A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
It'll be fine. It has all happened before. There was 5x to 10x as much CO2 in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs were alive (2000 to 4000 ppm).
All we need to do is kill off about 7 billion people and have the survivors move to the south pole atleast 300' above sea level.
Remember when Gary Johnson argued that climate change wasn't a big deal because the sun would become a red giant in a few billion years anyway?
You had me with the first half ngl
Not sure if this was sarcasm. On a serious note:
There was 5x to 10x as much CO2 in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs were alive (2000 to 4000 ppm).
Yes, but that is irrelevant. CO2 levels were never so high in the existence of humans. We know for a fact humans could survive without burning coal and oil. We do not know wether our existence is compatible with these unprecedented CO2 levels, but started the experiment nevertheless.
Weather and even temperature are a bit of a red herring in all this. The extreme weather is caused by the rising temps and feedback loops, but what's happening is just the heat trying to normalize. We're not going to end up with 70c at the equator and -30c at the poles. Look at the cretaceous temp, CO2, and fossil records and you'll see that the temp evens out even with CO2 massively higher then today, and you end up with things like temperate rainforest at the south pole. Our real issue and the one we should be actively fighting against (as in actual in-the-street rebellion) is the absolute destruction of the environment. Chemical dumping, strip mining, industrial fishing, industrial agriculture, forever chemicals, microplastics, desertification and deforestation. These things are going to cause ecological collapse and kill almost everyone in the next generation or two, no question about it. We don't have to worry about the heat getting us
Some parts of the world definitely do have to worry about the heat getting them. We've already seen wet bulb temperatures exceeding human habitability in places where millions live, and some recent studies have suggested that in the long run our metric for true human habitability may actually be too wide.
From where I am in the Philippines, it's a huge fucking deal. We've been getting supertyphoons more frequently, more intense and abrupt storms, and if not that, regular temperatures more than 30C°, and our country being an archipelago, is humid AF. We've been getting more crop shortages, more droughts, even constant hours-long water interruptions in the big cities. Not to mention, the huge damages due to those typhoons.
You are right, all these other problems are also really bad. A lot of stuff is happening at the same time. It's hard for me to read about all the shit that is going down and not be able to do anything impactful against these things.
Yeah its really tough and I try to limit my doomscrolling to the amount needed to stay informed. One huge problem with all this is that it effects the most privileged the least, and even the day to day things we can do to feel like we're helping are only really available to those of us with that privilege. Like, I could say "start a vege garden, buy hemp and wool clothes, fix things in your workshop instead of buying new" but yeah, those aren't really options most people can take unless we change the underlying structure of our society first. But then, why don't we try changing society so we can then fix these issues? In the end, it's all part of the class war, and we're losing badly.
I'm living in a flat, this limits what I can do on my own. But I'm looking into getting some solar panels to put up on the balcony, coupled with a storage battery this should bring down the kW/h I need from an external provider.
In the far future I would like to move out of the city and start producing more of my own food, but prices are just to high right now.
Don't be convinced that by lowering your impact you can make any change. Corporations want you to think that because if the masses think that they are the issue then they can continue what they are doing. The only way we can contribute is if we all get on the streets and protest. If millions of people get out on the streets for an indefinite amount of time, stop working, stop buying things, and demand change then we will get change.
Weather and even temperature are a bit of a red herring in all this. The extreme weather is caused by the rising temps and feedback loops, but what’s happening is just the heat trying to normalize.
More and more severe extreme weather events are a bad thing, aren't they?
Environmental destruction is bad, yes. But climate change causes a host of major issues (adding ocean acidification to your list). Rising temperatures and extreme weather certainly will cause deaths and trouble long before the heat normalized, if that ever happens.
Bad weather is also expensive AF. There's a reason reinsurers such as MunichRE aren't on the climate change denial train: They see the writing on the wall of not being able to back the insurers you buy your flood insurance from at a price point anyone could afford. If the damages become too high on aggregate, things simply become uninsurable (hence also why states don't require nuclear plants to have insurance but back them themselves but that's another can of hidden subsidy worms).
People are talking about "but investment in climate-friendly technology costs money and we must think of the economy and prosperity" -- motherfucker if you were thinking about prosperity and the economy you wouldn't set us on a path towards cities being destroyed faster than we can build them. Broken window fallacy times a million.
Remember, elections have consequences. While, at least in the US, neither party is perfect, Republicans are actively engaged in climate denial.
Vote accordingly.
It seems like elections only have consequences and never any benefits. While republicans are worse than democrats, I don't see democrats moving effectively in this area. It's usually business as usual with democrats (e.g. Biden signing in more drilling permits). At best I see too-little-too-late agreements with non-strict enforcement that republicans can cancel any time they get power (which is inevitable in our system).
Is it bizarre it doesn't bother me that much about what happens to humanity at this point? Scientists have seen this happening decades ago and have implored companies and governments to make changes, only to land in deaf ears... so in a way, we saw this coming and didn't care. We kinda had it coming. What I really worry for are the innocent animals, fauna, and flora that will definitely be affected by this. It upsets me even just a change in temperature can mean life or death for some species. I just hope we can still slow this down enough for them to be able to adapt too 😥
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I get where you’re coming from.
Zoom out a little though and it’s consequences are war, famine, and desecration.
If not the human suffering, consider eons long chains of biology that’ll be wiped off the face of the earth as climates shift quicker than their ability to adapt
Oh, for sure. There will be battles for resources that would probably dwindle exponentially. There will be loads of suffering throughout. I've worried so much for years and have made my own contributions to reduce my carbon footprint - recycled and reused as much as I can, not buying a car, among others - and it's so exhausting to keep caring when the main perpetrators get to keep doing it abundantly relatively scot-free. At this point, it's just easier for my own mental health to choose my battles and to choose which one to worry more and hopefully help in that aspect. This is one of the main reasons I've decided to become childfree; it's just cruel to bring life to an uncertain world where the bad guys run rampant.
Climate change is one of the biggest reasons I don’t want children. I can’t put blinders on and then feel zero responsibility for dragging them into a hopeless nightmare.
For my wife and I it was initially economic but now we would not have natural kids even if we bacame rich. might adopt if that happend. I am so glad we are not older because if we had been we might have had kids before realizing what a cluster everything is.
But hey the last article I read was a bunch of totally-relatable-super-wealthy-individuals who are just like me, asking why people aren't having kids! Are you telling me the world is actually a hellscape and I've been lied to?
This is exactly why my partner and I are not having children.
The world failed to take action against climate change, now they're going to be late to take action to the adaptation of civilization to a dangerous environment. Too late to stop climate change, it's time to think about adapting to a new environment.
Humanity can certainly adept to climate change, but these changes will also cause a lot of people to relocate. I’m not sure if society, in the current political climate, can adapt quick enough to be able to deal with the influx of possible climate refugees.
Almost ten years ago, I was in Miami for a conference, and they were pumping water out of the streets back then. I would guess it's not gotten any better.
When even Florida is telling you shit is fucked... Shit is FUCKED
To be fair (and the article does sort of mention this) we are in an El Nino year, so of course things are heating up terrifying fast. Thing is, El Ninos are impacted by climate change, so... This isn't a cop-out, it's just this is kind of as bad as it can get (for now) which is reassuring (hopefully?)
I would disagree: Since we’re still in the early phase of a new (super? As is being discussed) El Niño — later this year and likely next 1-2 year/s will probably be worse.
It really depends on so many things. AR6 was a depressing read, but we do still have different pathways, people are responding to the crisis. I have the privilege of seeing first hand the commitments being made by some rather large emitters and the actions being undertaken to meet those commitments. I guess what I'm saying is, we can still hope. We shouldn't give-up and resign ourselves to this fate.
On the other hand we literally have a CEO of a gas and oil company chairing COP28 next year... So... Yeah...
it seems the interests of the fossil fuel industries are not aligned with the people.
Here in Michigan we’ve been getting hammered with forest fire smoke all summer. It sucks because we only get a few months of nice weather as it is and we can’t spend most days outside if we value our lungs. I need my lungs for precious cannabis smoke, not forest fire smoke!
I'm a severe weather meteorologist for a government org (non-US). This is alarmist nonsense. There is plenty of proper statistical evidence for climate change, it's bizzare that the opinion of one irrelevant meteorologist is being voted up to the front page. Most of the weather forecasters I work with know very, very little about climate change (as do most posters on here who love to type in short, sharp sentences to make themselves seem authoritative).
If now isn't the time to be alarmed, when is?
So when I see records being broken every year, year after year, I'm supposed to be like "This is fine".
Got it.
And your point is? Are you arguing that alarmism isn't called for? That everything is fine and we shouldn't try to mitigate emissions?
Or are you simply arguing that most weather forecasters know very little about climate change so.... I guess I don't know what?
Again, what's your point? Are you just flexing or do you actually have something useful to contribute to the conversation?
Please share with us your vast knowledge on this subject.