But that's not what the article you linked said, so where are you getting 2050 from? The study says if CO2 continues to increase at the same current rate, we would be at the top end of the healthy max bicarbonate level by 2076. Do you have extra info that connects what is said in the article to 2050?

Your comment is interesting to me. This isn't really a place where 'waste of time' articles are posted. And you've taken the time to wag your finger at OP, and look at the credentials of the website, but not look at the article itself. I'm not saying that to criticize, rather it makes me think about biases (that I have been looking at in myself).

We are in a world with overwhelming amounts of information, so that kind of vetting can make sense. But it also seems like a kind of information absolutism, where someone who believes in aliens can't be right about anything. The flip side being that someone with must be right about everything, even when it's a topic outside of their expertise. And the actual information seems peripheral to the trust in the source. OP found this through a source they trust, and I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I guess I'm just trying to strip away my own biases and use critical thinking with a more open mind.

The author doesn't make a living from negativity. As it says in the article, they work in the public sector (as a complex systems analyst), and their substack is free. Unless you think being a complex systems analyst is an inherently negative career?

Instead of saying that they have financial incentives to be disingenuous, I suggest discussing whether or not what is said has merit and relevance.

Ah, it sounds like I have misunderstood you, although I think my question still stands with a bit of a different context--how much time do you think we have? Because, unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by EV revolution, it requires a long enough runway of climate, economic, energy, and social stability with sufficient material resources for infrastructure building and production.

As an aside, it makes me sad that the conversation is never that we should move away from cars and invest in public transportation. I know that you're not comparing EVs to that, and I think there isn't a sufficient runway for that either. But since I'm wistfully thinking of the things we should have done in decades past I decided to include it.

How much time do you think we have, that focussing on "the beginning of decoupling" is actually meaningful? Especially since that is a move that should have been done decades ago? And how many scientists need to say we've blown it when it comes to emissions reductions getting us out of the hole we've dug ourselves into?

I just started watching a video with David Suzuki that addresses your point in the first 5 minutes: "In 2018 the IPCC...came out with a special report that said look, we must not allow temperatures to rise more than 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels...This is a critical point, after 1.5 degrees rise we can't predict what's going to happen but it's going to be climate chaos...We passed 1.5 degrees in 2025...After 29 (COP) meetings, are we not ready to say " eh, it doesn't work"?...Is it too late? Of course it's too late! But what'll we do? You know, people are saying every 0.1 degree matters, we got to keep working. But wait a minute now, we've had 29 COP meetings to try and limit it. At what point do you say it ain't working, it doesn't work that way...we're still not operating as if we're in an emergency"

If feeling positive about the "beginning of decoupling" helps you cope, good. But people addressing the reality that eclipses that are saying we will have at least 2C warming unless we implement geoengineering.

Isn't severe cooling in the UK and Ireland one of the outcomes of the slowing/collapse of the AMOC? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, and you aren't listing that as evidence against it.

Oh, I would like a nice deck chair on the Titanic too. But the more important conversation is that we're on the Titanic, rather than the quality of the seat cushions, is it not? Maybe not.

Exactly a week ago, a wildfire started 5km from where I live and I prepared to evacuate. Luckily it didn't come to that for me, but there were people in my town who did have to evacuate. I'd rather stay with people I know than in a hockey arena, but I'd take a hockey arena over burning to death in a fire. It's all relative.

You aren't absorbing what this article is saying. This isn't about climate refuge immigration helping the Canadian economy. This is saying that the Canadians are the climate refuges when they are evacuated from where they live because of wildfires.

I am 100% for affordable housing, but this article is actually pointing out that all housing is vulnerable because wildfires are endangering where people live. Do you think housing will get more affordable when it's burning down? When the trees used to make the houses burn down? Ignoring this aspect of the situation is unwise.

I don't mean to dismiss or undermine your concerns, because they are very valid. ~~Maybe you'd feel better served in a discussion about the economy instead of climate change.~~ (Edit:sorry I forgot that this is collapse---my apologies!!)