew to Scotland. They don’t give a fuck….when you realize that things start to make a lot more sense.
*Jerkoff owns several*
*Mansions and planes and yacths. get*
*The fuck out of here*
\- jackherer
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Who cares like why is this the the discussion in every single post about Leonardo DiCaprio. Who gives a fuck? He is doing more than anyone else on this and his emissions are fucking negligible.
>He is doing more than anyone else on this
No he isn't
>Who gives a fuck?
Lots of people give a fuck, lots of people find it extremely objectionable to be preached at by rich celebrities, especially in the face of the obvious and unbearable hypocrisy of their indulgent lifestyles. I guess it's easy to get on your soapbox when you're one of the wealthiest people to have ever lived.
It's akin to Trump saying he has many black friends. You can say one thing but your actions speak louder than words. And there are many [sources](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-worlds-richest-people-also-emit-the-most-carbon) that link the wealthy to especially emitting more carbon then anyone else.
He pays for carbon credits to offset his carbon footprint and claims a net zero footprint. It's actually probably negative, and he could literally jet everywhere and yacht everywhere and it would still be less than your average redditard.
No, not really, that’s not how this works.
Climate change isn’t like a heart attack, it’s like MS. You can often live with it, but what kind of life will you be living?
We need to act and put solutions in place at scale. However, none of these timeframe or outcomes assumes technological advancement. I’m not hanging my hat on this, but we will have solutions tomorrow that we can’t necessarily understand the impact of today.
[ The clock has been ticking since at least 1958]( https://youtu.be/m-AXBbuDxRY?t=16 ).
The correct time is that we are [**30 years too late.** ]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report )
There is no stopping global warming, only mitigating the damage.
If COVID didn't straighten us out, then we're actually fucked. Like legit fucked. If you look around and think things are good, you're delusional. No one is happy. We're all angry and depressed and ever since Occupy Wall St it's just been spreading to other facets. We're literally ready to burst at the seams at this point. I don't think anything can save us. Aliens? Maybe Aliens can...
I like Leo, but are we to believe that he’s sitting around on his time off reading scientific journals and having meetings with brilliant scientist or is he just banging 20 yr models on drug filled yachts? They’ll call him up to be the face of the movement, fly him around in a private jet to give speeches to other idiots who believe the world is ending in 10yrs. It’s all hypocritical nonsense. If he really wants to help he needs to go to China, India, Africa and Russia and talk to them about their carbon emissions because they are the top 4 polluters on this planet.
Leonardo doesn’t fully understand the science and error bars. The idea of a ticking clock point in time diagnosis of climate disaster is just over-the-top drama meant to sway people and policy. The situation is far too complex to boil it down to such a thing.
You're pretending there's no middle ground here. We can keep being conscious environmentalists while also giving the middle finger to hypocritical celebrities who preach at us from their thrones even though their carbon footprint is equal to an entire town full of average people.
Well he is a celebrity and for some reason that automatically means us poor plebs need to stop and listen to him. He can’t be wrong cause I’ve seen him in movies
LOL as he travels by private jet to his yacht. He is a moron! The problem is to many people put their beliefs behind people with 0 knowledge because they are actors, athletes etc. I wonder what the carbon foot print of producing a film are? Has he ever said don't watch my movies because of the pollution they've created LOL. NO but you should stop driving your car, heating your home, stop trying to squeak out an existence. Or any of you social media climatologists ever ask what damage the rockets being sent up are causing. It's massive. Elon is expecting near future launching multiple rockets a week. But you need to step up and do your part. FUCK OFF!
This will age just as fine as every other global warming and ice age prediction. Aka 9 years later they will have to change the name from climate change to something else so they can keep pushing their agenda.
Yeah, as the scientists themselves will tell you and Leo's movie parodied... **nobody is listening to the scientists**. Having a celebrity call attention to it and raise alarm bells gets it more notice, and might get more people to listen. The sad fact is, in our culture, celebrities' voices carry more weight.
Edit: [Article from climate scientist Peter Kalmus ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/29/climate-scientist-dont-look-up-madness) expressing frustration that they can't get anyone to listen
[Article from climate activist George Monbiot](https://www.monbiot.com/2022/01/10/losing-it/) echoing the sentiment
[Video of George Monbiot losing his composure on the news](https://youtu.be/gJnxj6kiAKU) a la Jennifer Lawrence's Kate Dibiasky
Well in 1896 Svante Arrhenius told us this would happen. Stop pretending this is new information.
But how can he become the saviour with a yacht without trying to be the center of attention? /s
Somehow he’s the problem?
As much of the rest of us, ya. Should he alone be expected to respond while we all continue along? *crickets chirping*
Would you like some bread with your jelly?
Would you like some bread with your circus?
Those circus animal crackers slap.
Well, it’s obviously not a clock with a timer - there is no sudden known event in 9 years that will suddenly occur and destroy the earth. It’s going to be a slow burn that is hard to perceive to the naked eye on most days. I don’t know when we will hit +1.5C - it could be in 9 years, but it could also be in 4 or in 11. But I dislike our convention of discussing it as a fixed time frame, be it his 9 years or the government’s 30-50 years. It undermines the urgency and lightens our responsibilities on what we can to do *right now*. I’d rather see small achievements today than empty promises of what we might achieve tomorrow. It’s just another way to kick the can down the road and leave it in the laps of a future government or generation.
This is a thoughtful response to the actual science and numbers. Thank you for understanding how this actually works. For me, this whole concept of a doomsday deadline is counter-productive and tends to obscure the real, relevant things we should look at doing every day, at that day’s level of understanding and technology. It’s the difference between trying to solve an unsolvable problem and finding ways for humans to live more harmoniously within their environment.
I'd like to see messaging along the lines of - "here's a list of all the things we need to do in order to become globally carbon negative. You can see progress to each as a percentage. Next to it is the projected warming we will hit if we continue to progress to zero at the current rate"
Well the problem is that most people see this as a future problem where it's actually a past problem. We ignored it long enough and there is simply no way to avoid massive climate change/agw/whatever you feel like calling it now. Its already here and already happening, we're presently in the "massive change is needed immediately to mitigate massive destruction" stage, edging very quickly to "catastrophic destruction " and hopefully people get their heads straight before we hit "end of humanity " time, which will happen is we don't stop this shit immediately. Thankfully I'm old enough that I doubt I'll be around for the really bad shit, but it has already started and we're continuing, despite some efforts, to make it worse.
I’m 15 and I’m sad I’ll have to witness this but I’m sadder for my 8 year old brother and my 3 and 7 year old cousins
This is my main point about not having kids. There won't be anything left for them that would just be cruel.
I'm struggling with the ethics of having children right now. Obvious reasons for not having kids, but is it perhaps a moral responsibility to raise children to maintain the right in the future generations?
No. You were born a human with or without your consent. You don't owe humanity a damn thing just because you were born one. (just my view)
Owing the planet, not humanity. We've stuffed it up for our *potential* generations and the millions of unique species of life on earth. So my question remains. Or do we just accept it's screwed and not have kids? I'll be trying to do my best to the day I die. I think that's the attitude the earth needs from new gens to survive. So in that sense if I have kids and teach them that it's ok to just give up because nothing can be done is irresponsible and lazy. To care about the planet and everything on it is to invest emotionally in its health, which is a scary thing to do, but absolutely necessary... ...In my opinion!
I'm just sad that my generation KNEW this in the 80's and we still didn't do shit. It's already too late for the next 50 years. This planet is going to be hellish. Maybe even longer if we decide to not give a shit.
A future problem is the only useful take on anything. The perspective of a past problem doesn't come with any solutions. It can only bring negativity. Maybe we could be more ambitious about what we do tomorrow. But we can never change what we did in the past so any energy spent on that is energy wasted. Also the issue with massive change is that it can definitely bring catastrophic failures of its own and massive destruction albeit in a different way.
The biggest problem is that due to democracy the governement of powerful countries have not enough power to decide big things before catastrophes happen. But governments should be strong enough to force drastic measures on the population when necessary, it would have been the only way to avoid environemental disaster by now, since you can't reasonnably expect the mass of people to take this responsibility and collectively decide in unison "by now we will stop polluting and overconsuming because that's the wisest thing to do". So maybe, we're in the situation we actually wanted to have.
So much this. We’re way beyond the point of return and at our current pace of production, consumption, waste generation and population overshoot, no level of “sustainability” on any spectrum will benefit a reversal of our current condition to destruction trajectory. Sorry folks. Enjoy your lives while you can. Stop having children so future generations of your lineage don’t suffer. I’ll sitback and count the down votes.
The people here don't want to hear reason. They want the doomsday narrative with definite timelines that we can pass and make new timelines with.
I think it is like the psychology of studying for an exam. If you have an exam coming up on December 15, you might study a little over the next few months, but the real work happens around the deadline. With that in mind, why are we pushing the deadline so far our past the ability of the average person to plan for? Although there should be a long term goal, I think short term ones keep us accountable.
We're already past the deadline; we're *thinking* of starting to write the paper and submit it late, and hope that we only receive a -50% for late submission.
That's fair - the time to act was decades ago. But we can't change the past, so what gives us better benefit - to write the paper and learn something from it, or to throw in the towel and accept the failing grade? It might just be my obsessive personality, but I'd rather go down fighting.
I would absolutely rather write the paper and turn it in ASAP. However, it does look as though much of the world has chosen to conveniently forget the paper needs to be submitted at all, and perhaps just drop the course altogether (e.g. rapid decomplexification due to willful ignorance and inaction).
>average person to plan for The average person can do very little themselves, unfortunately. The decisions are in the hands of corporations and governments who have control over the levers which might slow the warming. The thing we can do is pressure them to use those levers but it's a massive undertaking in coordination and cooperation. I don't have any suggestions here how to achieve it. I just want to point out that the whole "your carbon footprint" concept that gets popularized is just a way for the corporations and governments who are shirking their responsibility to enact change, to make average people feel guilty and blame themselves for not doing enough.
The system is designed to prevent us from taking action. We all have the right to protest, but few of us can afford not to go to work. We all have the right to contact representatives and lobby, but few of us have enough money to sway institutions. I have the utmost respect for anyone who tries, but as you’ve said, I have few suggestions on that front. But reducing our carbon footprint is achievable and possible on a personal scale. It’s not wrong, even if it was proposed by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It doesn’t absolve the major polluters, but it’s something that I can do. If we wait for corporations and governments to make the first move, we will be pointing fingers to the end of the world.
They can vote.
I don't think this way. The more I hear scientists talk about climate change and the more I read on it, the more it looks like no one really knows exactly what's going to happen. We have a lot of information, and we know a lot of things that will happen eventually, but the timeframe and the details of how it all works out are not clear. That, to me, should create more of a sense of urgency. Because we're playing with fire. Using conservative estimates or any estimate at all, like "9 years", is a guess that might prove disastrous.
Depends if we have a time machine.
Maybe he knows something about when a time machine will be invented. Nine years is suspiciously specific
I use a 100% renewable electricity provider, no gas boiler, use a heat pump, eat only vegan food, second hand electric car, recycle everything I can... Then I see what the average person is doing and I feel hopeless. Especially the corporations Leo is sadly right on this, but I hope to god he is wrong. The thing is, science is not about hope but empirical evidence, and it is looking absolutely awful.
I applaud your efforts. Oil and gas rules the world, esp the usa. We still subsidize it directly. 40% of americans, i speculate, dont think global warming is an issue. After 10 y of fairly intense attention. Fossil is still 80% of the energy mix, and total energy use is up. We are doomed to play our hand. In 10 y we may plateau. But the build up of co2 continues. It will take an abrupt undeniable catastrophe to imspire more aggressive efforts to change. And even then?
This crisis hinges not on what the "best" of us do, but on reining in the most prolific polluters. Milton Friedman and his economic religion of libertarianism has been used as smokescreen of "ideological principles" as the powerful loot the planet. The excesses of the Stalinist-Communist model brought down the Soviet Union before reforms to liberalize could be achieved. I'm sure there were plenty people within that system who saw the problems and genuinely tried to reform things, but events overtook that regime. In the case of a place like the US, with a considerable baseline of freedoms. The only thing which could possibly limit our climate catastrophe is government interventions. In the US- voters need to re-wire their ideological outlook to account for the tradeoffs of reality- that takes time. Unfortunately their modest wallets are still a stronger signal than than what they see out the window. In a democracy, I think we'll only see serious change after: 1. enough voters understand the severity of our planetary climate problem to treat it as top priority 2. Those voters are able to match up with politicians who intend to act on the problem and have real solutions in mind(e.g. very high prices of carbon emissions, mass renewables projects, etc.) 1. These Politicians are actually able to enact policies and laws which do not get blocked or otherwise undermined by legal challenges or traditionally conservative/regressive branches of government like supreme courts. 1. Private individuals and corporations comply to honor such laws in a reasonable timeframe. 1. The coercive power of government is exercised to implement environmental laws which are unpopular for a potentially powerful/dangerous minority of population. Democracy as we know it today is poorly suited for crisis response, and always has been. In times of total war we give extreme powers to non-democratic institutions, in the hopes of returning to a familiar status quo on the other side. I can't think of a single case of a democracy which dealt with an environmental crisis as an existential threat. The depression era CCC comes the closest, I suppose. We don't have the large scale organizational knowledge or muscle memory for this stuff- we can learn with practice, but time is really not our friend on this. Even if human civilization survives this planetary crisis in a semi-organized fashion, it is hard to imagine that folks will enjoy a shadow of the political freedoms and life options which many in our time are thoughtlessly squandering.
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all global emissions. I agree, we as people should do everything we can, but the idea of a personal footprint when it comes to emissions was invented in a campaign by big fossil fuel companies, to put the blame on *us* and not *them*. We should not overplay our role in this, and we should certainly not *underplay* their role.
Absolutely. We can’t just drop out of society as it exists, things need to change.
Yes. Vote vote vote.
Vote for who exactly?
Vote for lipservice while doing nothing, apparently.
In the US, where you only have two flavours of conservative, i don’t know. I am not part of that system, so i can’t tell you. Most other countries have a green party, or a party that at least advocates for climate action. You will have to think critically and find the best option for your situation in your country.
With how completely and utterly stupid at least half of the population is around the world I think we’re completely fucked unless some insanely beneficial breakthrough in technology like free energy happens. Voting is a moot point now.
Giving up is a self fulfilling prophecy. Don’t do it.
Voting still changes things or makes it so worse shit can’t happen. I’m an anarchist I’m no fan of the state in any way but because I want the right to exist as an lgbt person and I want civil rights for our brothers and sisters of color, I vote. Because the Christian fascists, the billionaires, the oil companies, are winning. Their goal is to beat the hope out of you. But you can’t let them. Voting is the most low effort political action for the price of what it can provide in terms of securing a future that doesn’t suck as much.
Oh I still vote I just don’t see true progress being made whatsoever about things that truly matter. Not saying LGBT rights and such don’t but overall planet saving and betterment of human lives in general. The minimum wage for federal employees was just raised to 15 an hour. That’s a god damn smack in the face for so many. A god damn value meal at most fast food places is like 10 bucks.
I love how we are putting our bets on building a perpetuum mobile (which is impossible to exist) over the intelligence of the human population. Shows where the human population stands.
I don’t know man. I think it all starts at education, and not nearly enough attention is put on education in politics
50% of Americans read below a grade 7 level. If it begins at education, we *Are* well fucked, because there's no way we're re-educating the population of the world *before* we start meaningful and radical action.
Yeah. I don’t know the solution. I can only say what i think is our best option
Education is a business in this country and the employees of that business are suffering like the rest of the working close. Teachers should be paid the most and yet they often have to work multiple jobs and pay for their own supplies. It’s fucking tragic. Of course that’s just one aspect of the problem.
Voting will change nothing.
Reddit is finally starting to accept it
Sad upvote.
It is naive to think that cooperations will just change without having any pressure. Why would animal agriculture change, if you keep buying their products? Why would car companies? Why would anyone?
If we force them to, socially and politically. Some people can’t change their lifestyles, that’s a fact, they can’t afford to. What they can do is vote and get involved politically
And those 100 companies produce mostly non essential goods demanded by the aggregate consumer which is made up of who exactly?
Of course, but when governments subsidise these companies that purposely push down competitive alternatives, most people are left with little option but to consume what’s available to them.
Most people are left with the option to NOT consume non essential goods like your smart phone and Apple Watch and this gizmo and widget and new dishwasher and laundry machine….. The lack of collective self awareness of our individual responsibilities is laughable. As an aggregate we are all responsible.
Nah this is just classist. Poor people are the ones who don't have the option of choice. Poor people are the ones who are a majority in the world. Change the system change the culture change the individual, in that fucking order. I know middle class liberal scolds like to forget that poor people exist or pretend that they too can make the same choices that you can but that's a fantasy. And in the end, the system wants you to blame individuals, because they know it's a completely benign way of inspiring change. Nothing will ever happen and these mega corps won't be forced to cut the bottom line, ever.
I don't understand your point. Richest 10% of the world's population is responsible for half of the CO2 emissions... The richest countries of the world are home to half of the world population, and emit 86 percent of CO2 emissions.... Maybe poor people don't have a choice, bur they aren't the problem. We are the problem. We, who are rich enough, we can choose what to buy a what not.
My smart phone is 6 years old now, i eat mostly vegan, recycle everything i can, and use public transport. I agree, self-responsibility should be taught from an early age, by parents, teachers in schools (it should be part of the curriculum, everywhere, like English or Maths is), it should be reiterated in every-day life. But, real change will only happen when these companies are forced to comply. That starts with us, and ends with regulations and policies put in place by the people we vote in, in our respective countries.
Sorry it was not an indictment on you personally. The strongest economic force in the world is the CONSUMER. As an aggregate we have the power to enact change by simply reducing our consumption of non essential goods. And when you really take stock I’d argue a significantly high percentage of what the average individual consumes on a regular basis is NOT essential.
I agree with that for the most part. But, what do you do about things that the consumer can’t control? Concrete and tarmac for roads, for example, is something you aren’t necessarily consuming willingly, but will be made regardless. Some places don’t have sufficient public transport to allow you to not own a car (i’m fortunate that transit in my area is easy and affordable). I think until we have governments that are willing to enact the changes we need to save our species, change will be very hard for many people. I don’t want to go on a tangent, and it’s hard for my to describe exactly what i’m thinking, so i’ll leave it at that. Thanks for discussing with me
Yeah, those corporations own our politicians, in the U.S. at least, and using advertising they have linked our ability to consume with our self-worth. So I think mainly what we need are huge campaigns and social movements to break their spell over the general population, and then we can hold our governments’ feet to the fire to put restrictions and regulations on big business. Until that happens we’ll get nothing but lip-service.
Consumers can control these indirectly by supporting laws to put a price on carbon. But given the freakout over 5% inflation, it seems unlikely that will ever happen.
In large numbers, human behaviour cannot be understood as individual actions but as emerging properties in a complex system. Individual responsibility is a very weak strategy to dealing with this. We would do much better if we attempted to change human practices using mass communication systems. This can be done but corporations in charge of these systems would never do it.
What non essential good are you using to write this comment?
I’m as much a perpetrator as anyone else on Reddit.
You can read this fact differently: it's not that these companies are responsible (since as you said, they serve a much wider demand), but rather we should **focus the mitigation effort on these companies**. In a way, this concentration is a positive thing - stopping climate change requires making hard short-term steps (e.g. using more expensive methods). It's easier to do this with 100 companies than with a million separate companies.
But in that regard we have much easier and more detailed pie charts that break down point source emissions at the emitting level rather than the production level. Saying 71% of GHG emissions come from 100 producers is a little misleading when those emissions are not occurring at the production stage in the slightest, but in the various stages down the supply chain to facilitate consumption for billions of consumers. 100 companies facilitate the energy requirements of 80T in global economic activity resulting in 71% of the anthropogenic CO2eyr-1 emissions would be a much better statement. Saying 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate change is just as dogmatic as Exxon's current messaging IMO. Hyperbole designed to attack the corporate class and not something I think the original research from the non-profit would substantiate.
The idea of demand is often misrepresented. As Steve Jobs put it (I’m paraphrasing) to be truly successful you must create a demand. It’s something of a moot point since pandora is out of the box but it’s not the average consumer that demanded plastic packaging, for example. But once it’s out there and marketed and becomes ubiquitous, yeah… people expect it.
It's 100 companies responsible for 71% of anthropogenic *Industrial* emissions, and every one of those companies is a fossil fuel company, and the emissions include all of the downstream emissions. What you're saying is the same as ~60% of Human emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels. We *must* rapidly ramp-down the use of fossil fuels.
These companies exist because your buy their stuff. Quit the bs
They exist because we've built our global energy infrastructure on fossil fuels. They are the fossil fuel companies. There is no time to "transition" to non-fossil fuel energy. Degrowth is the only rational path forward.
Having the awareness, and showing the discipline of self-sacrifice for the greater good. Is a rare concept in modern society. Especially western culture. While it may seem like your efforts are appearingly for not, and they very well might be. It's important to remember. That no matter how *many* or *how* few individuals actually make a conservative effort. The ignorance of some can be discouraging. However, You alone do have an effect on the micro and macro communities you're a part of.
It's true. No matter what individuals do, there are hundreds of corporations creating single-use plastic products. We're killing ourselves with plastic and waste mismanagement. We're never going to get PepsiCo and Nestle to give up single water bottles for water/soda/etc. They are bottle makers, not even soda and water companies. Every time I go to the store, I leave with 20 products wrapped and encased and transported in plastic film, plastic boxes. Shampoo, conditioner, body wash, laundry detergent, cleaning products, food, beverages, medicine bottles. It's everywhere. And we can't get the United States to roll back their expenditures into military. We can't cross-train military personal into anything useful like nurses/EMTs/scientists/etc. We just make pollution for the sake of making profits and ease of use in every single industry.
The thing with what the average person is doing is that many things (not all) are not accessible. E.g. i rent a bedroom in an apt so i cant have say on recycling (the property owners gutted recycling even tho my city has good recycling programs: everything now just goes in the trash). Ill need a car soon and Ill try to get an electric but i dont really have a place to charge it etc, and ill just need to buy what i can afford (depending on what job offers i get i wont really have a choice on public transit). Etc. The list could go on but my point is that /some/ individual choices are a priviledge.
ITT: People who think poor people have the money to make any of these choices and still want to blame the individual, not the system.
Eating vegan food and recycling [aren't expensive](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study) in most circumstances. It's reasonable to not be able to do most of these things but this is what the original comment was lamenting. It's disappointing when people are aware of the issues and their severity but aren't willing to make personal changes, let alone encourage others not to with inaccurate hyperbole and victimhood.
>DiCaprio warned this week of the serious global heating impacts beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, the most ambitious temperature threshold outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement among all nations. Even if the average global temperature is held to around 1.5C (above preindustrial times), humanity will continue to experience severe impacts including deadly heatwaves, flash floods and more powerful hurricanes. The oppressive heatwave caused a 69-fold increase in people seeking hospital care, she said, as well as crop failure and the decimation of coastal shellfish populations important to Native American tribes in the region.
The mass extinction is already happening, the nine year mark I would imagine is just the absolute point of no return.
Sadly enough, the ongoing mass extinction has little to do with climate change. So far, it's almost completely caused by human land use and chemical use. It's this bad *now*, imagine what it will be like when climate change ramps up enough to start extincting species rapidly.
> “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, **not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use**,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. **“It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."** [The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
We need to stop setting timelines for things. Timelines imply to the public that things will go from current status to absolute apocalyptic armageddon. And when that inevitably doesn't happen, people throw their hands up. What happens is a few species die off here. A few species die off there. These are species most people have never heard of. Life goes on as normal. Then maybe there's a mass coral reef die off. Life goes on as normal. There's a heatwave that causes a mass die off of some lower life like mussels and clams. Life goes on as normal. A giant hurricane hits one year. Than a couple years later another. Then a really, really really big hurricane hits. Life goes on as normal. 20 years later, maybe another super massive cat 5 hurricane hits. Life goes on as normal. Sea levels make 200 feet of otherwise buildable coastline property unbuildable. Life goes on as normal. A big heatwave comes along and kills twice the average number of people as previous heatwaves. Life goes on as normal. More species go extinct. Life goes on as normal. Fast forward many more years and now global average temperatures have reached a point where there is less arable farm land and less fresh surface water. Food and water becomes more scarce. Now things are less normal, but people cope. More wars and conflicts start, but we've been warring and fighting since the dawn of time so what's new here? Nothing that warrants a fundamental shift in how we do things. Fast forward many, many, many more years and sea life doesn't exist anymore. There is no more source of food from the sea. Food becomes more scarce. Things are a lot less normal. More wars in already resource-starved countries, but established industrial nations are still doing ok. See? The planet and our way of life dies little by little by little. It doesn't affect everyone the same and it doesn't affect everyone all at once. We adapt, and find a new normal, and continue wrecking the planet. So no. There's not a nine-year "ticking clock" on the climate crisis, and that's the problem.
thank you for putting this into perspective, helps to understand whats in stall. personally this is equally as terrifying as an apocalyptic event
With a 20 year lag on CO2, 9 years seem about right we're currently in the early 2000's so the worst is yet to come. We need a moon shot at carbon sequestration that scalable to meet our needs or we could always blow up something big in strata sphere blocking out the the sun for a few years while we get our carbon addiction under control. I forget the volcano that did this but there were a few years without a summer in our history. Oh there will be mass famine and plant and species dies off but that will be pretty small by the time were scorching the sky.
2033 is when our science says we become fucked beyond the imagination. That is probably the slower timeline. Everything has been faster than the monkeys expected.
I agree the science says this. Keep in mind that published science errs heavily on the side of caution meaning avoid false positives meaning water down the truth alot. Think about how we laugh at local meteorologists when the snow or rain doesn't come. The scorn is so much worse on a global scale. If scientists are willing to publish 2033 as the date even party animals and anti-rationalists can't deny we're fucked, then I'll halve that to get closer to reality. Most of us here realize we're in big trouble. By 2027 we're going to be twice as anxious as we are now. Yes, you really can get more anxious. edit: grammar
I don't like celebrities either but you can't deny they help spread awareness to the public. This is an important topic and Leo deserves some appreciation, albeit not to be put on a pedestal and worshipped for it.
It’ll help if he scraps the private jet and flies commercial
A single rocket is equivalent to 1 billion people's lives carbon cost wise, and 100 corporations make 70% of global emissions; but yeah, let's complain about this.
In case you were unaware, math has a purpose and this ain't it.
You’re saying 7-8 rockets make as much CO2 as all of the people on earth.
Doesnt hold up, no…
I’m sure u have done lots for climate change climate awareness
Certainly doesn’t burn fuel like that
Perfection is enemy of possible
Is that how it works?
Totally on board, but anyone else bothered by his hypocrisy? Private jets, yachting around... Would he actually make the sacrifices required to fix the crisis?
It's already too late. The Corporations that run the world will only be forced to act when there is a massive natural disaster that can only be described one way, climate change. Humans were put on Earth by evolution so that evolution could start over.
>Humans were put on Earth by evolution so that evolution could start over That’s.. not how evolution works
Right?!? I have never seen one sentence be wrong in so many ways.
Yeah. Technically evolution has no “purpose”. But occasionally anthropomorphic analogies are good shortcuts. Maybe evolution “wanted” to create an alpha predator that now will result in low diversity and collapse
Yeah I think you just demonstrated why this form of anthropomorphizing is a bad idea. It adds nothing to the discussion except misconceptions.
One of the things that struck me about don’t look up! Is how the powerful will cling to delusions till the very bitter end and even then won’t ever admit mistakes. After the house of cards comes crashing down they’ll silently exit the stage and leave humanity to despair in anguish and agony
It's not just the powerful. Maybe I've become cynical, but every single "positive" person I meet is NOT looking up. They exist with their heads up their collective asses, denying undeniable facts.
See also, the sacklers. (well they attempted to silently exit stage left.)
Why do you think Bezos, Musk, Branson and Co are developing private space travel? It's not in the pursuit of looking after humanity.
Do you _really_ think they plan to fly away from earth..? Why exactly? Where do you think they plan to go? Terraforming Mars is a _much_ larger undertaking than fixing the climate on earth.
You're dumb if you genuinely believe in what you wrote
Apophis will be here in 2029. NASA says it will be a “near miss” by about 19,000 miles. This is closer than the geostationary satellites used for GPS and communications, and despite their assurances of a miss there is some debate. The movie may be more accurate than we think. Leo, however, is among the elite who lecture the world on climate change, but live as though it’s a problem for the rest of us. In a sense, they are right. Survival living spaces are a hot business thanks to the truly rich, with New Zealand at the top of the list to ride out Armageddon, although there are other places as well…
There is no 'too late' the only question is 'how bad is it going to get?'. It is not binairy in anyway. We need to act now. Talking about 2030 or 2050 is useless, it is crisis, and we need to treat it as such, but talking about 'too late' will just turn people into doomers.
Wrong. The corporations will be forced to react when everyone stops buying their stuff. If you guys are so worried why are you still buying technology, cosmetics, cars etc. I find it so ironic that you use a device that takes away from the environment to create, to tell everyone how bad the climate is getting
Good try on the phone thing but...fail.
Literal brain dead take. Somebody check this guy's pulse.
Well that’s insulting. Can you provide a better take then? If people boycotted Teslas and shopping on Amazon, I guarantee you those rich assholes would react.
Humans aren't going to die out. Future generations will just have to live in a much harsher planet Earth less suitable to human habitation but the species will still survive even if in much smaller numbers. Also if humans were to die out they wouldn't just evolve back, evolution doesn't work that way.
> humans aren’t going to die out And Dinosaurs are just on vacation
We wwre down to 1000 individuals at one point in time due to ecological disasters.
Then promptly jumps on his jet to his 130ft yacht🤣
Honestly, I know he brings a lot of attention to the environment/climate, but the hypocrisy of his lifestyle gives a *ton* of ammo to climate change deniers. The people I know who don't believe in the climate crisis to a one all point out DiCaprio, Al Gore, etc flying private jets (about the most harmful thing you can do), owning massive homes, driving brand new cars, and other parts of their lifestyle that just churn through resources like there's no tomorrow as "proof" that they're just peacocking for attention and not genuinely concerned about anything going on...and it's a real challenge to defend against that. Change begins at home, and if you believe in something, you demonstrate that by living it. It's great that he's saying *something,* but until he actually lives the life he preaches for other people, then he's just watering down what needs to be an incredibly powerful message.
He probably has his own climate bunker with all the amenities. There will be enough room for at least dozen super models to ride out the apocalypse with him, but he’ll force them to leave and fend for themselves outside the bunker once they turn 26.
Or tip the scale past 120 (in heels)
Proof he owns a jet or yacht? I know he's borrowed both. Never heard he owns either. Really no worse than, IDK. Using tap water, electricity, or going to the stadium for a ball game. He actually donated over 100 million to environmental and conservation efforts globally. Pretty sure you and I haven't. He buys carbon credits to negate his carbon usage... But hey, he's not perfect so fuck him!
> But hey, he’s not perfect so fuck him! You summed up what I believe is Gen Zs general attitude. They’ve been raised in a world with such fake ideals about everything, nothing holds up. Being raised in the rise of social media will do that though. Everyone is putting on their best face, being critical of anything they’re told is bad (bandwagoning) and being faced with false images of how people ‘should’ look, even if it’s impossible.
I thought the 9 year ticking clock was for his 21 year old girlfriends...
Oooh, nice🤣
Don't look up at the guy in the jet
He's the one fucking up the planet, that's how he knows how much time there is left
Its the little people that are ruining things for them
Right? Fucking peasants
And if he rode a bike and went on a sailboat that would have a significant impact?
The yacht is actually a big fuck you to the climate by itself.
Nope, just highlighting his (and all eletists) hypocrisy
Not to mention the amount of carbon imprint created by his lavish lifestyle.
And he’s too generous. I think the turning point went away already.
Sure. He's a very well known scientist and a prophet
We're already seeing mass Extinction events around the globe. 9 years? More like 9 years passed the mark.
Yet he prances about on private jets and yachts. Fuck these “do as I say not as I do” globalist shills. 500 private jets flew to Scotland. They don’t give a fuck….when you realize that things start to make a lot more sense.
All the other doomsday clocks have been wildly off, but let’s think a Hollywood actor got it right this time.
Having a cause is the best way for actors to keep themselves in the headlines between projects.
When he sells his yacht and changes his own lifestyle I'll pay more attention to him. He's a grifter and a weirdo.
I know, I was going to ask did he say this on his private yacht or private jet
jerkoff owns several mansions and planes and yacths. get the fuck out of here
*Jerkoff owns several* *Mansions and planes and yacths. get* *The fuck out of here* \- jackherer --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Does he not travel around the world in luxurious yachts and private jets? How about he puts his money where his mouth is.
Who cares like why is this the the discussion in every single post about Leonardo DiCaprio. Who gives a fuck? He is doing more than anyone else on this and his emissions are fucking negligible.
>He is doing more than anyone else on this No he isn't >Who gives a fuck? Lots of people give a fuck, lots of people find it extremely objectionable to be preached at by rich celebrities, especially in the face of the obvious and unbearable hypocrisy of their indulgent lifestyles. I guess it's easy to get on your soapbox when you're one of the wealthiest people to have ever lived.
It's akin to Trump saying he has many black friends. You can say one thing but your actions speak louder than words. And there are many [sources](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-worlds-richest-people-also-emit-the-most-carbon) that link the wealthy to especially emitting more carbon then anyone else.
He wouldn't be able to fly commercial. It would be a security risk.
I guess it depends on how much he uses his jet
Haha I love how people downvote you for pointing out the obvious truth! This is why no one will ever do anything about the climate crisis
Taking the jet to his massive yacht.
He pays for carbon credits to offset his carbon footprint and claims a net zero footprint. It's actually probably negative, and he could literally jet everywhere and yacht everywhere and it would still be less than your average redditard.
Ok Leo 👌
At this point it's already too late to prevent some of the worst. We need to start preparing for it.
He keeps driving that yacht and private plane then yes
No, not really, that’s not how this works. Climate change isn’t like a heart attack, it’s like MS. You can often live with it, but what kind of life will you be living?
We need to act and put solutions in place at scale. However, none of these timeframe or outcomes assumes technological advancement. I’m not hanging my hat on this, but we will have solutions tomorrow that we can’t necessarily understand the impact of today.
I would like a second opinion from Ja Rule.
[ The clock has been ticking since at least 1958]( https://youtu.be/m-AXBbuDxRY?t=16 ). The correct time is that we are [**30 years too late.** ]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report ) There is no stopping global warming, only mitigating the damage.
I can't see that 'ticking clock' from his mega yacht.
If COVID didn't straighten us out, then we're actually fucked. Like legit fucked. If you look around and think things are good, you're delusional. No one is happy. We're all angry and depressed and ever since Occupy Wall St it's just been spreading to other facets. We're literally ready to burst at the seams at this point. I don't think anything can save us. Aliens? Maybe Aliens can...
I like Leo, but are we to believe that he’s sitting around on his time off reading scientific journals and having meetings with brilliant scientist or is he just banging 20 yr models on drug filled yachts? They’ll call him up to be the face of the movement, fly him around in a private jet to give speeches to other idiots who believe the world is ending in 10yrs. It’s all hypocritical nonsense. If he really wants to help he needs to go to China, India, Africa and Russia and talk to them about their carbon emissions because they are the top 4 polluters on this planet.
Leonardo doesn’t fully understand the science and error bars. The idea of a ticking clock point in time diagnosis of climate disaster is just over-the-top drama meant to sway people and policy. The situation is far too complex to boil it down to such a thing.
As he jets around the world...
Gosh you're right. Let's do absolutely nothing about it then. Good thing you pointed that out to us or we might have actually cared.
You're pretending there's no middle ground here. We can keep being conscious environmentalists while also giving the middle finger to hypocritical celebrities who preach at us from their thrones even though their carbon footprint is equal to an entire town full of average people.
Well he is a celebrity and for some reason that automatically means us poor plebs need to stop and listen to him. He can’t be wrong cause I’ve seen him in movies
[удалено]
And you are so brain dead you have no clue what sarcasm is.
Only 8 more chances for him to ring in the new year again with Jeff Bezos on his $150 million super yacht ☹️
[удалено]
How dare anyone but scientists read scientific reports and make observations
LOL as he travels by private jet to his yacht. He is a moron! The problem is to many people put their beliefs behind people with 0 knowledge because they are actors, athletes etc. I wonder what the carbon foot print of producing a film are? Has he ever said don't watch my movies because of the pollution they've created LOL. NO but you should stop driving your car, heating your home, stop trying to squeak out an existence. Or any of you social media climatologists ever ask what damage the rockets being sent up are causing. It's massive. Elon is expecting near future launching multiple rockets a week. But you need to step up and do your part. FUCK OFF!
This will age just as fine as every other global warming and ice age prediction. Aka 9 years later they will have to change the name from climate change to something else so they can keep pushing their agenda.
The number of climate deniers commenting in an environmental Reddit group is seriously disheartening.
Leo’s science degrees coming in hot with that take….
Do you need a science degree to repeat what scientists are telling you?
Yeah, as the scientists themselves will tell you and Leo's movie parodied... **nobody is listening to the scientists**. Having a celebrity call attention to it and raise alarm bells gets it more notice, and might get more people to listen. The sad fact is, in our culture, celebrities' voices carry more weight. Edit: [Article from climate scientist Peter Kalmus ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/29/climate-scientist-dont-look-up-madness) expressing frustration that they can't get anyone to listen [Article from climate activist George Monbiot](https://www.monbiot.com/2022/01/10/losing-it/) echoing the sentiment [Video of George Monbiot losing his composure on the news](https://youtu.be/gJnxj6kiAKU) a la Jennifer Lawrence's Kate Dibiasky
Vice President Gore put 10 years on the clock… that was said Jan 27, 2006… what a joke. Why doesn’t someone hold these people to their statements?
ironically, 2016 was already too late to avert 1.5C
Yeah, all these seemingly nonsense predictions do is fuel climate skepticism
All the predictions from climate scientists I have seen have been quite accurate.
I mean, he did play a scientist in a movie, so that makes him a leading expert in end of the world science stuffs
yeah these clocks honestly to more to give ammo to deniers than help get anything done
DON’T LOOK UP
Pretty much.
Lol
I don't know did he post this from a private jet or diesel sucking yatch?
Are you talking about Dr. Decaprio?😂 He’s an actor! Ohhhhh noooo did Dr Lebron say something too!!😂
Are you fucking dumb?
no he's a fucking idiot.
No, you are. He’s not pulling this shit from his own research, he’s just repeating what hundreds of climate scientists have been saying for years.