I have noticed, at least in my experience, even in non-doomer areas like r/climate and r/environment and what not that doomerism about the climate or a sort of pessimism is somehow the realistic response and seem to offer reductive takes. The allure of such attitudes and dispositions, at least on its surface, is that it is supposedly the realistic attitude, they are doomers because they believe they see the truth for what it is and that truth is a dark truth that necessitates a doomer attitude. I will admit I am seeking an optimistic perspective and I shall leave that bias on the table, but I want to ask are there objective facts that show a more optimstic or at least a "non-pessimistic" perspective on climate change is feasible? It needn't even be optimistic but that a lot of doomerism about it is simply unfounded, I suppose I want a realistic perspective and I am here to see if it is one compatible with some flavor of optimism. I also was triggred just by how vocal the doomers are online and on reddit so I figured this would be a safe refuge where my desire for reality and truth-seeking but also needing a sort of hope can be made compatible.
It's easy to doom about climate change, especially with the current US government working more or less directly contrarily to international goals, alongside continued reports that the situation is getting worse (because, to be fair, it is).
Things are bad, climate change is real, it is caused by people and that's sucks - but none of that means they can't get better. I'd argue climate change would be much scarier if it had nothing to do with people, and was just the consequences of events we had no control over.
The key part to remember is exactly how much progress we have made. Renewables are a great example.
Solar and wind have continued their almost exponential growth, still out performing predictions made, again.
Similarly, there are more and more solutions to even problems people thought were unsolvable just a few years ago. Concrete and cattle here are good examples - both have new solutions which could substantially reduce emissions.
We've also seen good news on what we hoped would happen for positive human feedback loops. Electrification almost happening by itself in places like Norway the moment that electricity became cheap thanks to new renewables.
Some of the largest emitters are also turning around, finally.
The USA is still down from it's emissions peak in 2007.
China emissions have fallen over the last 18 months, with many predicting that they have now peaking in 2024.
We are also seeing good news from India, with rapid renewables roleout making their peak likely come faster than expected.
This is a fight we are winning. The key question is how fast can we do it, and what do we need to prepare for as a result of the time it takes.
Watch some of the Rethink X videos on YouTube. They capture the energy, transport and food technologies that are scaling exponentially.
Rethink X points to exponential growth to explain why we are well into the transition. I've been trained in applied math and understand what they mean by exponential but for many people that term means really fast. That's what they get wrong.
Exponential means this. Solar grew on average 28% the last 10 years.
In one year, that means 1.27 times as much is added. In 5 years, that is a growth of 3.4 times each year. In 10 years it would be 12 times as much solar installed.
Take China as an example. China increased their total energy demand by 5% in 2025. 50% of the increased energy came from solar.
In 3 years all their new power can come from solar. In 5 years, all their new power again, but they are pushing back lots of existing fossil fuel power.
In 10 years they are rapidly shutting down fossil fuel.
(For all those critical of the math, I've kept it simple and hopeful. I didn't consider primary vs utilized power nor power growth assumptions nor any other number of issues. Just trying to make the concept easier to understand)
Unless we follow a path that keeps getting narrower we probably will go over 1.5°. But there is hope for overshooting 1.5° in mid century but dropping below 1.5° by end of century. The faster we can turn around the 1.5° warming will still be a win even if it's not as good as never going over 1.5°
Come to r/energy you will get a much less doomy appreciation of the tangible progress being made around the world right now to phase down fossil fuel use.
Will do.
You guys have called me a doomer before for not agreeing with you on the degree of climate change progress. At no point did i say we shouldn't try to make things better, or that we are doomed, but you all assumed it was what I believed. Labelling anyone who doesn't agree with you as a doomer is going to make the world look very divided, when in reality most people are optimistic some of the time and try to find the line of realism. Don't turn optimism into an In group.
I have read both books by Hannah Ritchie, the first one (not the end of the world) is exactly about that. The second one (clearing the air) specifically adresses all the typical what-about-... questions you get in most discussions.they are great and well funded by facts.
I highly recommend you read her first book.
My take on climate change: we will end up at around 1,8° to 1,9° in a different world, but we are not doomed. Even if you don't believe it, the vast majority of people are concerned about cc and we are making more progress than most people think.
For the doomers: being stuck in a doom-loop doesn't help you and the planet. Reduce your exposure to social media. Do your part as much as you can (electrify as much as you can, reduce beef and lamb products as much as you can, avoid flying and cruise ships as much as you can, vote for green parties and solutions if you can).
You don't need to be perfect here.
My moment of perspective was seeing an article about how they’ve managed to solve bee population problems with a strain of yeast. Half the comments were just trying so hard to find a reason to nullify the good news it actually is. Climate change is, and will happen, but I’m confident life will adjust. Look at how successful conservation has become as an example, people are aware and aware people can be helpful people.
You admit that you are biased to look for an optimistic perspective, which means you will inherently ignore that which you consider too "doomer", even if it is based on fact. I don't blame you for wanting some good news. But I think we are in an age where the search for "optimism" is just a passive way to cope and let the rest of the world figure it out. You need to find that optimism within yourself, your actions and what you are willing to do. Hope is a verb, hope is an active stance. You have to constantly reorient yourself towards hope in the face of horror. Therefore, you need the knowledge of what is actually at stake right now, and how bad things can get, for your actions to make sense and your optimism to be based on reality. Better the devil you know, as they say. To be optimistic, you must act out the hope that you wish to have for the world.
The best way to escape climate doomerism is to just not think about the climate and hope things turn out ok. We'll all be dead in 150 years, and humanity will go extinct someday no matter what happens.
This is why I joined DoomerCirclejerk. You have to sit back, point and laugh at their ridiculousness. They will never listen to good news. Moments of levity for a Doomer? Are pain to them. It can’t be true that something good happened, that hurts their world view and sense of self. How dare someone on Reddit tell them it’s not all bad and things are improving I must scream online about the end of the world!
Each time? World keeps spinning, life goes on, things get better.
Too bad for them eh?
Oh look downvotes! Thanks for proving my point. Hey? How’s that world ending going for ya?
I both love and hate that sub. It feels like a sanity pill but there are some very bad faith science deniers there. Like sharing a climate denial article from a website with oil in its name to claim that it doesn’t exist at all. But at the end of the day, it did help me gain perspective on how much milk I was letting spoil in my cup, I have so much to appreciate right here and now that it’s an injustice to not woke up feeling some form of content.
Honestly climate denial and climate dooming are 2 sides of the same coin, and usually funded by the same interests.
The easy way to tell is by looking at the end result.
Climate change isn't real -> we shouldn't do anything about it.
Climate change is too big to deal with -> we shouldn't do anything about it.
The "third" side of the coin is: Climate change isn't that big a deal -> we should post optimistic stories to show people how silly they're being. This viewpoint could equally be funded by climate change accelerationists.
I see this as effectively denial.
If you don't think climate change is a big deal, you are either the Russia government* or are being mislead. People are already feeling the impacts, even long before they see them. Insurance and food costs are already rising due to climate change risks, something that can be felt literally as far as half the world away from where the direct impacts are happening.
*(one of the very, very groups which will benefit from climate change and it's impacts - freeing up natural resources and damaging their enemies, with some impacts to their population who they don't need to care about)
Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying about this sub.
It's far too prevelant. Sticking your head in the sand isn't optimism - it's just being too scared to face reality.
Im more just wanting to show that doomerism is off base and that some sort of realism about climate change is compatible with some sort of optimism or hope. Not wanting to stick heads in the sand. I dont know if this sub does that but id assume it doesn't. I just dont want people who make wild claims to be validated just because climate change, some of them may be right, others not so much. There's realism and there's just making claims not in accord with reality. I assume you agree with this since you have "doomer dunk" flair and the interlocuter here has some reservations about this sub.
I think it's important not to alienate potential optimists who are being drawn into doomerism, people who feel like there's no hope, but want some.
Don't get me wrong - The situation is bad.
But we should dunk on doomers and deniers by showing exactly how much progress we have made, and how easy it is to make more progress, not by trying to prove well understood science wrong.
Both doomers and deniers - and the bad faith actors who fund both groups - want you to forget about the incredible work that is happening by people just like you and me all over the world.
If the Big Bang, Big Crunch model is correct, eventually everything will squash into a dense mass and then rapidly expand again for billions of years. Nothing will escape the total destruction. No information will be able to be passed on. Life will cease completely. So, ultimately, nothing really matters. Enjoy!
Not really. The "Big Bang, Big Crunch" model is the most accepted theory, and there's a lot of evidence for it; on the other hand, there's to many flaws, unknowns, and breakdowns to call it fact.
Once you have to start making up invisible and undetectable phenomena to shore up the model, the model's in trouble.
Amen
What you call doomerism is science backed conclusions.