To feel so anxious about the future: Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

[Faceache25]

From an article in the Guardian yesterday. I have made many significant personal changes already, will be voting green, have been involved in campaign groups. But it feels like so little in the face of such a huge catastrophe, I find it difficult to stay positive and not just despair for the future, and for what my child may face in their lifetime.

How do you stay positive?

OK strike the "is" after "population". Sarcasm and typos seem to be bedfellows!

Yes we should be worried. No we shouldn’t have endless discussions about dogs.

Do one thing a week?
Sign one petition. Write one letter. Send one email or tweet. All putting pressure on big business and also requesting more funding for innovation

And then get on with our lives.

Also vote green or write to mp and ask for more green policies.

The problem is we've abused the planet and environment for so long that now the planet is turning on us.
Humans are in effect, cancer to the earth.

To the person who said 'get rid of your dog' what a fucking stupid thing to say.
Really eco friendly to wipe out a whole animal species yep.

You do what is in your means to do in terms of changing lifestyle and voting. Big changes need to happen on a global level and with industry and business approaches- less travel when possible, use of working at home and video conferencing.

Dh has a diesel 0% emissions one he got because it was supposed to be 'best for the environment' at the time. We can't afford to replace with a hybrid or electric, not that there's charging points round here anyway- even in local supermarkets. Those need to be installed more too.

We walk as much as possible or use the transport system here. We eat less meat and recycle though recycling is infuriating as it changes place to place. I often give my plastics to DM. It should be centralized and do everything possible.

Dh has a diesel 0% emissions one he got because it was supposed to be 'best for the environment' at the time.

And therein lies the problem with expecting the government to sort everything out, as climate protestors seem to. Governments get things wrong all the time. Any action that is government-led needs to be extremely cautious because it is always very difficult to know what the long-term consequences will be.

Are you sure you aren't worrying to much? I saw a magazine cover in the 1990s suggesting London would be under water by 2015

I grew up being taught the ice age was coming and we were all doomed.

There is a book published in the early 90s which said we would be all doomed before the millennium.

Then there was the hole in the ozone layer which apparently meant we would all get fried.

I truly believe it is like some domesday cult that predicts the end of the world.

When I was little the news was that we were all going to be nuked and we came very close.

I have seen so much of this stuff that it really doesn’t bother me.

In a few years time the news will be of something else.

Might have got a bit more worked up if it was the first time I had come across one of these doom laden prophesies

Also to the poster who said they were voting Green Party.

Have you read their mandate.

They are more concerned with what is happening on foreign soil than what is happening here.

Get rid of animals to save the planet for human beings?

Anyone concerned about climate change should, if applicable, get rid of their wood burning stoves and coal fires, ditch their gas and oil central heating, and have all-electric homes.

Try to eat seasonally and buy food and drink produced locally or at least from the UK eg broccoli grown in Hertfordshire not Kenya.

Give up dairy? Local milk v almond milk - have you seen how much water it takes to produce a litre of almond milk? Factor in the environmental impact of importing the almonds and the "which is best for the environment" question of locally produced dairy milk v consuming almond milk isn't clear cut.

Oat milk is nicer than almond and has a very low environmental footprint

The ozone problem went away ( almost) because laws were passed that stopped ozone killing gases being released. Although I did read that we should take more care in the sun than we ever did as kids becuase the thinner ozone layer was driving increased skin cancer rates . Not sure if that's true however

Yes, the government and car manufacturer should have paid mor to compensate people . However Switching cars from petrol to diesel and then electric still leaves all the harmful particle released from brakes and tyres. No one talks about that because it shows that electric cars are not the solution anyway, public transport and changing lifestyles are much less palatable

And didnt the London tidal barrier get built as a response, and hasn't it saved London a few times already?

I missed all the responses! Thanks for everyone's thoughts, interesting discussion, @Coolwinter I really like your idea of doing one thing a week, I'm going to start trying to do just that.

@jillyhilly - it wasn't just covered by the Guardian. Was also reported by the Times, Al Jazeera, and other places. Believe me, I would love to be persuaded that there isn't a catastrophe looming, but nothing I have seen has done so. Why are you so persuaded that there isn't, given the strength of scientific opinion on the negative impacts of climate change?

Hi @Faceache25. I know that this news was a widely covered but so what? Numerous sources have now debunked the story. The Mickey Mouse signatures mean that any old idiot could have signed the thing and the authors (and journalists who ran with the story) didn’t notice, care or bother checking because it makes a good story that follows the narrative of imminent climate disaster. We should be suspicious of journalists who behave more like activists in their failure to question the authenticity of a story like this.

Where did this paper come from and who decided that it was of such significance? Why do we swallow this stuff at face value? Does anyone know who wrote the thing? Do people bother to check, or care to find out, or assess what’s actually been written? and if not, why not? These are the questions I am I interested in.

The item in question is not a research paper or systematic review, it’s just a letter that has been signed by a lot of scientists the vast majority of whom aren’t even in climate science but from disciplines like forestry and maths! The language used is not scientific or precise - for example if you’re going to use the term “uninhabitable” you have to define it, and it isn’t defined in any way. No other sources are cited. And this is not what the IPCC says anyway. So scientists signed it without checking its cites, journalists ran with it without checking, and the result is ordinary people getting panicky and terrified which is a bad state to be in, and I don’t like that because it helps no one. I absolutely hate this kind of reporting, it’s hysterical and unethical and it does real damage.

I do think we have an environmental problem (plastic in oceans, air pollution) but that’s different to believing that we are wholly responsible for a changing climate that will bring about the death of millions. I remain reasonably optimistic that we will solve these problems through technology and innovation, and I am really quite disturbed by the kind of radical green policies proposed by the likes of Extinction Rebellion. Something like the Green New Deal would be devastating to the economy and to ordinary working families. That worries me much more than “climate change”.

I follow quite a lot of scientists working in and around the area of climate who do not adhere to the “imminent climate catastrophe” narrative that we are constantly being fed, suggest a number of different reasons for a changing climate and are frustrated by what they see as a lack of real debate around this issue because they are quickly shut down as “deniers”. And that’s very wrong. At the end of the day I want what we should all want - balance and to understand different sides of the argument. At the moment I would strongly suggest that the mainstream media is not providing that.

Some very interesting points there @jillyhilly, thanks for your reply.

Population is a problem that is solving itself. The world birthrate is barely above replacement rate and will soon be below it. Population is mainly increasing because people in poor countries aren't dying as young as they used to. In my daughters lifetime world population will start falling.

(The world fertility rate, births per woman, was 2.4 in 2017. To give you an idea of how fast it is falling, it was 5.0 as recently as 1965. High birth rates are correlated with poverty, when most of Africa duplicates the increasing living standards that Asia has seen in the last 50 years the countries that have high birthrates now will stop dragging the average up.)

China is not the problem with regard to emissions, they are as green as the UK, and the UK is pretty good by world standards. The USA is the biggest problem. Even Japan is less green than China.

Perhaps don't read The Guardian?