Climate conscious folks, can you help me answer this question: If we want to stay within the planetary boundary defined by 1.5°C global warming, how many emissions in CO2e can each person make per year?
-
@malte May I ask you from which source you got the impression that there is any budget left at all?
@mbletmathe Sure, even if I suspect you're not really interested in the answer. One of the primary cycles of matter on the planet is the carbon cycle. As part of that cycle, carbon gets sequestered in soils and living plants. That means it is possible to get to a point where the planet is sequestering more carbon than we are emitting, a threshold called drawdown. It would take drastic reductions in our energy use and my question is basically to ask how much. https://drawdown.org/
-
@malte The worst thing one can do for climate is reproduce: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta
But, of course, people do not want to hear that. If anything, they dump the responsibility for their offsprings' emissions onto those offsprings themselves (who had no choice in coming into the existence).
Humans also hate to be told that they should stop consuming animal products (except billionaires).
@rhelune Yes, this could be another example of how to have the (difficult) conversation with yourself and your partner whether to have children. And I agree with you that's not a conversation most want to have. Having children is like a sphere of its own - different from our other lifestyle choices. The good thing is the birthrate is going down all on its own where women are economically independent, have access to contraceptives, abortions and other family planning services.
-
@snippet I'm preparing for both (and have been a carbon farmer for that reason the last ten years). I'm also ready to shed some delusions if you can help me get the numbers. Do you know the answer to my question above? You're saying that the number is negative - so what is it?
@malte
The numbers aren't useful anymore, because we are too far gone for 1.5. And the number alone always has said less than the assumptions its calculation is based on and the modeled possible passways to reach it, see methods in IPCC reports.
If you must know a number, whatever the assumptions, look it up at global carbon budget:
„The remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C is virtually exhausted. With a warming of the planet attributed to human activities of 1.36°C in 2024, the remaining budget for 1.5°C is 170 GtCO2, equivalent to 4 years at the 2025 emissions levels.“ (2025 key messages)
https://globalcarbonbudget.org/ -
@malte
The numbers aren't useful anymore, because we are too far gone for 1.5. And the number alone always has said less than the assumptions its calculation is based on and the modeled possible passways to reach it, see methods in IPCC reports.
If you must know a number, whatever the assumptions, look it up at global carbon budget:
„The remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C is virtually exhausted. With a warming of the planet attributed to human activities of 1.36°C in 2024, the remaining budget for 1.5°C is 170 GtCO2, equivalent to 4 years at the 2025 emissions levels.“ (2025 key messages)
https://globalcarbonbudget.org/@malte
If you want to think about lifestyle (what is a good thing to do) a more helpful question might be: What is the amount of longterm sustainable carbon emissions, and how can we reach it collectively? -
@jones You're missing my point and not responding to my question. Imagine we managed to abolish the most extreme inequality (which causes the emissions you're referring to and of which I'm very much aware of) and now lived in a much more equal world. How many emissions would there be for each person to use if we wanted to live within the boundary of 1,5C?
@malte @jones not to be nelly negative or anything, we don’t really seem to abolishing anything that looks like any inequality in any near future.
It feels like this is just to individualise the climate responsibility, just like the neo liberal playbook wants us to.
I mean the idea is good, but there is this giant thing in the way called the global elite, who is a the moment making every thing worse -
@mbletmathe Sure, even if I suspect you're not really interested in the answer. One of the primary cycles of matter on the planet is the carbon cycle. As part of that cycle, carbon gets sequestered in soils and living plants. That means it is possible to get to a point where the planet is sequestering more carbon than we are emitting, a threshold called drawdown. It would take drastic reductions in our energy use and my question is basically to ask how much. https://drawdown.org/
@malte Thanks for your answer.
I'm interested in how people who are actually aware of the problem (and even doing something against it) are thinking.Now I know your calculations are based on the drawdown metrics instead of the actual EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance), and your definition of "budget" is different from mine.
Tbh, maybe I expected some "hopium", even as I'm mostly immune to it. Sorry.
-
@malte Thanks for your answer.
I'm interested in how people who are actually aware of the problem (and even doing something against it) are thinking.Now I know your calculations are based on the drawdown metrics instead of the actual EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance), and your definition of "budget" is different from mine.
Tbh, maybe I expected some "hopium", even as I'm mostly immune to it. Sorry.
@mbletmathe I think I know that kind of hope, the kind that dulls the senses and feelings and leads to inaction, like opiates. I would call that a "positive prediction". Hope for me entails some unpredictability, which means there's still room for action. And to have reasons for both optimism and pessimism.
-
@malte @jones not to be nelly negative or anything, we don’t really seem to abolishing anything that looks like any inequality in any near future.
It feels like this is just to individualise the climate responsibility, just like the neo liberal playbook wants us to.
I mean the idea is good, but there is this giant thing in the way called the global elite, who is a the moment making every thing worse@Basic_barbie We disagree somewhat on this point. My analysis of neoliberalism is that it has been a decades long war on the imagination. So much so that not even the most radical people can imagine how we would live without capitalist inequality. @jones
-
@malte
If you want to think about lifestyle (what is a good thing to do) a more helpful question might be: What is the amount of longterm sustainable carbon emissions, and how can we reach it collectively?@snippet Great question and if it helps you to paraphrase it like that I would say it is close enough to mine. And you can even leave out the last part of your question. So what is the amount of longterm sustainable carbon emissions?
-
@malte
The numbers aren't useful anymore, because we are too far gone for 1.5. And the number alone always has said less than the assumptions its calculation is based on and the modeled possible passways to reach it, see methods in IPCC reports.
If you must know a number, whatever the assumptions, look it up at global carbon budget:
„The remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C is virtually exhausted. With a warming of the planet attributed to human activities of 1.36°C in 2024, the remaining budget for 1.5°C is 170 GtCO2, equivalent to 4 years at the 2025 emissions levels.“ (2025 key messages)
https://globalcarbonbudget.org/@snippet I'm working on the assumption that a viable plan for living within the planetary boundaries would include massive transformation of agriculture to get higher carbon sequestration rates. That means we could get to drawdown where we start reversing global warming.
-
@Basic_barbie We disagree somewhat on this point. My analysis of neoliberalism is that it has been a decades long war on the imagination. So much so that not even the most radical people can imagine how we would live without capitalist inequality. @jones
@malte @Basic_barbie
I disagree, i think Murray Bookchin's communalist and libertarian municipalism is an example of imagining how we could live without capitalist inequality (the most desirable and at the same time the most viable, for me), but there are others, so i think the matter is not much to imagine alternatives, but to make them real. -
@malte @Basic_barbie
I disagree, i think Murray Bookchin's communalist and libertarian municipalism is an example of imagining how we could live without capitalist inequality (the most desirable and at the same time the most viable, for me), but there are others, so i think the matter is not much to imagine alternatives, but to make them real.@jones The same point has been made by one of the movements that have made Bookchins thought real, the experiment in Kurdistan. Dilar Dirik called her anthology on that topic "Dare to imagine" for that reason. @Basic_barbie
-
@jones The same point has been made by one of the movements that have made Bookchins thought real, the experiment in Kurdistan. Dilar Dirik called her anthology on that topic "Dare to imagine" for that reason. @Basic_barbie
@jones One of the most scathing critiques I've heard from kurds in the movement when sharing their perspective of radicals in my part of the world is - you don't even know what freedom is and your overly individualized society has made you forget to imagine a free life
