Public sentiment towards climate change is deeply polarized, with significant frustration over corporate accountability and skepticism towards the effectiveness of individual actions. Many commenters highlight a disconnect between the urgency of climate action and the perceived ineffectiveness of current policies, suggesting that corporations and wealthy individuals bear more responsibility for emissions than consumers. While a minority advocate for individual efforts, the overarching sentiment leans towards disbelief in the sincerity of current climate initiatives, with many feeling that realistic and effective solutions are overlooked in favor of alarmism.

Governments

Corporations

Environmental Activists

I mean, without going any deeper into this, there's something morbidly funny about finding this post on the same day I read 2024 saw record coal use and a record jump in atmospheric CO2.

CorvidCorbeau

It was slightly down YoY for the first several months of the year.

jeffwulf

Depends on a few things, the AI bubble being one and energy prices by source being another.

Meanteenbirder

&gt; Do you think we will see emissions rapidly decline soon enough to avoid dangerous climate change?  
  
There’s no reality-based path to this

vinegar

[deleted]

So, thing is, it takes generations of robust environmental policy to see the changes we're seeing. Policies that are getting gutted in the states, at the very least (assuming my american-centric viewpoint is limited, and its not a worldwide backsliding,) which has a huge impact on the world even then.

It takes generations to save the world. It takes moments to doom it. So no, I'm not going to bask in this.

lake_of_rage_8891

So at least the second Derivative will be negative soon

Gullible-Fee-9079

I keep hearing that every year is gonna e the peak and then the peak never comes.

FarthingWoodAdder

Economy_Ad855

If there are no living humans, yeah, I can see how levels would be peaking soon

Makes sense

rocket_beer

Focusing on “renewable energy” instead of low emission energy paints a much different picture than is portrayed here. France has done a much better job than the UK in reducing their emissions thanks to nuclear power, but this map would have you believe the opposite.

JugurthasRevenge

Norway produces a lot of oil. Yes, they are simultaneous leaders on alternative energy. But this seems a bit misleading as they also contribute a lot of oil to the global economy. 
Ranked 13 out of 96 oil producing countries. 


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

Negative_Amphibian_9

Kanye voice: *the developed world doesn’t care about climate change*

littlegipply

-bakt-

Morocco mentioned positively and with almost complete map, me happy.

kinky-proton

India doing pretty good despite being a growing economy and having the highest population

loid_forgerrr

My country is green while we barely do anything pertaining to hydro/nuclear and are dragging our feet when it comes to renewables. This cannot be accurate.

gwartabig

Here is the methodology:

&gt; GHG Emissions (40% of overall score)

&gt; Renewable Energy (20% of overall score)

&gt; Energy Use (20% of overall score)

&gt; Climate Policy (20% of overall score)

&gt; 80% of the assessment is based on quantitative data from internationally recognised institutions.

Where the remaining 20% which is the Climate Policy:

&gt; The remaining 20% of the assessment is based on the CCPI’s globally unique Climate Policy section. With this category, the index covers the most recent developments in national climate policy frameworks. The quantitative data alone cannot project these.

Honestly seems weird to give 20% to Climate Policy, because even if you produce less GHG and use less energy but haven't made any policies due to the low consumption then you are basically "punished", GHG and Renewable Energy should weight in more IMO

XAWEvX

Morocco is doing very well and has huge plans for the future concerning green hydrogen and solar energy

azimx

Here come the Angry Americans when they see they're not the best at everything.

It's interesting how many of the Green countries have long coastlines to the west.

Ill_Refrigerator_593

Tf are people from Lesotho supposed to do? Breath less?

Bacon___Wizard

"3rd world" countries doing better than "1st world" countries

Momshie_mo

And of that 90% USA and China accounts for 90% for sure

Achillies2heel

ILANAGLAZERMARRYME

This map putting France in yellow would be like a teacher scorning its best student:

"You got an A the last time, and another A this time? You lazy piece of baguette. Look at the UK ! They went from an average of C- to C, now that's impressive !"

This climate change thing really snuck up on us, huh? If only we had enough time to react. Good gosh, if only we had known lighting trash on fire and pouring plastic into the ocean was a bad thing. If only we had like...fifty years notice or maybe even a hundred. Gosh oh if only.

stars_mcdazzler

Every not rating country should be dark green, they are very high by not emitting

skkkkkt

Something doesn't add up here. But it is an index

AwarenessNo4986

If you make a map of cumulative emission the map will be the same

horny_braz

Me sitting in delhi looking at this map with great difficult y due to high air pollution

Amazing_Theory622

As someone who recently visited India….just how? Record level of air pollution now.

The efforts of Portugal, Norway and Sweden will certainly make up for the US, Russia and China.

drjet196

I'm unsubbing now, sick of all these blatant left wing agenda posts

Of those 90% emissions, what's the percentage of emissions made by China?

maksim69420

This is some incredibly biased and disingenuous map and metrics. Argentina does not contribute to even 1% of the global pollution and co2 emissions yet were are constantly marked in dark red on this sport of map. Thei air quality in Buenos Aires is 10 times better than in Santiago, yet Chile is light green?

*"b-but the maps is not about that"*

You know what you are doing with these weirdly worded stats, India is a giant vector of contamination/pollution  in the world, yet is always presented as a leader in "climate change prevention, mitigation, correction, measures".

HPDeskJet09

vak7997

We have millions of square kilometers of Siberia in Russia with its endless forests. So Russia absorbs a huge amount of CO2. We don't need to build wind turbines to seem useful.

Content_Routine_1941

Stormsh7dow

East Asia with 0 energy security, good job eu

Theooutthedore

The EU should get its act together and focus on its security in the coming decade of hardship instead of worrying about climate change

ViscountBuggus

You need to add an another category for India and China + many African countries. “Catastrophically low”. They are actively dumping trash into their rivers and have no policies in place to stop emmisions

Specialist_Shallot82

Global population control would do a lot to reduce climate change while keeping living standards high. On the other hand, reducing living standards to pre-industrial levels (like much of central Africa and rural India) would also do the same. 

Still, we need to pick one:

1. Low population, low suffering, high living standards

2. High population, high suffering, low living standards 

There isn’t another option besides a slow descent into a world that is so polluted and warmed that we struggle to survive.

Dr Simon Clark is excellent. He has a book about climate change as well I believe

alematt

What drives the climate heating crisis is not emissions, but rather the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It continues to rise despite efforts to reduce emissions. Progress is CO2 concentration declining. And, that's not happening.

sdbest

Evening_Chime

yep. a whole lot of progress. climate heating has progressed +1.5° and keeps progressing. good job us!

motorbit

Definitely some real wins. Global renewable power generation keeps breaking records, and electric vehicle adoption is accelerating fast. The curve is moving in the right direction; now it’s about scaling up and keeping momentum.

The way we should all think of global warming is that the more GHGs (greenhouse gases) are in the atmosphere, the thicker the blanket of gases that "warm" the atmosphere becomes. Definitely, we should bring it back to healthy levels. I agree that Energy has so much impact on this, and we should look into cleaner more sustainable technologies.

Here in Texas, we have many oil rigs that contribute to the use of fossil fuels. An interesting thing I've recently been sharing is how reducing Organic and Compost COx emissions can help. We have a lot of land-clearing waste here, and one initiative I've come across that helps reduce the overall impact is the practice of [Forest Mulching for Land Clearing](https://www.5kland.com/blog/the-benefits-of-forestry-mulching-as-a-land-clearing-method). hopefully global emissions will lessen or go back to healthier / more sustainable levels.

Chemical-M

No need to panic folks, the sensible clever people have this all in hand! Just remember, if you panic, people might not come to your middle-class dinner parties and that is truly a fate worse than death

junior_custard_

Things are not working.

I'm not going to watch this video, because my major source of information is \*credible scientific journals\*.

It is very easy to feel overwhelmed and depressed, but that is a matter for personal self-regulation. Avoidance isn't going to reduce unhappiness or anxiety.

Collectively we need to get better at living with the reality of grief, loss, and failure - and keep ourselves moving forward despite that. We can find things to celebrate within that overarching narrative, but pretending it is something other than it is is counterproductive.

BarleySmirk

I have had good luck with this approach. Here are four statements. If man made global warming is false, one of the following must be false.

	1	Greenhouse gases raise temperatures.
	2	The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rising fast.
	3	Average global temperatures are rising fast.
	4	Humans are emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

So which one is a false statement?

I feel like you could take it from there.

tdreampo

debunked by grownups here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237288047_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_a_critique

uninhabited

There have been times were it followed and some when it preceeded. 
Milocavich cycles can get temp changes started and the co2 will follow. 
There were other times when co2 got low from trees dieing and not decaying that led to ice ages. 
The "great dieing" was a hot period right at the start of the permian period brought on by basalt floods, volcanos that dump miles thick lava beds and lots of co2 and methane. 
Co2 and temp go together,  when one goes up it drives the other up.
The discrepancies are often because of the milocavich cycles, how the sunlight hits earth. 
Look up potholer54, he's got great videos debunking these movies.

snowbound365

To paraphrase an old B movie for which I cherish an inexplicable fondness:  "I saw Hekyll and Jekyll on TV, too, but that doesn't mean I think birds can talk."

Tazling

Tell him to watch things about carbon emissions that aren't called "swindle".

Your friend is victim of a cherry picked half-truth that, if properly understood, has major climate implications.

Yes, carbon increase has often followed temperature increase.

One of the key mechanisms of that is that as oceans warm the saturation level for carbon drops and the oceans release stored carbon. Historically that warming is caused by things like sun and orbit cycles and geological conditions.

None of which are happening right now.

The situation now is that *we* are heating the oceans (they take up the majority of the carbon and excess heat we are producing). As we heat the oceans, they will start releasing that stored carbon. Heating the atmosphere further. Which is one of those feedback loops we desperately want to avoid.

4shadowedbm

He may be your friend, but your friend is stupid.

MyGeronimo

Carbon emissions came first in the PETM 55 million years ago, from huge volcanic fields ("traps").

Temperature and carbon are locked in a mutual positive feedback. If one increases the other does too. 

We're effectively pumping CO2 from underground oil and gas reservoirs directly into the atmosphere. Imagine a big long straight pipe from underground to high above. Regardless of the temperature, the pipe is always full. In this case CO2 leads temperature. There is absolutely no scientific doubt about it. 

I've dealt with many climate change deniers over the last 25 years. They're becoming increasingly irrelevant as warming marches strongly upward. Nowadays I pay very little attention to them. They choose to be ignorant. As bad as flat-earthers. 

Some people choose to be ignorant. Literally choose it. I don't know why. It's a personality defect and I wouldn't hire someone who was a climate denier. Their critical thinking skills are very poor, or they are narcissists. Defective.

I understand he's your friend, but don't try too hard to correct him. Their motivations aren't based on anything rational. It's a shame really, but they have chosen to be, well....dumb.

Historic records of global temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gases are of little help in understanding our current situation. It’s not the magnitude of these parameters that scares me, it’s the rate of change. We are experiencing a rate of global temperature rise that is unprecedented. 

Prior extinction events, which occurred more than 50,000 years ago, were associated with temperature rates of about 1C/2,500 years. That rate of temperature rise was too fast for many species to adapt, and so they went extinct.

We are currently experiencing a rate of temperature rise that’s more like 1C/50 years, which is about 50X faster than earlier extinction events. This rate is not a prediction, it’s a fact and a rate this high is unprecedented in Earth’s history as we know it. The effects on humans from loss of species and biodiversity is unpredictable, but it will likely have an avalanche effect on agriculture, fisheries and food supplies. 

We are already being impacted by global warming in the form of climate change, sea level rise, etc. At the current rate of temperature rise, we can expect climate-driven, mass human migration and catastrophic economic effects within a few decades.

bruce_ventura

[https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/fake-graphs-and-daft-conspiracy-yarns-in-durkins-latest-propaganda-film/](https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/fake-graphs-and-daft-conspiracy-yarns-in-durkins-latest-propaganda-film/)

crake-extinction

The most I can say is Global Warming happens every few hundred thousand years, but humans and carbon emissions have been proven to speed up the process by well over 1000%.

No_Dog_9793

You can't really, they won't listen to reason, you can try to explain positive feed back loops, but if they aren't willing to listen to the vast numbers of expert opinions they aren't going to listen to you.

killcat

Your friend is deluded. There is no question at this point. It's pathetic how they have zero understanding of the science, but reject the 99% consensus of experts who do understand the science.

zeezero

My favorite is, "Volcanoes pour out more greenhouse gases than we ever have."

Big-Consideration633

Never argue with a fool. Climate change and biodiversity loss doesn't care what he thinks are the causes.

earth-calling-karma

Greenhouse gas créâtes climate changes, which créâtes more greenhouse gas. 

What caused other climate change in his view ? How did it create greenhouse gas ? What’s his understanding of it ? 

Show him a school book about radiative forcing lol. 

This principale is the basis of Life on earth.

Conclavicus

Tell your friend to leave their car running inside their garage with the garage door closed and to sit inside the car with the windows down. If he lives after a few hours climate change is fake.

are-e-el

Simple logic, and some very rough data, is enough to demonstrate that your friend must be wrong.

The causes of past climate changes were different from the current. In the past CO2 increased due to rising temperatures as a natural amplifying feedback, in turn causing even more warming. Things like melting permafrost and ocean out gassing. Possibly even triggering a feedback loop that lead to the end of a major glaciation event. Causing a warm interglacial period.

Today things are very different. Today nature is instead a net CO2 sink, especially the oceans. So nature is currently not contributing to the net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We KNOW that nature currently is a net CO2 sink because we know roughly how much CO2 is released by humans burning fossil carbon, every year, and we know how much the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increase, every year. Turns out that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is only about half of the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity.

This is only possible if nature, in total, absorb more CO2 than it emit. Absorb the same amount of CO2 that itself emit and also absorb some of the CO2 emitted by human activity.

This means that ALL of the current net increase of CO2 MUST be caused by human activity.

I doubt anyone is willing to suggest that humans burn a lot of fossil carbon because the temperature is increasing? Then it seems clear that CO2 currently is leading the temperature. This proves that what happens today is very different from past climate changes.

Your friend can then argue that the current observed global warming is not caused by increasing CO2 and an enhanced greenhouse effect. You can then ask him what he thinks is the cause of the current observed global warming, if not human activity, increased GHGs?

Scientists have examined all possible causes, and natural causes can not explain the current warming. If anything, without human activity, the climate would have been stable or slightly cooling the past decades. Instead we see rapid warming.

WikiBox

Well, you're friend is correct about carbon increase lagging behind temperature increase,  https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362/ 

We also know that carbon has been drastically higher numerous times in the past than it is now and not a single human was around during these spikes. 

It is naive to say humans aren't contributing to it some how, we just can't quantify it yet.

woo1984

Potholer54 points out the errors in the movie. 
https://youtu.be/HhAX42dT09w?si=TZc8UunEH-Po_IZu

your friend is an idiot, take comfort in the fact that economics are driving the transition now so his opinion doesnt matter.

I’m a denier (skeptical). Humans have very very little impact on climate.  Of course anyone with a working brain can see that

jbooth1962

Climate change is affecting consumers now.  Home insurance in many states are rising dramatically... if you can get insurance.  In California and other states, fires are raising premiums since fire season is basically all year round.  In Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and other deep southern states, flood, hurricane, and tornado insurance are rising because the power and frequency of storms and flooding events are increasing.

Ask your friend this.  Whatever the cause of increased intensity natural catastrophes, shouldn't sensible people work to fix it.  A fire can wipe out small towns, destroy valuable homes and lives.  Hurricanes and floods can make areas unlivable and displace thousands.  We know this because they *have* done this repeatedly.  

The poles are melting and the amount of above-sea-level ice will definitely raise sea level and destroy islands, coastlines, and further increase weather effects.  We know this because we can measure the amount of ice in Greenland and the Antarctic.  Can he deny that if you toss ice cubes in a full glass the water will spill over causing a mess?

Humans can solve this.  But we, he, no one sensible, should wait until the house is half burned down to call the fire department.

It's tough to convince people who do not want to be convinced.  If the other suggestions here don't help, then ask him what his arguments against it are.  Maybe watch the movie yourself.  The point out the flaws, cherry-picked information, and other self-serving logical fallacies in his arguments rather than trying to fight him picking apart yours.

InfiniteMonkeys157

Ah God that documentary, my Masters supervisor features in that film. Tell your friend that it's both. Sometimes CO2 rises first, sometimes temperature. And whichever starts to rise causes the other to rise too in a positive feedback loop. Warming temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise because warmer water can hold less dissolved CO2 than cold water, so as oceans warm they release CO2 into the atmosphere.

Quelchie

Your friend is asking a good question as temperature does usually rise before CO2 rises, not after. What he's missing is the explanation of how and why that occurs, and why CO2 is still considered a GHG. 

Fun fact - you can demonstrate CO2 is a GHG in a controlled lab setting. This was first done over a century ago and they even did a Mythbusters episode on it. 

Anyways, the lag is well addressed here:

https://youtu.be/JL18_kiDUck?si=KfNrJW3jNHUVlocC

Potato_Octopi

Epistemology is the name of the part of philosophy dealing with what can be known and how, in general terms. Street epistemology is the name of a method to discuss this with normal people (i.e. not philosophers.) You may find the various youtube channels about that give you some hints. There are probably specific videos about climate change, conspiracy theories etc  available.

The general problem with your friend is that he doesn't have critical thinking skills or an understanding of the scientific method. Whether it's worth the effort of trying to explain those things to him when he's probably not really all that interested in whether things are true in the first place (as long as they appeal to his emotional prejudices), I'm not sure.

michael-65536

Changing somebody's mind usually takes asking a lot of questions until you figure out exactly how and why they think a thing, then asking a series of questions that leads them to re-evaluate.


My buddy was against the COVID vaccine, the question that got him to think was "what does Joe Rogan do to guarantee the health advice he gives out is good?"


Still, it's a long road.

deadfisher

Unless you’re a quantum physicist, belief means nothing

lonster1961

https://www.debunkbot.com/

According to research this can loosen people's faith in conspiracy theories.

Apprehensive-Newt415

The major issue is that a huge portion of the human population believes whatever their educational instructors or the evening news tells them  without critical thinking usually.  And then.   Vehemently attack those who don't because they can't stand to realize that they are believing falsehoods    and the fact that there is a significant portion of people that refuse to believe things just because "the science is settled" is very offensive to the "useful idiots" that swallow every bit of dogma they receive from their preferred vendors 

My position.    Carbon emissions are not a positive thing and should be cautiously negated in every area    not at the expense of human lives.       Carbon tax is a wealth transfer scheme         large scale industry should be regulated by capitalism.        Heating/cooling, Transportation and food production are not areas the overreaching governments of the world should be trying to force their population to pay more for out of a misguided panic for environmental impact.    There is in my strong and very experience backed opinion far more concerning areas of pollution than carbon.   Its like a shell game.    The behind the scenes players like black rock and WEF etc want the "halfway educated masses" to distract themselves with climate actions involving carbon (because it isn't costing them anything) so the real pollution can continue unhindered. Because fixing that issue would really cost those organizations a huge amount.   They are scared of what we the people would do to them for the damage they've enabled to our nation's and our children's futures if they don't keep us distracted

Herald86

Don’t argue with him. You’re friends, it’s not your job to change his mind, especially if it’s not something you actually know deeply about already. Why does it matter what he thinks? 

Ask him what would convince him that human carbon emissions are causing global warming.

Could be that nothing would convince him.

MoonRabbitWaits

the weather in my area at the end of august is usually very hot, and it was. then within one day and the end of the month .. i swear it feela like winter time already. my point is weather is getting more extreme and quickly. 

also last year was the hottest year on record ever and this year may also be the hottest year on record ever

dermflork

During the last ice age CO2 levels dropped to 190ppm. As Earth warmed CO2 levels rose. Cold periods reduce CO2 while warm periods release it. Reconstructions show that temperature consistently leads CO2.

For a very long time that fact was denied in the realm of climate science. Most lay people still believe that CO2 leads temperature in natural climate cycles. All one needs do is look at the monthly CO2 level to see that it rises and falls with the northern hemisphere seasons. So certainly, major climate shifts are going to cause a variance in CO2.

Today the argument has moved on. The worry now is the "artificial" increase caused by humans that's beyond natural emissions.

oortcloud3

If someone picks a fight with reality, they'll eventually lose.

EnoughStatus7632

Co2 is a poor greenhouse gas. Try again you are spreading misinformation again.

lordgoatt

lol carbon life forms believe too much carbon

Buddmage

Yes the earth is in a natural warming trend. Yes our emissions are contributing to it. I do think our pollution is more of a concern than our emmisions.

It won't get solved till are elected officials that represent us say no the the corporations that cause the problems and we need to have back ups. Plastic has its place but 1 time use plastics can be replaced with bamboo and hemp materials. Batterys aren't the solution yets. They are far worse than fossil fuel. Wind isn't really the answer along the shore. Maintenance is sooo costly.  Tide generators are 24 / 7. But the won't do it. Why don't know. So many good solutions that are cost effective but the big corps lock it up.

nylondragon64

Recent reports indicate the world is on track to dangerously high warming levels, with emissions reaching record highs and the UN warning that global commitments are insufficient to meet climate goals.

Global Climate Change and Emissions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want