OP did not write that at all! He only wrote a single sentence, why did you create new text to criticize and attribute it to OP?
I myself keep pointing to the NOAAA page for the CO2 growth rate (https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html) - which is positive and increasing. OP is correct and the parent is too. Even the growth rate still increases, it still keeps getting worse faster! It's unpopular on reddit's /r/de too to say that, with similar justification. As if lying and keeping truth away won't hurt much more because no, people are stupid but not completely.
In addition here in Germany I got so watch from a front seat how the people in the country react when even just a single fossil fuel is cut - and only partially (even for Germany Russia only supplies a part of the gas, even if it's a substantial one). We actually needed to stop regardless of the Russian situation, for climate change alone. Which nobody ever even dares to mention, the public discussion and what politicians have to say is all about "crisis mode". I have not seen a single politician try to reframe it as "we need to do this anyway", it's either about supporting people financially to be able to afford more expensive gas, about who needs to save, or how and where to get other gas faster than 2024 (deal with Katar for LNG).
The head of the state of Saxony warned of "deindustrialization". But we need to cut fossil fuel anyway! Worldwide!
The current crisis should be a chance, but it is only seen, and only framed, as "crisis", to be remedied to get back to full gas storage and fully flowing supplies.
The situation IS this dire! Try significantly reducing usage of fossil fuels in any country. You get riots.
You can plant as many trees and ban plastic straws all you like, the only thing that would make a dent is a significant reduction in removing any more fossil fuels of any kind from below ground to feed it into the above ground carbon cycle. And it is truth that it looks really really bad. That would just limit the growth rate, it still would do nothing towards actually lowering atmospheric CO2.
From the comment I replied to:
>reality of unavoidable climate catastrophe
>how dire the situation is
I read this as "doomed". And if we are already doomed and nothing can be done about it, shouldn't we eat as much meat and take as many flights as we want? This is how a lot of people think when they read stuff like this, and honestly, they have a point. Either it's unavoidable and dire OR we can do something about it (by limiting emissions). So why ask people to make sacrifices and then also tell them we are doomed anyway?
As a suggestion of “fixable” they literally said it was unavoidable.
Someone that forgot about an upcoming test is doomed.
> There's no chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees anymore. It's just not a realistic goal.
They said nothing about 2° being the tipping point between hope and hopelessness. Only that we're more screwed than some people still hope we are.
Honestly I'm not sure if coal is worse than shipping gas from the gulf (which produces lots of CO2 from the compressing and shipping)
Warming is unavoidable so major expenditure on whatever adaptations are possible is just as necessary as getting off fossil fuels, and ignoring that reality will set many areas up for long-term disasters in the near future.
Another uncomfortable reality is that politicians in all fossil-fuel producing nations may give lip service to climate concerns, but in reality none of them are going to try to shut down the most profitable economic activity in their countries. That's what the record shows in the USA as well.
I hold "contrary" opinions on the climate debate, but I don't take these kinds of articles the way that you noted at all. I see it simply as an opportunity to change tactics.