*edited to correct conversion in title
‘It’s not normal’
It is now.
No it’s not… next year will be worse, and the next, and the one after that, and so on. 🏖️🍳😎🔥
In North Carolina, we had a “winter that wasn’t” and now we have a summer of “surface of the sun” heat. Triple digit heat index every day last week. Good luck getting the locals to admit that climate change is real though. At this point I think some of them are actually starting to see the truth, but it just pisses them off and they dig in to denial even harder, because if there’s one thing they can’t do it’s admit they were wrong.
When I mentioned the hot weather forecast to my super libertarian crazy father in law, he was went off on a tangent on how the government is controlling the weather and causing all of this on purpose 🤦
I had to stop going to my favorite Saturday morning breakfast restaurant for pretty much the same reason. They were ranting about how all the wildfires up here were lit by the government in order to put out enough smoke to block out the sun so our crops would fail. Then everyone would rely on the government for food and they could purge the people they didn’t want around.
Removed by mod
I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..
Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.
When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.
I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.
That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level.
I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..
Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.
When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.
The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.
I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.
This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.
Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.
Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.
You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up.
There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.
It’s just that if you explain things as they are, nobody understands you, and if you simplify (by providing such made up analogies and examples), those same people (like you) act snobbish (while you personally really shouldn’t).
You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.
What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.
About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.
Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.
Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.
There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.
80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless. It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.
What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.
What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn’t exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.
About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.
Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you’ve read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.
Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning.
Of course. So what?
I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said.
Not a rebuttal, just a response.
My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless.
I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn’t be meaningless.
It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.
It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through “brown” means wouldn’t be. For my example I don’t need anything more specific.
Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.
What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works
I’m sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they’d like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.
If somebody is arguing in good faith, they’ll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.
is not based on reality
So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?
Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.
The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I’m talking about is on you. Since I’ve said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don’t know what you were trying to say.
You’re just a moron
Finally instead of glueing together entities you don’t understand in text, as neural nets may do, you use the only argument available to your kind. I’m satisfied by this conversation finally.
It’s a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures… but not every day for multiple weeks.
That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level
Is exactly what’s wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda…brown.
I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.
You see, “neanderthal” is a metaphor, it doesn’t mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.
Actually an actual Neanderthal might be good enough to argue with you but the rest of us wouldn’t get it
Well, yeah, I should have used Australopithecus instead of Neanderthal.
In my case I’m using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your “shouldn’t use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it” argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.
It relies on a false assumption that progress can’t be achieved because anything that’s good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what’s currently destroying the planet.
Oh, I’ll write it even simpler.
What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.
It’s not that I didn’t understand you the first time. It’s that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.
Ah. No, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the “dirty” way is worse than spending less.
Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.
I don’t see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.
Your argument is clear. There’s an opportunity cost to Green.
What you’re missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.
But you have 2 flaws in your logic.
-
we aren’t in that situation right now and I’d like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there’s a snowball effect you’re ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!
-
Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they’re up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.
- The indication of this is distorted by subsidies for green. And “we” here ignores most of the planet.
It’s good that it’s begun.
- Is it better than nuclear?
-
This is fine, we just need to switch from plastic bugs and make caps attached to bottles and everything will be alright! Together we can fight at least 1% of the carbon emissions from top 100 corporations in the world :)
I really think this narrative is counterproductive. It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun. They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.
No corporation is going to choose more environmentally friendly practices out of the goodness of their own hearts unless those practices are cheaper. And given that that is very rarely the case, we have to look at things like carbon taxes to actually price in the externalities of climate damage. But that is going to increase the prices of some goods, and that requires a level of political will that has proven very difficult to come by. “Just make corporations pay” to fix things, whether that’s a carbon tax or taxes on oil company executive pay or dividends or whatever else the proposal may be is always going to mean “increase prices to compensate for climate-related externalities”.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that all costs of addressing climate change must directly fall on consumers; government subsidies to reduce the costs of environmentally sustainable practices can also be extremely beneficial. But ultimately, this is a problem that we’ve all created, and we’re all going to have to be part of solving it. Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.
Blaming the public over corporations is the #1 reason why we are in this mess in the first place. For decades, the narrative has been “it’s your fault and you need to change your habits”. It is a pointless and useless narrative because nobody is going to actively change anything like that until they are forced to. Even when we make moderate, easy efforts to do stuff like recycling, the recycling companies bitch and moan about how they can’t ship this shit off to China to let them do the work, and then throw away most of it, anyway. We PAY recycling companies to recycle this shit and they can’t be bothered to figure out how to recycle it. We PAY THEM to take away materials to use in new products, not the other way around.
In every aspect of people’s lives, you will find that corporations use up 90% of the resources that the general public use because corporations deal in economies-of-scale far bigger than anything a person or even a country can do. Corporations have been pushing the “blame the public” narrative to shift focus away from the decades of abuse they will continue to inflict on the planet. Corporation shit all over everything, and they will continue to do so in the name of profit. That is exactly what they are designed to do.
It takes governmental effort and regulations against the corporations to stop this sort of thing. They do it for clean water, and CFCs, and automotive design, and architecture, and many many other things. Why? Because a minority group of people who are struggling to make a living is never going to have enough power and clout as a large corporation or a government.
Yes and No. Yes, it’s not only corporations and we must act ourselves.
No, it’s the rules that set the game. Corporations play within the rules. Politics is owning and can change the rules. The society and corporations will follow accordingly. If we really want to change we can. Look what happened during Covid. In retrospect, some insane rules (eg Germany kids not allowed to enter playgrounds. Kids couldn’t play to save the elderly). However, society obeyed to those rules.
It’s not us, it’s the rules that must change. In my view this should be the priority.
It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun.
I think we can agree on that corporations are aimed at cheapest way to produce most popular goods at the biggest scale they can achieve for, in the end, produce the biggest possible profit. Thats what corporations are made for: money.
In the end, rich guy gets a yacht, bunker for apocalypse and private residence with AC, private kitchen stuff and anything they want so he will be fine even if its 60C outside. If it will get unbearable, they’ll move to something like Norway and will be fine.
At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people who live in hot countries will die and millions will be climate refugees.
All that, because producing iphone with coal electricity (simplification, albeit I feel like its close to truth) is 10$ cheaper.
Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.
Swapping to paper bags will not help either. There are only two options to solve the issue:
- Government forces corpo to stop wasting our planet (because we don’t have a spare one)
- People get torches
1 is impossible because gov will never cut the feeding hand and 2 is just a matter of time until we will get couple hundred millions migrants from Aftica, India, Pakistan etc.
1 is still possible. But, we’re at a tipping point between ending up in some Cyberpunk corporate-ran dystopia and one where the general public actually has the upper-hand and can fend off governmental corruption.
Choose wisely. Vote every year, twice a year.
but the thing about voting is that basically every politician is either:
- In the pocket of one or more corporations
- Literally part of a corporation (or outright owns one)
- A politician at who doesn’t have as much power as the former two or is in the pocket of one of them
so we could vote for John StopClimateChange, and then find out that every single thing that Mr. StopClimateChange said about his crusade to stopping climate change was not at all true or was so utterly miniscule in the long run as to be meaningless
then what?
This is a defeatist and authoritarian position that the rich and powerful want you to have. They want to feel like you can’t win, so that they vote behind you while you sit at home. Until eventually, they just dismantle democracy altogether and we go back to fiefdoms.
There is clearly one party that is more in line with the goals of fighting climate change than the other. Vote for that group. Vote for that group twice a year.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=t0e9guhV35o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
This argument keeps coming up as an excuse to do nothing.
- It’s not my fault but theirs!
- Why should I change when they won’t?
- I’m just one person against all these big corps, why try?
- Even if I stopped, it wouldn’t make a difference.
Pure defeatism neglecting even any bit of responsibility.
Yet people who say this will put another child on the planet, buy yet another product from Apple on release, love fast fashion, buy the cheapest goods possible, toss their meal as soon as they’re full, vote egoistically, take the cheapest trip to wherever, drive a car, toss cigarette butts on the ground, and so much more.
It’s always easier to blame others. Yes, corporations are shit, but remember, they are made up of people like you and I.
WE work there.
WE buy their crap.
WE vote for the same politicians over and over again (or don’t vote at all).
WE put another child on this planet to go through this shit.
WE as humans are the problem.See, that’s your point of view. My point of view is that people who are all doom online are the problem.
Honestly I will never forgive people who STILL continue to deny climate change is happening and refuse to legilslate on it.
The infuriating part is people denying the change is happening. I could at least hear an argument on whether or not you think it is due to human involvement and what we could do to stop it (I’d still think you’re wrong). But to deny the existence of climate change is asinine.
“We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” - Jean-Claude Juncker.
Career politicians will never fix anything. They’re only interested in not rocking the boat and keeping themselves in office.
And the steps we would need to take to fix it would surely not be popular among the masses, even as they sit dying of heatstroke and starvation. People want magic pills that fix problems, and no such thing exists for this.
At this point Don’t Look Up is a documentary. I honestly cannot imagine what it’s like to he a climate scientist who actively studies this, only to have some fox news watching crazy uncle parroting cherry-picked data, thinking they somehow know better than global scientific consensus. I imagine some at this point may be going, “fuck it. Let it burn.” And honestly, I can’t blame them.
kinda late even if they did now 😔
deleted by creator
You need to see this through the eyes of a psychopath, because those are the ones we’ve put in charge; from their perspective, mass deaths on a global scale mean more resources for them.
Look at the bunkers they’re building… they’re relishing the notion of genocidal control
Mass death will also slow down global climate change.
Keep in mind that the “them” that gets more resources includes most of the western world, traditionally.
No, it’s not. If we started large scale changes now, we would have to endure years of terrible condition with the slight hope that things will improve afterward. Saying “it’s too late” equals to saying we’ll have to endure years of terrible condition while expecting even worse afterward. It’s still a bad posture, no matter how you spin it.
deleted by creator
The US will be lucky if much survives, as will Europe; once the Gulf Stream breaks down both regions will freeze
If only somebody warned us 50 or 100 years ago. Oh wait, they did.
More like over 200 years ago. There was a french female scientist that discovered the greenhouse effect before John Tyndall but I forgot her name and I’m at work rn, can’t search for it.
That’s it!
Are you thinking of Joseph Fourier? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
It was an American named Eunice Foote that detailed the mechanics of the greenhouse effect, but, give or take, it was also around the same time that many scientists came to the same or similar conclusions about this subject. So yes, we’ve been warned for over 200 years and have done exactly nothing to solve the problem. Why? $.
Yeah they were predicting an ice age. And technically we’re still in an ice age, so the planet has to get warmer to reach it’s natural balance point. But it could also get cooler, because we’re in an interglacial period. If we don’t want continental glaciation maybe we should be thankful that the planet’s warming and not cooling.
That’s a myth perpetuated by oil companies to discredit climate science. There was a single paper about it that was widely rejected as a crackpot theory by the larger scientific community. The consensus then was the same as it is now.
Yes, we are in an ice age, seeing as there are frozen poles. But we are changing that, soon there will be no frozen pole caps and with that, the ice age will have ended. We are creating our own hot period.
Btw. it can only be an interglacial period if the glaciers return after. It’s a descriptive term, not a prescriptive, and there is no reason why the current warm period should be seen as interglacial.
Because climate doesn’t just change without a cause, it needs a driving force. Earlier hot periods were caused by volcanic CO2 and the change happened slowly, over millions of years. Earlier cold periods had a number of different reasons, from nuclear winters after asteroid impact, ultra-high plant growth with not enough O2 consumers or global darkening due to the ash of a supervolcano or even the changing tilt of earths axis.
There is no natural reason for the current warm period to turn into continental glaciation, let alone end so early and so fast, let alone the entire ice age, that has created temperatures that humans are comfortable with, just melting away around us. We have likely ended the ice age entirely, as much heat as we trapped in the atmosphere.
Climate changes more rapidly right now than it ever did before bar the impact of ecocidal asteroids and the consequences are dire. We are heating up the planet and there is no force cooling it. If we want to stay even a little bit comfortable, we should drastically reduce the amount of energy trapped in our atmosphere.
I’m Italian myself. The issue with this heat is that it’s humid too, I live in the riviera and we’ve had constant 35-37°C weather with high humidity for a week now
Yesterday here in Germany it was 36°C with high humidity. This single day was enough.
What RH% were you reaching? In the UK we have been spared the high heat (for now, it will probably come later) but we had 70%+ and it’s not nice that high as everything feels damp.
I just spent a week in Sorrento (South West Italy), we could not handle the outdoor weather of 35-38C + 70-80% humidity for more than an hour tops.
New normal, folks. So begins the era of climate migration.
A reminder that this is why we should never tolerate selfishness. We’re now largely screwed because we, as a species, valued our individual comfort over expert research.
We knew what we needed to do - but no, profits. Such a dumb way to die.
Climate and Healthcare migration. I can’t afford to retire here in the states. It’s coming.
you will probably not be entirled tobhealthcare in Europe either then.
Usually the idea is that you pay as a worker into the healthcare system. If you never paid in here you will probably have to fo dor private insurance and you’ll be faced with similiar rates like in the US because the age of entry is crucial for the rates of private health insurance
Some countries have “universal healthcare” for all citizens, you only pay as a worker to get a retirement fund.
So you can end up penniless and homeless, but they will keep you alive (…sometimes to suffer for as long as possible, but that’s a different matter).
It’s so much worse than the new normal. It’s going to keep changing just as fast, or faster. “Normal” isn’t going to exist much longer.
Detroit ftw.
This has been the mildest summer in my 5 years living in the area, I’m loving it
Tornado watches are becoming more frequent tho
Same here in montreal, my grass has never been this green in the middle of july. Kinda weird that we had all those forest fires when the summer’s been pretty damn mild for now
Mild in Montreal, maybe, but check out the Canadian Drought Monitor as the rest of Canada is in drought. Like, the entire rest of Canada. https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agricultural-production/weather/canadian-drought-monitor/current-drought-conditions
Over here in the west it’s never been so dry. Pastures are brown, hay and crops aren’t just stunted but are dying before maturity. Trees are yellowing and dropping leaves. Plague of grasshoppers eating everything that was still green. Every day is hot and the air is full of smoke, it feels like the end of the world over here.
That isn’t “just” climate change though, it’s also urbanisation and the way you guys over there use ground water. It’s a combination of a lot of things, climate change is only one puzzle piece in the whole scheme of things.
Also, the drought thing is easily combatable with desalination, which has a few other benefits. The main caveat is, it’s expensive. But, it’s a lot cheaper than having to deal with various other things due to the droughts.
Guessing you’ve never been to Western Canada. We only have a couple major cities, and we don’t use that much groundwater both as it tends to be saline and because we have plenty of surface water to use due to snowmelt runoff. Also we don’t have anything to desalinate, unless we’re talking about that low-quality groundwater, which is a very expensive proposition as you say to get any significant volume.
We’re not concerned about water for drinking, city usage etc. Most cities are on major rivers that are running near normally. Hydro dams have tons of storage to run until next winter’s snow. On my farm I have dugouts that capture runoff, they are full. I have shallow wells on GUDI aquifers where the water is near the top of the casing! I’m irrigating my garden and my orchard like mad out of my yard dugout and that usage isn’t even noticeable compared to evaporation losses.
We’re concerned that our crops are dying, our livestock are starving (sold mine already) and almost none of our land is irrigated. In BC the trees are dying and burning for lack of rain and there is no way to irrigate them of course. This part of the country has long relied on a steady cycle of June and July thunderstorms for moisture - but the thunderstorms have dried up.
It just won’t rain, that’s all.
No, I have never been to Western Canada (it’s very high on my bucket list, though) and I was broadly talking about North America. Sorry for the generalization. This year being also an El Nino year may have contributed…while some people will say otherwise, Europe has been uncharacteristically moist. We got a lot of places that already have reached 90% of their yearly average precipitation…
Sadly this is the new normal…
I think climate change is happening far sooner than scientists could have predicted. We focus on increased global average temperatures but I think that we are going to have insanely hot summers sooner. We’re fucked.
It was predicted, just labeled as “worst case scenario”.
Everyone with a vested interest decided to look at the “best case scenario” instead, that predicted decades or centuries of slow heating. Well, nope, “worst case” it is.
You don’t need to guess. It was less than 3 months ago where scientists (on nearly every news/publication outlet that wasn’t denying climate change) said we are going to blow by the 1.5C estimate we used as a threshold in our models.
Climate change is already happening exponentially now.
Yeah just 20 years ago, much of the world was a bunch of primitive people living in jungles, and the planet could balance the relatively small number of industrialized nations. Today, way more countries have been industrialized. Countries like Vietnam, Thailand, etc are now concrete cities with massive highways and bridges, motorized vehicles everywhere, and factories manufacturing all kinds of stuff and pumping huge clouds of crap into the air. The EU and US try to pass laws and regulations to lower pollution output, but the factories just move to these other countries that have no or less regulations. We aren’t at steadily increasing pollution levels, it’s exponentially increasing.
The last 20 years saw increased in emissions, but not the the way you claim. see this chart 1990 22 billion t CO2 2003 27.7 billion t CO2 2023 35? 36? Billion t CO2
Even more importantly you can check how the shares of emissions change: Here on this page. 20 years ago the regional emission shares were essentially the same. 30 years ago too. Pretty much only China got really bigger, EU and USA are fairly constant in that time, even tho they moved things like steel production to China.
What makes you think that? The science has been pretty damn good for a long time.
Maybe it’s more about already being able to see the results of climate change.
Rivers drying out, ice sheets and glaciers melting, oceans heating up, desertification, water shortages, etc.
And with everything it seems like we’re “nearly” at a breaking point. Cities running completely out of water, crops failing because of the heat or forests dying or burning, etc.
At least it feels like we’re not that far away from a really bad time than anticipated.
No, no - it’s just as scientists predicted. In the worst-case “no-mitigation” scenario and with attempts from them to explain that +2 global will likely be +10 in peak temperature increase over land (read US, Europe, Asia). As in, both mean and std will increase, but without ocean’s mitigation over land.
Fucked is not the correct word - there is a +50 predicted before the end of decade in Strasbourg, where I am from. There is not a single building built there made to resist that kind of temperatures, nor a single tree or crop that could stand that for a day.
And it’s a relatively “safe” area as far as long-term projections go…
Fucked is not the correct word - there is a +50 predicted before the end of decade in Strasbourg, where I am from. There is not a single building built there made to resist that kind of temperatures, nor a single tree or crop that could stand that for a day.
And it’s a relatively “safe” area as far as long-term projections go…
I would love to read the source on this, not because I think it’s bullshit but because that is pretty fucking alarming.
I think the problem is when you show them the projections people would say “you’re just being alarmist, clearly you have an agenda”
So the messaging has been consistently toned down in the hopes people would listen.
They’ve been warning about water scarcity for decades, I think most people accept it’s going to be a thing. Tell them this is going to happen in their country, this decade? Most won’t believe you.
Doesn’t matter that it’s already at the breaking point, and that we have still growing populations that are already rationing water from sources that aren’t just down due to drought. There’s aquifers that would take centuries to fill back up to where they were decades ago
Scientists told us “your grandchildren will be screwed”, then “think of the world you’re leaving your children”… Well this generation, they’re not saying “you’re screwed”, because people aren’t ready to hear that
People don’t want to have to worry or deal with reality so they simply choose to believe otherwise.
Why do you think we still have rampant religion infecting the world.
Everything is fine, the earth simply won’t be habitable for humans. The Earth will spin on without us when we inevitably allow industry to destroy humanity by making earth uninhabitable by human life.
It’s what we deserve for being so stupid as to see this happening and doing nothing about it to stop it or slow it down. There’s plenty of climate change advocates which are almost always drowned out by the chorus of companies and climate deniers who believe propaganda over science.
deleted by creator
Never said they did.
What people deserve, and what’s going to happen to them are not mutually inclusive.
I’m also going to state that IMO, it’s not just a few corrupt men. There’s lots of them… Lots and lots of them… Not the majority by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly more than a few
Doomers gonna doomer
We will take a large chunk of the planets life with us. I don’t think we can destroy it all however, the planet will get to intelligent life eventually.
I don’t think we can destroy it all
Oh, I’m sure we can engineer something to that end.
Well, there’s certainly no intelligent life on it now, so…
You make it sound like humans are the only ones affected by climate change. Sea turtles, elephants, polar bears, pandas, there’s a fuck load of animals we’re directly killing off. Everything is most certainly not fine, even if you don’t give a single shit about innocent human lives.
How many insects do you remember seeing around stadium lights as a kid? Look now. We will not last another two generations
I remember when I passed my test the mid 00’s if I did a long motorway journey my bumper and windscreen would be an insect graveyard… now it’s next to nothing.
Yes, the cascade has begun. It’s going to get very bad, very suddenly
deleted by creator
Once we have nations fighting for water resources (tied directly to food production) it wouldn’t take long before the entire population is at risk
Ontario’s great lakes have been threatened with receding volume, pollution, and mass algae blooms that show how fragile even that massive resource is
Ground water across the globe has been mass polluted and drained to nothing in large areas.
We are a lot more vulnerable than it seems
You’re totally right. The billionaires who caused all this will survive either way.
It won’t matter if a small area is still habitable. The resolution of 7 billion people trying to fit into a space that fits a fraction of the population will end the species.
It took less than 1% of the population of Europe moving around to nearly break the EU. Watch what happens when it’s 10 to 20% of everyone everywhere.
Will end the current age of civilization? Most definitely.
Will it end organized societies as we know them? Probably?
Will the human beings go extinct? Probably not. Its not crazy to think that we’d face a bottleneck of only a few hundred million humans or less. But there are people all across the economic and geographic spectrum who are prepping. The rich will survive at their polar fortresses. The poorer will survive underground, or at high altitudes.
What do you mean 1% nearly broke the EU?
Syrian refugees were the end result of climate shift in Syria.
I don’t see how this answers my question.
The movement of a tiny group of people relative to the size of the EU drastically shifted the entire political structure of the EU, leading to Brexit and several other countries considering the same. Magnify that affect by the number of people that will be moving due to climate change, and you get an extinction event.
Holy fuck
Where I stay these temperatures can be quite normal in summer. I’m now just worried that a hot summer’s day here will now go from 45 to 55. I’ve felt 50 before. It’s not fun. But besides that, I think of the implications for the agricultural sector. Good luck my European friends. I’ll report back in our summer.
where are you? desert country? if mine have that temp, there would be so many dead people.
Humidity level does matter, a 50c in a dry weather is pretty hot, but not as hot as how people accustomed to high humidity level make it sound.
It’s the lack of sure conditioning in Europe that makes it especially brutal.
Sure, there are hotter climates but they are usually more prepared with AC. Certainly not always, I know.
AC doesnt help construction or farm workers, doesnt help against wildfires and also not against drought.
The economy and society asba whole arent prepared for these temperatures. We would need a cultural shift even in northern Europe, where siestas need to become normal. Too bad if you would need to commute 2h back and forth for your siesta break.
And yet we’re still forces to work
deleted by creator
If it takes 100 or 200 years, we’ll still have war.
There is an argument to be had that many of the wars we’ve seen over the past 25 years, have already been at least in part rooted in access to water. Billions more will get impacted like that over the next century, with tens of millions of migrants a year, every year fleeing from both war and unhabitable conditions, for the next 100+ years.
We’ve barely seen the beginning of it.
I don’t know if you’ve realized it, but without help from some advanced alien species, we are already as good as gone. The entire world is controlled by the absolutely worst people, and there’s no indication that anything can be done to save us at this point. Climate disasters, AI, lies and deceit on a global scale, astronomical imbalance of wealth… folks, we’re already fucked.
My hope is ai (or alien intervention).
If it wakes up, a super intelligence could save us. And I think it’s heavily inclined to do so
And if it doesn’t wake up (LLMs very likely won’t) but keep getting smarter, it’ll blow up economic systems while empowering individuals to crazy degrees. A single person could coordinate everyone on Earth taking action to save the world, while dispationately distributing resources.
Or, it could just blow up the markets, giving us the time to try a better system before higher technology is ripped from our fingers
