Climate Change

Realistically, there's no way we can take power in time to stop the worst of the effects. Millions of people, if not over a billion, will die over the next few decades. If we're lucky, leftists will take advantage of the chaos once things reach the breaking point to wall all the people responsible and start chipping away at undoing the damage to the environment. Maybe they'd even succeed. In the meantime, about all we can do is agitate, arm, and prepare. And maybe play Fate of the World to practice.

This, they've done a lot this decade to shut down coal plants and invest in solar energy, among other things.

Attached: futureleft.jpg (1920x1080, 3.08M)

if I shit all over your lawn every single day and then clean up 5% of it at night does that suddenly make me not someone who still shits all over your lawn every day? Face it China is not anywhere near serious about climate change. Investing more than Amerikkka is not the standard that anyone should be measuring it by.

why i have to see a new thread about this stupid apocalyptic bullshit cult every day?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x450, 141.63K)

Attached: d.png (320x395, 103.94K)

GLOBAL apocalyptic Nazi masturbation fantasy by 2030, buy guns ammo petrol MREs and medicine now it's all you can do

If the temperate goes above 1.5c a few people will leave there homes and move to Burgerland of the EU, that’s the worse that will happen. This number will likely be under 100 million. This isn’t good, but isn’t world ending.

We're even worse than that, seeing how most of the communist parties right now are just edgier socdems bought by capital.

People, you need to understand this, no one is saving you of this. There will not be another Lenin, or another Castro to save you, as you are the ones that will build the future. The only one who can save us is ourselves. The ones who will fight the capitalist order and eco-fascism when it comes, the ones that will fight for the future and against human extinction (or going back to the good old times of the dark ages) is us. We can't wait for a saviour to appear, we need to save ourselves, we need to be the new Lenin or no one else will.

It isn't:
it's:

Attached: 41674894.jpg (665x1024, 142.49K)

As an ancom, I'm beginning to question whether anarchist approaches will be sufficient to address climate change. Is it time to go full ML? Would vanguardism even be possible when capitalist countries are so heavily indoctrinated against socialism? Also, how do we keep bureaucrats like Stalin from taking power if that even works? We don't have much time, relatively speaking, before SHTF.

Attached: dangitbobbeh.jpg (271x200, 4.18K)

May I talk to you about our Lord and Savior Sortition?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (329x289, 148.86K)

Yes. Always has been.
Yes. An empty stomach or dying climate speaks louder than Prager U.
Expanded political education and decentralization where possible. Having said that though, Stalin was a response to the material conditions present in russia at the time. Unless we replicate 1920s russia, I doubt there will be another Stalin. On top of that, using computers we could make any necessary bureaucracy far less bloated.
SOCIALISM OR BARBARISM, COMRADE. MAY OUR VICTORY COME BEFORE WE PERISH

Attached: 23ea.jpg (651x456, 9.01K)

The Climate affects of 1.5C or more wouldn’t fully kick in tell decades after we hit that threshold. By the time we see the full affects of climate change it’ll be to late.

The point still stands. Shits gonna go downhill fast and I don't think we're stupid enough to simply allow ourselves to fucking die.

Yes, yes we are.

To carry on the metaphor, China doesn't have a toilet to shit in. What are they supposed to do? Hold the poop inside their butt until they die?

China needs to pollute to provide a reasonable standard of living for its population. If it tried to go 100% green right now, there would be mass death and suffering. They just can't do it. At least they're working towards it as fast as they possibly can, which is more than the US can say.

Take the tankpill bro

Except they don’t. Solar is cheeper than coal, and nuclear is almost as cheep as both.

I'm worried the state will never wither away tbh, if I could be convinced of that I'd go ML (assuming it would be a lot more effective than anarchism at fighting climate change, minimizing suffering, etc.)

I bet western governments do a 180 on their climate change rhetoric and recognize it as a threat, but only as a means to drum up hysteria about Chinese pollution and to hamstring socdem coalitions with Carbon Neutrality Oversight Committees.

I am not ML (just a standard Marxist), but the state will wither away because the material conditions behind the existence of a state will disappear. What are these conditions? In Engels' words:
In other words, the state is a product of class antagonisms. Once the final victory of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is won, the proletariat then abolishes itself as a class, and the state along with it. It is necessary to have a state before the final victory of the revolution because at that point the bourgeoisie will still exist. It is only AFTER the bourgeoisie have been defeated by the dictatorship of the proletariat, that the state withers away.

Attached: 9027e54e5b8a0827ea372a3ba96bd21f_w1000_h787.jpg (1000x684, 151.72K)

Does Zig Forums support eco-illegalism?

But why wouldn't destroying the state render the bourgeoisie helpless?

Because the material basis of the state is class society. The state exists to protect one class against another through the "legitimate" use of force. An important fact to keep in mind is that class society cannot be abolished on the day of the revolution. There will be a period of struggle where the bourgeoisie will attempt to hold onto their power. That is why the proletariat must use the state the protect themselves against the bourgeoisie, through the "legitimate" use of force. After the bourgeoisie is defeated, the material basis of the state (class society) will have disappeared, and the state will disappear with it.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Except they do. Intermittent sources can not ever make up a significant amount of the grids power without leading to black outs. They need base load, which you get from coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro. And they need as much power as they can get and as fast as they can get it, so they can't afford to be picky.

/nuclear/ gang where you at?
One of the biggest tasks for 21st century socialism would be to recover the lost decades where nuclear simply didn't get the development it needed by capitalist states.

Attached: nuka ad.jpg (1064x1279, 262.01K)

Source for this? Obviously a planned economy would work, but why would the most extreme version of a sort of capitalist war economy not be sufficient?

Attached: Mikhaila Peterson.JPG (454x592, 32.34K)

Well, that kind of thing is unlikely to happen until shit hits the fan, and by then it is too late. Other methods, such as carbon tax, would only have a very minimal impact on pollution. Unless all major powers decide to engage in a massive nationalization program and attempt to reduce emissions that way, they will not solve it. And we all know that they will not do this. They would sell out the entire human race so long as the effects are not immediate.

I don't understand why people don't shift the narrative from "Climate change" to "we live on a finite planet" Conservation is a good thing. I think the issue is these groups predict a huge catastrophe, it doesn't happen exactly the way they say it does, and then the IPCC loses credibility. No one is talking about deforestation, etc. like we used to in the past.

China is communist yet they are the worlds top emitter of crap into the atmosphere. I would argue that if they didn't have air that was killing off their populace on the daily you would see no push for investment in green tech. Say you get a communist gov't that is pro climate change, what happens when the leadership changes?

The human race is going to keep doing what they are doing until they get bashed in the head by mother nature, it's only a matter of time.

To add on to what the other user said, I'd suggest giving State and Revolution a read. It was, I believe, what finally swayed me from anarcho to Marxist. Polite sage for offtopic-ish post.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

First off, Five Year Plans rely on infinite growth just as much as Capitalism does, (granted under five year plans it’s more controlled) Second off, in a few decades Asteroid mining will start to happen, soon we won’t be just “living on a finite planet.” Also “Mouther Nature” is an immaterial spook.

At this point I believe climate change is being actively pursued in order to keep capitalism alive.

Jesus Christ dude do you seriously think that every communist is going to end up betraying the people that brought them into power? Fuck of with the nihilist garbage, communism will come and we're going to make sure that it's able to adjust to climate change and that every leader puts it as a top priority. If you don't believe that there is at least some hope for the world for change then what are you doing on this board?

Didn't the report say that keeping it below 2 degrees would lessen the amount of damage it'd do to the economy? The meat industry pretty much has to go for use to survive and a lot of fish are going to die from it, not to mention the fact that agriculture will take a massive hit. Planes, cars, and anything else that uses gas will have to take a hit as well. Plus we're in for a recession soon.

It is actually. You see, all those Southerns will be so desperate to escape the torment that they will literally become slaves to live.

And you know, Rate of Profit will keep falling. At like 2145 it will almost be nonexistent. And you know that Profit can only be made with Humans, not Machines. So…

There is no political solution, only a social one.

Attached: 1529982349379.jpg (210x211, 7.93K)

Inspiring post user

pathetic tbh

wut

THIS
THIS
THIS
We will first have to explain what "socialism or barbarism" means to the masses, and then up the ante. We have gone far past the era of mere barbarism, it is now a DO or DIE situation.

uhh i mean this might sound stupid, but there has to be a point where even porky knows the world is fucked if he doesn't do something. i imagine we're gonna go full-nuclear energy wise. porky has to do at least that just for his own sake

why you think musk wants to go to mars?

so all the billionares are gonna go full posadist and leave the earth as a mad max wasteland?

as a final spiteful gesture maybe
it's unlikely that they'd survive very long
take solace in that

Yeah its bad but WW3 is a much more worse threat to humanity and it gets no focus on media or massive protest to disarm or limit nuclear weapons like climate change does.

Attached: egmzfi6b.jpg (448x800, 122.24K)

Being this buthurt is pathetic, not chinabooing. Also, unless you don't live outside of US, you can't even imagine cultural position US holds and how many pro western kids in Asia,Africa and Latin america worship people like musk and trump.

Well c'mon now. we wouldn't all die, would we?

Holy shit

Any Mars colony in the next couple of centuries would be economically dependent on Earth. Porky has a self-intreast in preserving Earth, granted it’ll be nearly destroyed before they do anything.

Thanks for the reminder, I actually own S&R and have been meaning to read it.

It happened. I went ML.

Whoops, I'm retarded. ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS!>>2688804

Thanks for the reminder, I actually own S&R and have been meaning to read it.

It happened. I went ML.

I feel happy for you comrade, but it looks too much like you're playing ideology football. Just continue reading the relevant ML literature and compare it with the other approaches, it's not like you have to switch right now. Personally it took me a few years of contemplation to abandon succdemism for good, and an another few to get close to Leninism, though I'm still a brainlet when comes to USSR history.

They’ll just peace out to some bunkers or space station like in Elysium. Personally if they tried to escape the planet they killed I’d try to stop them just out of spite, even if they were the last hope for humanity’s survival. I’d rather the species go extinct that be continued by the likes of them.

I cannot believe I am asking this but we do live in a capitalist society so I am forced. For now.

What would be a good business/co-op to start that will help when we all get anally reamed by climate change in X years? I thought vermiculture which is good for a lot of stuff and very environmentally friendly, replacing a lot of stuff that isn't. I also thought about beekeeping as it would help the bees and honey is also useful.

heard of Deponia, point and click game?
maybe something you'd enjoy, dunno
youtube.com/watch?v=wvuelXd1ZI8

Wrong. The IPCC is tragically conservative and outright lying with regard to the modeling it does. It is a political organization - it is subject to political whims. The reality of the drastic changes that are coming whether we prepare for them or not due to climate change (and all of the strife that evolves out of it) and what would need to be done to even begin addressing it in a meaningful way is a politically untenable situation for global governments.

Two factors which are never spoken of when discussing the IPCC's modeling are the fact that they presume that Carbon Capture technology will be developed (it doesn't currently exist in a meaningful way) and deployed at scale (millions of facilities/Nodes) within essentially 30 years. ALL of the IPCC's models assume that this technology will exist, will work at scale, that there will be political will to create and deploy it, etc. This piggybacks on a drastic reduction in consumption and CO2 output, both of which are increasing right now. (If you listen really carefully you can almost hear the sound of the 1600 coal fired power plants being BUILT right now) This is in no uncertain terms the end of growth in the global economy. It is the final crash. The end of global capitalism.

It is a fantasy to believe that the global ruling class will be able to accept this as a solution.

The second factor is that of feedback loops. The IPCC stopped even attempting to model in feedback loops to their estimates in this essential reports something like 10-20 years ago because they couldn't produce a model that didn't exceed 6c of warming by 2100 - i.e. near term human extinction.

The recent IPCC report is scaring people, and it should, people should think about the future in this way - but this report is in essence fake news because of how dependent on what might actually be literal miracles to keep the estimates where they are. Remember, the I in IPCC stands for INTERGOVERNMENTAL. The people involved may be scientists, they may even be great scientists, but they are still representatives of and subject to in some cases immense pressure from their respective governments. This cannot be forgotten.

-Small but important aside here, the capacity for denial regarding the stark nature of this reality we see stretching before us, even among those that accept/understand climate change and are scientifically literate, can't be ignored here. Scientists are human - they don't want to believe that their world is coming to an end any more than anyone else. It is worth keeping in mind, because even the people who create these models and do this research are not immune to their own positivity biases, which can make the subject of climate change, resource scarcity, the Anthropocene, a bleak future, whatever you want to call it, cognitively challenging to even conceive of in its bleakest reality.

Attached: ArcticSeaIce.mp4 (752x564 242.35 KB, 96.27K)

That isn't true, you don't need to be alarmist about it. It's bad, but it isn't certain death at 1.5. It doesn't even seem like it is "the end of the world" at 3C. It's just extra fucking bad. If you live in a first world western country, though, you're in a better position than anybody else. But what you'll probably be looking at as the greatest existential threat is an insular, fascistic government taking power and starting to not only put up walls and guns to keep people out, but also purging unwanted groups within.

It's arguable that five year plans are only a thing because undeveloped nations that experienced revolutions felt like they had to kick their industry into gear to match the capitalists. Nobody was thinking about climate change in the early to mid 20th century. All they were thinking about was geopolitical power and "proving" that they could create socialist economic power to rival the capitalist world.

Because creating a model is one of the hardest things they can do ?

Haven't most historical revolutions in the mode of production involved ecological crisis at some point?

Nomad society:
Over-hunting of herds, depletion of edible plants, population increase, need for agriculture to feed people.

Agricultural society:
Deforestation, disease, running out of/not making most of arable land, population increase, need for industry and industrial farming and medicine to feed/clothe/house people.

Capitalist society:
Global warming, peak oil, deforestation, depletion of raw materials, running out of/not making most of arable land, etc… need for communism to efficiently manage resources and turn back global warming.

The problem is that at around 2C the scientific models we have become unable to predict the catastrophic effects and chain effects that will occur.

Indeed. This was something that Limits to Growth talked about back when it was published in 1972. Eventually the changes to the dynamics of the system make existing modeling techniques and presumptions about the system itself increasingly inaccurate and unreliable.

If I remember correctly their modeling stopped at around the year 2020 because of this.

Attached: 4cWarmerMap.jpg (2500x2137, 676.43K)

Funeral home/mortuary.

Unironically invest in nuclear and solar. Also any type of infrastructure/construction jobs will probably one of the few areas of trade left un-automated
Keep investing in oil until it peaks and before prices completely collapse. Invest in stocks for Google, Amazon, and Disney. Create a diverse portfolio

Don't forget that colonialism fucked up the environment as well

We already have Carbon Capture technology, the problem is that it’s too energy expansive to use. Cheep Carbon Capture technology plus cheep nuclear energy means that climate change goes away, and we all get to live in technocratic FALC. No state enforced Veganism, no drastic measures, nothing. If we don’t get this, the world won’t be uninhabited, but things the climate will get pretty warm. and a lot of people will die.

Breakthroughs in Nuclear Energy and Carbon Capture technology will determine everything. Even if we stop burning focal fuels, if we don’t use Carbon Capture to reverse what is already done, shit will still get pretty bad.

You guys have too little faith. This can be fixed, like all things.

“Faith" is a spook,weather or not things will be fixed isn’t affect by what we believe.

What? Are you actually insane? Belief is a requirement for planned action. No one ever solved a problem saying "I am giving up, screw this it is hopeless". I hate when you guys say dumb shit like this. I get it. God isnt real; God is a spook. You are trying to apply the concept of a spook where there is none. Just make an attempt to actually think and not just regurgitate nihilist garbage. Fuck I am tired of people saying stupid shit to me.
Anyways, things will almost certainly work out. People have adapted and survived for the entirety of human history. I think climate change could even work out for us silver lining style. Nothing brings out your inner socialist like the need for new solutions. In the future, they will probably note global warming as one of the many hotspots for lasting Socialist action.

Except no one here is a climate scientist predicting models, or a nuclear physicists trying to create cheep power. The actions of everyone on this board has NO effects on climate change (or anything else for that matter) were just a bunch of Wagecucks and NEETs.

limits to growth and climate change
too late to fix it user, way too late.

humanity will probably survive but only after most of the species dies off this century

There's zero chance we will stay under 1.5 degrees of warming, we already lost.
I would honestly be surprised if we kept it under 2 degrees

You all talk a fair game about socialism addressing climate change, but any attempt to discuss the details defaults to the same techno-utopian talking points you'd get from any well-read capitalist.
It's all the same hopium-fueled bullshit that gets peddled around in capitalist circles by those who don't really want things to change. None of this stuff could be deployed at scale to truly address global climate change - and we haven't even mentioned energy descent and resource shortages, the other horsemen of the coming apocalypse.
I was hoping the radical left would have good answers to these questions, but it seems the ecologists were right in rejecting socialists as clinging to the anthropocentric dream of infinite progress that has underlined vulgar Marxists for decades. Any serious discussion of degrowth, of limiting population or economic activity or equalizing consumption between the first and third world gets shot down in western socialist circles for being incompatible with their delusions of the future. You want to know the best "carbon capture" strategy? Destruction of urban and coastal sprawl, massive replanting of temperate forests and wetlands - all done for free by nature. But no, what we really need is massive (unionized!) industrial plants sucking down carbon and burying it - pay no mind to how we would build them, power them, or keep them running for centuries.

At this point the "nothing we can do" doomers are more refreshing, because at least they're being honest.

green energy is a meme. Carbon-capture is the only viable option so far

What makes you think the radical left wouldn't be on board with you if you told them to do it?

I'm with you, we literally must destroy whole counties of suburbs and reduce the population over a few generations, that's why I am anti-natalist. Although climate change will kill plenty on its own.

Degrowth is not just "population and consumption control". It's about permanently downscaling economic activity to preserve resources and the environment, while hopefully keeping quality-of-life intact and roughly equal across the human population. In practice it means stuff like massively scaling back global trade, heavy construction, electrical use and automobile traffic. The specifics are important because if you take it seriously, a degrowth platform rules out a lot of socdem and orthodox ML policies in practice. I've seen it brought up a couple times and most people balk because they reject the idea of losing the present highly-mobile consumer wonderland, even though such a lifestyle is only available to a minority of humans and is probably going to fall apart within our lifetimes.

Further reading if anyone is interested:
unevenearth.org/2015/12/a-growing-confusion-on-the-left/
brooklynrail.org/2018/09/field-notes/Degrowth-Considered

Carbon capture tech that works at scale doesn't currently exist. A viable BECCS system is what the IPCC factors into their models/projections despite the fact that it might not even work. Even if it did work the implications it has for land usage and storage are a Herculean task to overcome. We would have to plant crops that would take up an area of 1.5 to 2 times the size of India which would need to harvested and replanted every year. We already use ~50% of habitable landmass for agriculture and livestock currently. Just to store the recaptured carbon would require hundreds if not thousands of chambers roughly the size of Mt. Everest to be excavated. All this needs to happen while global supply chains collapse and fossil fuels reserves begin to run dry. Carbon capture tech isn't the silver bullet you're being sold on.

aren't these also widely considered to be overly conservative in estimating both impacts and speed of climate change as well, not to mention the controversies lately about pressure from the developed world on them to alter reports in favor of current economic models and geopolitics

So can we start saying Capitalism is almost definitely going to kill 7.6-10 billion?

Attached: 84835_200w.jpg (200x279, 22.81K)

Not in a way that actually negates carbon emissions - as odd as that sounds. It's current state in industrial development allows it to act as a sort of filter for carbon being released on-site, but this situation is ultimately similar to how an electric car generate less CO2 when running, but generates much more than a conventional ICE car in the mining, transportation, refinement, final manufacture, etc. of the raw materials that make up its battery and electrical components. The correct answer is to end industrial CO2 emissions because they will never be zero (or negative, as the IPCC's most optimistic modeling pretends is realistic).

Note that there is not a way that capture and storage can scale to meet business as usual economics and development. I'd liken the phrase 'We already have Carbon Capture technology' to saying we already have warp drive technology because the EmDrive hypothesis exists.

To save space and not be pedantic, please read the Limitations section of the wiki article on CCS.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Limitations_of_CCS_for_power_stations

I'd even encourage you to check the examples of large scale CCS projects on the wiki page. The highest capacity facility (Century Plant) is in the US and, well, here, read about it from MIT-

sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/century_plant.html

This negates the carbon from roughly one coal-fired power plant. It is a multi-billion dollar investment that required a fuckton of energy to build and maintain.

1 Mt/yr is the combined emissions of ~61,000 average Americans unless my math here is really bad. 16.4 tonnes per Amerilard as per-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

If that's the case, and there are 325.7 million Amerilards, then it takes 305000 Amerilards to negate the capture of this plant, or to put it differently, this one plant can negate 0.00093644458% of the emissions of the average Amerilards.

But remember, most of the capture this plant does is just to capture its own emissions.

They currently use the CO2 in MORE energy intensive projects (that was from the MIT link).

Remember too that much more CO2 emissions come from industry and shipping than from the average Amerilard.

Don't get me wrong here - the rulers of this world probably should be focused on creating the best and most energy efficient carbon capture and storage technology that can possibly be fabricated if they want our species to survive into even the medium term, but in order to get current resource consumption down to a level where this might even be remotely effective would require an end to global trade, consumerism, capitalism, the entirety of the previously ordered structure of human society, and the death of ~7 billion people in a very short order. We'd essentially have to speciate, rewire our monkey brains to not be dopamine addicted reward seekers in order for this kind of a change to be workable. Truth is, business as usual until civilization collapses is far more likely.

You need to take into account feedback loops, how many have already been triggered, and how quickly can the multiple miracles of energy and CCS technology delineated above be invented, scaled up, and rolled out in order to keep the other factors that are warming our planet from entering a runaway state (assuming this isn't already the case, which it may very well be). What happens in the meantime as shifts in climate cause further global instability? This is already happening - how does it impact the timeline of these globe-spanning infrastructure projects?

I mentioned in a previous post the lingering denial of the reality these scenarios present that even climate scientists still harbor. It is a human thing, to be biased towards positive thinking. This trait may ultimately be one of the biggest factors in our species' demise.

Attached: GlobalTemperatureChange.gif (800x861, 4.79M)

Do we have a timeframe for our levels of getting fucked? Like, when there is the point of no return when extinction is basically undeniable even with a revolution?

If we reach 2050 and we have not reduced emissions to net zero, we are fucked. So we have less than 30 years to start a revolution.

Reminder that environmentalism for its own sake under capitalism (especially degrowth shit) is class collaboration and should therefore be ignored. Promoting austerity to "save the environment" is just as bad as austerity to "balance the budget." It just reeks of capitalist realism.

1972.

I'm not even really kidding.

The World3 model generated way back then predicted the… I'm not sure what you would call it - the peak? The start of the great shrinkage? Collapse? The end of more? Whatever - that this peak of resources, population, pollution, industrial output, etc. would happen at around 2030 unless drastic changes were made.

You can actually see this reflected in Carter's 1977 energy speech-

youtube.com/watch?v=bbNFKgNoWc0

Here's the footnotes if you can't watch it-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equivalent_of_War_speech

But yeah, even back fifty years ago they understood that they needed to act immediately to have a chance at mitigating the damage already baked into the system.

We all know how that worked out.

Attached: world3-03.jpeg (500x556 222.55 KB, 22.2K)

This is an accurate statement.

If you guys haven't checked out Endgame by Derrick Jensen you definitely should. The books are great, but if you want the quickest introduction, watch his talk on the lecture online-

youtube.com/watch?v=mtuxHVD4Srw

Attached: 963fabca90059e148f11db152a033a5e.png (1024x1448, 242.73K)

And promoting anti-environmentalism or being pro-growth under capitalism is also reactionary class collaboration to be ignored. Demanding that people breed and consume more, and that limits to growth do not or can not matter, reeks of capitalist realism.

Yup. The IPCC is first and foremost dictated by current political and economic axioms. Physics take the back seat. The models almost universally rely on magical future tech that might not actually ever exist. Pushing off any fundamental changes to reckon with the situation in the near term out to the latter half of this century. The actions we could take now, planned degrowth or restructuring our productive process, aren't even considered because ultimately they have to sell their plans to politicians. And no politician is going to run on degrowth or the abolition of commodity production.

If you're interested in a good critique of the IPCC from an honest climatologist who isn't interested in just peddling doomporn you should check out Kevin Anderson.