• MonkRome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 hours ago

      iirc ~1/4 of the worlds energy production is renewable. More than 90% of all new electricity capacity worldwide came from renewable sources in 2024. Doomers want you to believe it can’t happen again while we are in the very decade that is likely to change the world. Public policy doesn’t even matter at this point, renewable energy is cheaper, so nearly all new investments are in renewables.

      • Ophrys@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 minutes ago

        Energy sources are only part of the issue (albeit a major one) and enormous damage has already been done to a disastrous point, calling people “doomers” with an intent to ridicule their angst, worries and experiences is akin to climate change denial.

        Also, public policy is constantly used in an expensive way if that it suits the ruling classes, markets are not some neutral forces in a vacuum.

      • Jako302@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That’s only the case because it was the cheapest option available for a while. Oil execs noticed the trend and got cold feet, now a lot of governments are cutting back subsidies for renewables and actively hinder new projects being build. Here in germany we have investors abandoning half build solar parks cause they aren’t profitable anymore. At the same time we allow oil companies to bid for gigantic offshore projects just so they can say that they have no interest in actually building it after they won.

        With the ozon hole you could see the world working together to fix it despite it beeing somewhat less profitable. With renewables you can see governments actively working against the movement despite it being the best in terms of environment and profits combined.

      • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        We could stop producing all greenhouse gases today, and the planet would continue warming for 100 years. it’s a pretty tough problem we have on our hands.

    • Dettweiler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      112
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      There’s been some conservation wins that I know of. Okaloosa Darter fish came off of endangered status, and eventually off of threatened The Red Cockaded Woodpecker was elevated from endangered to threatened a few years ago.

      Controlled burns in the US long leaf pine forests have also lead to a return of the quail population.

      Just trying to sprinkle a little good news out there.

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        American Bison, too. The repopulation of American bison (often mistakenly called buffalo) is one of the most successful repopulation efforts in history. The reason you’re able to order buffalo (again, not actually buffalo) burgers at your local hipster burger joint is because American bison is no longer endangered. The population has come from less than 1000 total bison (all privately owned by a handful of conservationists) to over 400k today.

      • ruuster13@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        The irony of all ironies is how similar the words “conservation” and “conservative” are.

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          That’s because the root of both is to conserve. To keep things the way they are.

          Politics gets in the way of that reality since they don’t actively want to keep it the same, they actually want to regress back to previous times they can exploit personally.

    • DeadDigger@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The thing is it kinda isn’t. The ozone layer still needs about 20 years to get back to 1960 levels and the number of problematic states for this increasing again

    • Midnitte@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Tbf, its not even yet a win technically.

      TCO is expected to return to 1980 values around 2066 in the Antarctic, around 2045 in the Arctic, and around 2040 for the near-global average (60°N-60°S). - Source

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If we turn around climate change, even if we fail to avoid quadrillion dollar sea level rise, I’m going to call it a win

        I hope we don’t lose too much before we do win though, or after we do

      • jaybone@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        So is that good news, that we’re moving in the right direction?

        Though the very next sentence from that linked source says

        The assessment of the depletion of TCO in regions around the globe from 1980-1996 remains essentially unchanged since the 2018 Assessment.

        • Midnitte@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          14 hours ago

          2018 to 2022 didnt see much change (and given how far until its fully returned to normal, I think you can see qhy - it takes a long time to fully heal), but we’re certainly pretty far into success compared to where we were.