• Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    278
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A decade ago, It was predicted that we would hit 1.5°C between 2050-2060, and even as recently as 2 years ago the prediction had moved forward to between 2030-2040.
    The next decade or two are going to be very… interesting

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      128
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The IPCC calculations were always criticized for being overly optimistic. Anyone following this debate knew that we would hit 1.5 C sooner rather than later.

      We are definitely going to hit 3 degrees in our lifetime, once the melting tundras release their methane store.

      • Kale@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Melting tundra releases methane, accelerating the increase in temperature. Rising temperature reduces polar ice, making oceans absorb more heat, accelerating heating. Climate pattern changes cause more frequent and larger wildfires, accelerating heating.

        There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases that I’m not aware of, but there are a lot of positive feedback processes which is concerning.

        I believe the IPCC 1.5C was criticized because it included effects of a carbon sequestering process that hasn’t been invented yet. That’s pretty optimistic.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases

          Nuclear war, for one. In a more naturalistic vein, asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruptions. People worried about climate change just refuse to look on the bright side.

        • Graphine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Which is why I support the idea of setting up bases on the Moon and/or Mars.

          Everything is accelerating, and nobody gives a fuck to do anything before it’s too late. I hate the argument that NASA doesn’t push its budget to prevent CC or even Space X. Because stopping CC is a global effort on a colossal scale. It’s not going to work until it’s too late. Might as well get off this rock.

          Edit: Very fucking optimistic of you all

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If we can’t make Earth livable we certainly can’t make the Moon or Mars livable. At best it will be a handful of people living miserably for a short time. “Get off this rock” just isn’t a realistic option, and we don’t have the time to make it so.

          • Coreidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you think leaving earth is going to solve our problems then I have a huge fucking bridge to sell you.

          • bravosimona@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Earth would be more habitable than the Moon and Mars even in worse than worse case scenario climate change conditions. The atmosphere will still protect us from cosmic radiation, and we won’t need pressurized suits and habitats. A lot of people will suffer and die, but humanity will not go extinct because of climate change, our society will though.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        If anyone is curious about what 3C looks like, here’s a solid video on how a 3C world would look.

        https://youtu.be/uynhvHZUOOo?si=yk8rvR1Bg3t4aKGe

        It’s 16 minutes so as a TL;DW: Not “extinction event” but extremely bad. Areas of the globe will simply become unlivable - and these areas tend to be highly populated. The resulting mass migrations and shortages of water/food will lead to conflict, often between nuclear powers. End result: humanity will keep on living, but it will be a significantly more deadly environment and a significantly more conflict-prone political environment. Economic collapse will hit major metropolitan centers.

        If watching the video bums you out try to focus on the absolutely bonkers cool sideburns the climate scientist has. Cheered me up a little. Like a handsome person telling you that you have a bad disease.

        Anyway, vote for climate-positive outcomes wherever possible and consider joining a climate lobbyist group. I’m a member of this one but I’m sure there are others.

        https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

        • milkjug@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As if all that is not depressing on its own, there just a little less than half of the world that believe it’s a hoax. While they’re being cooked alive. And continue to vote for politicians that perpetuate the idea it’s a hoax.

    • ruford1976@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      what’s worse is that it’s actually 1.6 C

      it says in the article here

      Data released last week from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.

      • Sylver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it’s honestly horrifying to see the lack of reaction around the world. If you live anywhere near the coast, you better get the fuck out or tell your kids to.

        • Serinus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m already telling people to get out of Florida*. I expect multiple Katrina-level events over the next 15 years. “Florida refugees” is going to become a common phrase.

          Orlando might be more likely to survive than Miami or Tampa, but do you really want to be in the city surrounded by devastation?

          We, as humans, seem to have lost the ability to plan more than 20 years into the future. Florida is still building in areas that are going to be crushed, and the only reaction is from insurance companies.

          We’re not trying to prevent it. We’re not building any kind of defenses or contingency plans. We’re not encouraging people to move out. We’re not preventing people from moving in. In fact, we’re building new and encouraging people to move IN to Florida. It’s full on head in sand.

          • Num10ck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            look at their leadership. look at their voters. look at the short-term profit potential.

            • Dkarma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Look at the percentage of these purchases that are foreign investors making cash offers and I think u start to see why the insurance companies leaving isn’t having the effect it should.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If that massive icesheet in Antarctica gives way, Florida will be under water.

            At the rate we’re going, I think it will take a cataclysm of that level before people will realize how important this thing is.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Man I have like 5 family members and friends just move to Florida. They were tired of the high taxes and politics of California. At least they won’t burn in a wildfire though!

            • vivadanang@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wonder if FL is attracting a certain type of moths to a flame… recently had a neighbor move to clearwater

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s nice by the coast though, I’d just put aquatic pilings under my house and have a ruggedised shelter built into it. Even if I live to a hundred and fifty with all the ice melted my land will still be under less water than the intercoastal platforms we’ve been routinely building since world war one.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Supposedly the new stringent heavy shipping emissions controls are having an impact on the greenhouse effect. Reduction of sulfur dioxide which had a reverse greenhouse effect is warming the oceans up more.

      “Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions.”

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/#:~:text=Global emissions of sulphur dioxide,warming coming from greenhouse gases.

      So this may be our first example of the threats of NOT enacting terraforming for climate change will have.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It proves that creating cloud cover will impact ocean temperature. There are methods of doing this without creating acid rain. Just spray ocean water as a fine mist into the air and you should get some nice fluffy clouds. We have the capability to cover entire oceans in cloud cover to mitigate global warming.

        Obviously this would have some unpredictable impacts on weather patterns, but we’re already dealing with that no matter what we do. We’re at a point where we’re desperate enough to try some crazy schemes like this.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          After September 11th and the COVID lockdowns, scientists noted an increase in global surface temperature due to the absence of contrails. So yes, this is actually something we are already doing!

          Sulfur dioxide however is an even more effective reflector of sunlight compared to water vapor. And don’t forget, water vapor is itself a very greenhouse agent that contributes toward planetary heating.

    • SolidGrue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe by “interesting,” you mean “moist.” At least, for everyone above/below ±35° latitude.

      Also, I hope you enjoyed photosynthesis while it lasted because once the permafrosts at ±60° latitude thaw, we’re in for a tough time.

    • ByteWizard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      66
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’ve been saying that literally since the 60’s?

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand they’re still wrong.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    172
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have kids. I am fucking livid that the assholes who pretend climate change isn’t happening have decided to sacrifice their kids and mine on the altar of making a quick buck.

    You can’t eat money, assholes. And you can’t bring it with you when you die. If the future is nothing but more and more severe weather to the point that civilization collapses under the strain, then I hope you live long enough to see it and are unable to hide from reality anymore.

      • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They think they do. No amount of money will protect a person from the collapse of a civilization. Never has, never will. Their plans are very much predicated on the assumption that markets will somehow magically continue to function after the general populace has lost all faith in them

          • jcit878@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the reference to collars was more a hypothetical in the article as the author was challenging the bunker dudes how would they ensure the people keeping them safe remained loyal, and that none of them considered anything like “treat them like people before the cataclism”, it didn’t even occur to them at all, instead they proposed a bunch of more controlling measures, which included “disciplinary collars”

          • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            They can buy themselves a few years at best without a functioning supply chain. We all depend on society, no matter how much they like to deny it

          • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            The ultra-rich will still be dependent on their retinues of loyal followers, whose loyalties will of course be tested by the collapse of civilization. Unless their retinues are robots, of course.

            • Final Remix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              robots

              That’s it! We take all the rich and politicians and stick 'em in “FSD” enabled teslas for a while. The problem will solve itself.

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            These billionaires imagine they’re rich because they’re brilliant, not because they’re the biggest assholes and lucky (and born rich). They overestimate their independence from all the people and other creatures that actually make the planet and human society work. Once they get to their bunkers or their Mars outpost, perhaps reality will gradually get through to them. They can’t escape this using bunkers, rockets and weapons.

        • speck@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          They have the money to potentially avoid repercussions long enough. This is especially true when collapse is relatively gradual

    • quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why did you choose to have kids knowing what kind of future they would have? This is the reason I didn’t, and also to reduce my footprint in the world. I mean even 20 years ago, it was obvious nothing was going to change. So I don’t know why somebody would willingly have children these days.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The world has always been a mess. What’s your solution, wait until the world has solved every problem before anyone has kids? Humans would never have even evolved if that’s the plan.

            Even nature is fucked.

            • Final Remix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t have a solution. You don’t either. And those that can do anything about this shit, won’t, because it’d cost them some of their precious precious money hoard.

              Climate change is basically teetering at the feedback loop point, if it’s not already there. Inflation is out of control. Corporate profits across the board are at an alltime high. Shit’s only going to keep getting worse from here.

      • Restaldt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No… its simply not. Maybe Jimmy John and Mary sue having a dozen offspring in missouri are a slight part of the problem but your average person have one or two is not the problem.

        As with everything in this world: Its the corporations. They are the problem. No amount of reuse, reduction, or recycling by any individual would even register on the graph of emissions/carbon footprint when compared to even a tiny company

        I do agree that its irresponsible to subject yet another human being to the future we are careening towards

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, I get what you are saying, but if for a few generations only every 10th family would have only 1 child, GHG emissions would fall drastically. Having a kid basically more than doubles ‘your’ own carbon footprint.

          Is this the only, the necessary, or the preferred way? Ofc not. Is it the biggest impact I can personally have on global warming? It is (voting, protesting, buying local & sustainable helps, but whatever you are doing the kids are doing it too).

          It’s sad bcs there are so many ways we could solve this (at least achieve carbon neutrality, tho we need more than that now), but short-term profits of the current elite would suffer a little tiny bit so we can’t do it.

          But additionally now we do need to prep to mitigate consequences and damage control (on top of green/ESG investments) … I wonder if all those profits will be used to finance this …

        • Jack@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          117.7 tonnes of Co2e per kid per parent per year in the USA (58.6 tonnes average when including all the poorer countries).Wynes et al. 2017

          A conservative estimate is that we need to emit less than 2.1 tonnes in total per person per year to try to prevent catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change. Girod et al. 2013 (life expectancy/2050).

          117.7 > 2.1

          We need a fertility rate of about 0.01 for several decades.

          Human overpopulation is not only the biggest contributor to push us into a climate-change tipping-points cascade, it’s also the root cause of almost all its other causes. It’s also the root cause of unsustainable habitat loss and pollution. It’s also the root cause of factory farming and industrial fishing, which causes more pain and suffering every year than all other atrocities ever committed combined.

          As for corporations, they’re not burning the planet for shits and giggles - they’re psychopaths doing it because billions of people are choosing to buy their goods and services, which they want but don’t actually need.

    • juched@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why we have 2A in the US. Maybe we should start thinking about using it.

  • Rufus Q. Bodine III@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    We had a good run. Good luck to the next species to dominate the earth. May you avoid religious dogma, find an economic system that respects your natural environment, and a political system that respects the right to live a clean and healthy world.

      • Sylver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depends on how you quantify it. We sure did make a lot of money, or at least the winners did.

      • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, we left the planet. We created art. We did some good, and life will diversify again after we’re gone.

        • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          and life will diversify again after we’re gone.

          Here’s hoping; but that’s far from a safe assumption. The kicker about the changes we’re making to this planet is that a lot of them are positive feedback loops, so even if 100% of humans just got thanos-snapped out of existence RIGHT NOW, meaning a complete stop on fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, etc; the damage we’ve already caused will continue to get worse on its own with no further input from us.

          So how far can those feedback loops go until they’re broken naturally? They might stabilize; they might just carry on until this planet is molten.

          There will for sure be life after the last human dies, but given a few thousand more years, even the most resilient of critters could still be fucked because of us.

          • evranch@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            they might just carry on until this planet is molten

            The odds of true runaway warming are very low, the planet has both been much hotter and had much higher CO2 levels in the past. The Holocene is actually a cool period, geologically.

            We’re just going to make it too hot to grow enough crops to feed the world.

              • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                The lake Toba Eruption caused a 4°C drop in global temperatures, covered asia in inches to feet of ash, and may have taken the climate 1000s of years to recover.

                Even more extreme, the lava floods that created the Siberian Traps 250 million years ago raised ocean temps to 40°C, killed off 90% of all life, and might have taken millions of years to recover.

                We are tiny. The climate and the Earth are formidable. Sure, we might have the capacity to destroy all multicellular life on earth, but she’s recovered from even worse.

                We shouldn’t ever give up, but I think the earth is capable of handling even our worst fuck-ups.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            it seems pretty likely that microprocessors will survive us, and give a BIG jump start to any species that follows. literacy seems to be a longer shot, but still a possible stepping stone for some other organism to take over our work. my money is on fungi to figure out microprocessors. if not them, then plants, especially “weeds”. finally, ocean mammals might be able to work some of the junk we’ve made and cargo-cult themselves into the information age.

            i really am hopeful for life on earth to survive the death of Sol.

        • jcit878@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          we did just waste a good few million years of evolution though (let’s say 65 million accounting for the rise of mammals). earth isn’t going to be habitable forever, from memory there’s less than a billion years left before the temp would increase with the expanding sun enough to make liquid water impossible. feels like we kind of shot earth in the foot a bit here

          • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            65 million years isn’t that bad on a geologic scale

            As long as there isn’t a runaway greenhouse effect that turns Earth to Venus, life would almost certainly continue, with or without us.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There were a couple of hundred thousand years of humans managing not to fuck up the entire planet, before the two centuries of doing so for the sake of money.

        • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          There were periods in which we were nicer to the planet, but we’ve always been pretty horrible to each other. Even at the stage of civilization we’re at now - with all the advancements and comforts etc - we’re still going to war with each other just for the hell of it; murdering each other over shit like skin color or what we find sexually attractive; not only profiteering off the suffering of others, but actively manufacturing suffering to profiteer off.

          We really are horrible.

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We also managed to kill off almost all the large animals thousands of years ago, come to think of it.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Realistically, extinction would be sweet relief compared to what is actually in store for humans with climate change. More likely that we hang around in smaller communities and death / suffering is even more widespread.

      • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean realistically it’s all going to hell sooner or later. You’ll start with millions of climate refugees, closed borders, violence. Then climate wars (a wall with machine guns isn’t going to stop people who have no other way to survive). And if a country with nukes (like India) finds itself uninhabitable then things are really going south. Next up you have a possible nuclear war and the end of humanity as we know it.

        Sure, a small amount of humans might survive, but civilization will go down in chaos. Even areas that are inhabitable and have plenty of water will break down, because the local infrastructure can’t support hundreds of thousands of refugees forcing their way in.

          • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, I was more thinking per area. Not all refugees will go to the same place.

            It will start with millions and that might already be enough to cause collapse. When it’s over a billion it’s already over.

            • Hyperreality@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The whole Syria thing already caused us lots of issues in Europe. Arguably the civil war was caused in part by climate change exacerbating a drought. The surge in refugees helped the far right and populists across Europe and was a factor in brexit.

              I can only imagine what’ll happen if it gets worse. Children of Men is likely to be eerily prophetic.

          • floofloof@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ve seen estimates that say a billion dead by 2100 is the most optimistic possible outcome. Even the notoriously cautious IPCC is making the most unimaginably dire predictions:

            In its report focusing on the impacts of global warming on people and the planet, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that every inhabited continent is already experiencing multiple climate impacts, from droughts and flooding to biodiversity loss and falling food production. Between 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in areas “highly vulnerable to climate change,” the authors warn, with “additional severe risks” should the Earth warm beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). (From an article in Forbes magazine.)

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if primates are incapable of building a global economic system that doesn’t end in disaster

  • giacomo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haven’t they heard of the american method? Don’t they know the cure for X is more X?

    We just need to add some more global warming and that will solve global warming!

    Or is that just applicable to guns and debt?

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nah - it’ll just pivot to “Well it’s too late now - no reason to hold back”.

      I genuinely wonder why eco-terrorism isn’t already a meaningful “problem” - I don’t mean “some protestors blocked a road for a couple of hours or flinged some paint and soup around” - I mean “You’re working to kill all known life in the universe, and we’re doing whatever it takes to stop you.”

      • sheogorath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no one funding it. If some of the billionaires can direct their money to make renewables adopted in the mainstream we can be in a much better place now. But, you know to have that amount of money the switch that also governs your care for the environment gets switched off too.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Explosives and rifles aren’t expensive. There’s a reason the best funded military in the world consistently gets slowed up by insurgents.

          While big funding would certainly help, this is more an issue of motivation (which expensive media campaigns would certainly help).

          I’m not advocating for any of this, but as long as innocents weren’t caught up in it, I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over it either.

    • Walt J. Rimmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You joke, but I’ve seen those kinds of arguments, especially online.

      Some time back, someone argued that global warming was a self-solving problem because the oceans reflect light and heat energy back out into space, so as the earth warms and the oceans rise, the ability to reflect that heat will increase and we could even go back into an ice age because of it.

      That is, of course, not really how it’s going to go. Massive ecological collapse and possible human extinction would occur due to the initial warming, first off, even before you get to the arguments about… Everything else at the crux of that.

      For a long time, one of the talking points of climate change denial wasn’t that it wasn’t happening but that it was normal for us to go through heating and cooling cycles, so just deal with it and wait it out, we survived the last ice age so we can survive this heat wave, right? But again, that’s mostly bullshit.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, the global warming is a self-solving problem. The nature will just make itself uninhabitable for humans.

        Congratulations to the small, niche organisms, waiting to fill the gap left by the mammals!

        • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bad news to a lot of those organisms though, the Extinction Level Event doesn’t stop at humans. I’m not sure what’s resilient enough to survive. Cockroaches maybe? Rats?

          • octoperson@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You ain’t going to do a thing against bacteria. You could scour the entire surface and they’ll just be like ‘Welp, time to hang out underground for a couple of thousand years’

      • paddytokey@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think snow and ice would be better at reflecting but we seem to get rid of those ice caps… But when the ice melts, it cools down the ocean so of course, problem solved!

      • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hm? The homeopathic approach to climate change would be to dissolve a tree in 100,000m³ of alcohol, pour that into the ocean and wait for results.

        • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Homeopathic processes aim at curing by introducing a very low concentration of the disease, so effectively curing x by adding x. I think your example would make sense if it was oil or CO2 instead of a tree.

          • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Burning a tree also sets free a lot of CO2. :) Heating with wood is not sustainable at all, unlike some lobbyist made us beliveve.

            But yeah, oil would have been the more obvious example.

      • InputZero@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am so glad that garbage uses homeopathic rather than holistic these days. You want a doctor that takes a holistic approach, they’re looking at your whole body not just their specialty. Homeopathic =/= holistic.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apart from the voting which is above all else, if you REALLY want to do something on an individual basis, you should reduce your meat or become a vegetarian. It seems that’s what experts claim has the biggest impact. Apart from that, don’t have children, or 2 at most.

        • floofloof@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          When the parties on offer are various flavours of neoliberalism, as in most capitalist countries these days, it doesn’t give you any options that will make a difference quick enough. They simply can’t do what needs to be done within that economic framework.

          That said, vote for the least worst one. But the most significant things have to be done outside of that electoral framework, because it can’t resist the demands of short-term profit.

      • Bipta@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please don’t have children. Think about the life you’re condemning them to.

      • Rose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why vegetarian, not vegan? Cows are a major contributor to the emissions, and people tend to increase their dairy consumption when going vegetarian.

      • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Going vegetarian doesn’t seem to be the most impactful when you look at the numbers, as per this video. Vegan diets still have the lowest GHG footprint and GWP of all diets.

        That being said, I went vegetarian first before going vegan. So your point is entirely valid.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly I wasn’t aware the difference is that big. I thought cows were bad mostly for the meat, but apparently milk is at least as bad. 🤥

          That sucks. ☹️

          • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you want to see what the heck veganism is about compared to vegetarianism, check this resource out.

            But yeah! Leather is also bad for the same reason, contributing to the same industry. There are alternatives out there so don’t feel bad!

            One step at a time, like you’ve mentioned in your other comments.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        reduce your meat or become a vegetarian

        i’m dubious about this. don’t get me wrong: i try to make sure at least half my calories come from soylent. i’m saying i have looked at the methodology, and it doesn’t seem sound. HAVING READ THE RELEVANT STUDIES it’s not clear to me that the researchers are even drawing correct conclusions.

        here’s an example that i think can be extrapolated across many data points: cotton seed. first, cotton is grown for textiles. like, exclusively. like, the only reason to grow cotton is for textiles. BUT you can increase the profits from your cotton harvest if you sell the seed to cattle operations. so cattle are fed cottonseed. then the water and land-use costs of cotton get rolled into the costs of raising cattle. but that’s nonsensical. cottonseed is purely waste product, and giving it to cattle CONSERVES resources.

        soybeans are another thing altogether, and the complexity of the whole agricultural system implies, to me at least, that maybe it’s not so simple as “reduce your meat intake”.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I must admit it’'s not super intuitive to me either, but it seems the consensus is pretty strong among experts, and I haven’t taken the time to really delve in deep on the issue.

          But apparently a significant part of the problem is that cows make a lot of methane, that is a very bad greenhouse gas, and when it breaks down it’s to CO2 which is still a greenhouse gas. So kind of a bad double dip as I understand it.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You seem like more of a mauve hajji, if I’m being honest. You’re definitely a fall.

          See if that rpg comes in teal and ooh girl

          chefs kiss

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depends on your definition of peaceful. Industrial sabotage that specifically targets unmanned equipment would still be peaceful by my definition, for example.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This, it’s the only thing that really counts, we all need to pull together, the only way to do that, is to vote in politicians that actually give a shit.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh boy not the false equivalence again. If you don’t give a shit yourself then don’t vote.

            It makes a difference who gets the power, and your main influence is your power to vote.

            • Slowy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I always do vote for the party with most proactive views on climate change.

              I just feel really jaded that they are going to make much of a difference, short term capitalistic gains seem more important to all

              Edit - I’m also beginning to feel that voting isn’t my most powerful move. Disruptive protests are looking better and better.

              • Redscare867@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Voting is the absolute smallest political action anyone could ever take. Protest always has been and always will be more effective at moving the needle. Above all else these ghouls want to preserve capitalism. If it looks like the only way they preserve capitalism in the near term is capitulating to the demands of environmentalists then that is what will happen. Of course in the long term capitalists will attempt to erode these gains just like they have done with social safety nets in various countries for largely the same reasons (increased rate of profit).

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It may not be the most powerful for all, but for most it is.

                Just don’t go along with something like Just Stop Oil, that’s not constructive or helpful in any way, and it’s off-putting for the vast majority tiring people of the issue, rather than waking their interest.

          • vrojak@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, some that really give a shit might not be a part of a major party in whatever country you live in, but even among established parties there are people who are more inclined to do something about the climate catastrophe than others.

    • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, I’m pretty sure the deficit we could create on an individual basis will just be used by companies instead, so I’m just gonna agree with the others on voting being the most effective method of making a difference.

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      As others have said, voting is important. But also I’d guess that direct action will play a large role in the next few decades.

    • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Some changes people (in the US or elsewhere) might want to check into:

      • See if your local electric utility has Green Power programs where you can elect to have your power come from renewables (via credits) for 2-5% of your bill/month extra
      • If you own a home, consider making switches to more electrified stuff like: induction cookstoves v. natural gas, heat pumps v. AC units, power tools that have batteries and/or cables v. gasoline or diesel, adding solar panels to your roof or property (only costs ~$20k these days), etc.
      • Start moving your pensions or stocks into greener index funds, or even consider adopting banks and credit unions that publicly disclose which projects and companies they invest your dollar in
      • Consider buying your groceries from local farmer’s markets or farms that have mail-to-your-door programs (aka CSAs or Community Supported Agriculture programs); this is a good resource to learn more about the farms near you
      • Switch to non-red meat diets, and then after that switch to a vegetarian diet, and then after that switch to a vegan diet (all while consulting health professionals); this is a good resource on vegan diets if anyone is curious
      • Consider choosing a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV; 100% electric) or a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV; 50/50 electric/gas) as your new car; this resource can steer you in the right direction
      • Vote in primary elections where candidates prioritize climate action, then vote for them again in general elections when the time comes; this is a good resource to stay up on current civic events
      • Buy clothing/shoes used, or if you need to buy new, look for the GOTS and OEKO-TEX labels to make sure what you’re buying is organic, is ethical, and doesn’t pollute local environments of where your clothes/shoes are made
    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t procreate. Or if you do just yeet the baby into a furnace to skip a few steps, same outcome really.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    We did it! 🎉🎊

    Just goes to show what we can accomplish when, as a species, we put our minds to a goal.

    2.5c here we come!