40C is not 118F
It’s 48°C, not 40. The title is incorrect.
If you could read you would have noticed it says fluently 40C 104F and could reach 48C 118F. Two separate groups of numbers.
If you could read you would have noticed the title says “temperature tops 40C 118f”.
If you weren’t an asshole, you’d have seen someone mentioned that the title was incorrect. It’s since been fixed.
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.
It’s a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures… but not every day for multiple weeks.
Oh. 40C average is something hellish.
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
Holy fuck
The EU needs to wake up and go hard on companies and industries. No mercy, no half-assing, just legislate the absolute shit out of them for once so that maybe our children can survive and live in not so terrible conditions, because not so terrible is the best we can hope for at this point.
The rest of the world too obviously, but the EU seems the most likely to do so.
I been following Tony Seba for years.
He puts good videos out on YouTube.
People naturally are unable to understand exponentials but he goes through the maths and shows that the world is going to change fast.
I have more faith in mathematics and economics than I do in massive societal change.
So the EU goes hard on those companies and then what? the just transfer to another countrie that doesn’t. Result would be the same polution but throught customs and transportation prices in the EU would rise. Maybe the consumption behavior will change through that what could be beneficial but the overall situation with current inflation and such would get much worse. I’m not sure if this is the best way to engage this problem.
That’s what we are trying to do. But the fossil fuel lobby is still very strong and parties on the right are weaponizing every legal decision to polarise the people. Take the new (still in progress) german heating law for example; It wants to replace the installation of older oil/gas heaters with efficient heating pumps/district heating/hybrid (among other things, but that is the most important thing).
Populist media and right wing parties used this to stir up the people. (“the goverment is outlawing your heater, you need to replace it now or loose your home…” etc.) Simple stuff like that; but it’s working - the right is on the rise. And they are, of course, completely against man made climate change.
Most of the air pollution happens in the developing countries. The EU would have to go imperial to force industries in such parts of the world under similar regulations.
Innovation and investment is the way to go.
In a lot of countries the electrical supply is unreliable, going down regularly
Innovate to create full-scale renewable grids (best if they can run decentralised when necessary) and invest in implementing these solutions world-wide
Use incentives, like trade agreements for countries, regions, or companies that implement the green tech to make it worthwhile
You want the EU to go hard because you’ve given up on the rest of the world?
I mean I get where you’re coming from but that’s not even remotely resembling a solution.
No, like I said this also applies to everyone else, I just personally don’t think it’s going to happen…
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but as far as U.S.A. is concerned, it’s not a nation anymore it’s a corporation. U.S.A. rewards the worst of the worst and it’s too late for anything to change here.
It’s normal now.
What suprises me the most when watching news on this. You will see people in Rome getting interviewed in the middle of a plaza in the burning sun. And there are many walking outside. I would crawl into a cool cellar and only come out at night.
The people walking around are called Australians.
They live in apartments without AC and also have to go to work.
“… It’s not normal”
It wasn’t normal.
Nowadays it is.
Hurray for new normals!
Who could have predicted this!?!?? Why weren’t we warned?
whatever could we have done to stop this!!!
Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
Please don’t post the same old replies every time they seem fitting. We’ve all read them a thousand times.
The planet will be fine. Humans I’m not sure about…
Humans and most other creatures
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry: “we’re just trying to find the guy who did this!”
I dunno what I could have done, everything I try to have an impact on is always a pittance compared to the size of the problem, but I know what I can do going forward.
I’m quitting. I’m having zero children. Good luck, have fun the rest of you.
I honestly get dizzy by just looking at those numbers…😵💫
We had 40C here in London this time last year. It was not pleasant. It didn’t even rain.
We’ve been 37 or 38 in my area of Tokyo off and on the past couple of weeks. It will only get warmer. The bad part is that it’s still rainy season so we also get stupid humidity to go with it. It’s 27 in my office, but we have at least one of our aircon units running nearly 24/7 on the “dry” setting to attempt to pull some of the heat and humidity out.
Honestly I will never forgive people who STILL continue to deny climate change is happening and refuse to legilslate on it.
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 😔
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.
Totally correct. We live now, act now. The future remains not determined, but damn right paths and options are rapidly closing.
Probably something like an inhabitable band will form over continents; the US southwest and south gulf, for instance.
All humans won’t die. That’s silly. But very many can, and the rest, degraded.
The US will be lucky if much survives, as will Europe; once the Gulf Stream breaks down both regions will freeze
The response I’ve heard to this, which I tend to agree with, is that even if it’s not completely stopped, maybe some action will mean it won’t be as bad. 120F is bad, maybe instead of throwing up our hands and letting it get to 140F, we can head it off at 130F. Still not good, but better than the alternative. And for each bit we avoid, we get a lot of additional livable area. If we start seeing migrations of people, that extra land is going matter a lot.
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 means less for everyone. No one praying to the alter of capitalism should want mass death. Fewer consumers means fewer sales, which means lower profits and an economy that contracts…. So their resources go down.
I don’t think you completely got the gist of my comment.
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.
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.
500 years later, Europe finds out their Industrial Revolution has consequences, for everyone. Yay!
200 years later. 500 years ago Europeans were discovering islands and continents.
“Discovering”… this land is your land, this land is my land 🎵
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 :)
Together we can fight at least 1% of the carbon emissions from top 100 corporations in the world :)
I wish our choices had a 1% impact… That seems extremely generous.
For example…
Go look at your local Walmart and it’s bazillion products. They expect to sell almost everything in that store multiple times within a month. All that generates enormous waste on a scale that’s literally impossible for the earth to sustain for another 100 years without total ecological collapse.
We’re living in the single most polluting decade in human history, every decade, since all of us were born. Even if the entire Lemmy user base become subsistence farming monks, the factories would just keep churning out poison unphased.
I’m not saying it’s bad for people to try and consume more responsibly. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a difference over any meaningful time period until there’s a radical change in how our global economy functions.
Environmental catastrophe will continue until we literally cannot ignore it, only then will we do anything substantial about it. Unfortunately that’s just how our society works.
I don’t agree with you. Many individuals changing their behavior is what it takes for an economic shift in our society. By thinking that we don’t have an impact we loose motivation to change our behavior. So if you say you are annoyed by big supermarkets filling our planet with waste that’s fine, I agree. But this needs to lead to a change in behavior, first of yourself, then for those who notice you haven’t died from eating mostly vegan products and buying from local farmers markets and then hopefully for most people in our society.
Companies produce as long as people consume their products. If commnsumers switch to sustainable products (quite different from products advertised as sustainable) companies will have to follow
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.
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.
However, society obeyed to those rules.
We did but we’re paying for it now with the rise of “-isms” whose values are built on stifling change. 2-3 years of rapid change might have helped redefine an era of politics for the contrary. TBD I guess.
At least here in Australia parents were using the kids at the playground to socialise (standing right up in each other’s space, holding empty coffee cups to justify no mask), and so there were multiple vectors of infection. That and multigenerational households are more common in some parts of the world, so if the kid brings it home, whole family gets sick, hospital system overloads.
It wasn’t specifically kids suffer so oldies don’t die, but the continuation is that if the oldies are healthy, if anyone needs the hospital, there’ll be staff to look after them.
TL;DR people are taking the piss and making the jobs of HCWs harder… Not like that’s anything new 🙄
yeah it was obviously the same on any playground so the above comment saying it was “to safe elderly” is just very short sighted. Additionaly implying that this was the case in whole of Germany is again wrong. Each federal state had it’s own health regulations in place but yeah some of those were kind of mediated by the ministry of health. Anyway it was a lot more complex than what this comment suggests
Sure it was more complex. Not going to write a Phd here.
My point is, the society accepts rules even tough rules if it’s for everyone. If it’s fair. So, at Covid times younger people, who are less likely to get serious sickness were accepting being „caged“ for two years (exaggerating a bit. If you are 5 years old. 2 years is half of your life!)
I strongly miss this generational fairness when it comes to climate change. Not seeing any step back in terms of carbon consumption/ consumption at all from the older people.
Don’t know about your country. The bigger goal in Europe was to keep hospitals working. Goal was not to Triage people cos hospitals were crowed. That happened in the beginning in Northern Italy. At Triage you look at who has biggest chances of survival, who is worth to invest your effort. Guess if it’s the elderly or the younger.
Just to make it clear. It’s fine for me how it worked out in Germany. China is the blue print how it worked bad. But want to make my argument that all that rules were on the shoulders of the younger generation to safe the elderly.
Right now in Germany, we have an insane political discussion about carbon reduction. It’s about actions. Being active. So, your heaters need to be replaced from oil and gas to renewables. Yes, it will cost some money. Do you think people are following that goal to safe the younger generations? I‘m pretty pissed about my and the older generation. And concerned about the reality for my kids.
and guess who lobbies a ridiculous amount to either keep the rules the same or bias it further towards their interests
yep, corporations once again
Indeed. Go out at the street and show you want change. Politics fear many people on streets fighting for their rights. Look at France, Israel. When was last time you fight for your rights?
I think as someone who did “the things”, and that’s how I live now, it’s hard to look around and see basically no perceptible difference. The incentive is slim for the individual. The bulk of the population is never going to make those changes.
That’s why change needs to come from the corporate level through regulation.
People generally just want food, shelter, health, and comfort. And most people in the world are struggling to maintain food and shelter.
Their evironmental footprint doesn’t even register as an afterthought.
That’s what I was going to suggest but then I always feel this is a complicated problem and it’s not just one thing. It’s a lot of efforts on in different areas, but regulation is certainly one. It shouldn’t be that hard to do considering it’s one of the main responsibilities of government.
Have you seen how much CEOs get paid?
Corporations can switch to greener alternatives AND pay workers a living wage AND make a profit, without having the consumers pay the price.
All it takes is the willingness of politicians to force them to. Corporations raise prices because they’re allowed to, and they’ll take any excuse they can get to get more money out of people.
Gas prices have skyrocketed. First it was covid’s fault. Then it was the war in Ukraine. All the while gas corporations have been seeing record-breaking profits. It’s all just greed.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.
They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.
And there are portions of people in our society that will pay for those minimal prices either because they can’t afford anything else, or strictly because it’s convenient for them to spend that little so that they have more money left over to do more stuff in their life elsewhere.
But there are also people that are willing to sacrifice and make changes to their lifestyles and spending practices to accommodate the impacts of their actions.
The same is true with corporations. Some large corpos in the world are actively trying to move towards sustainable, circular economies. I’m doing a lot of research right now into the textile industry, and two of the biggest corporations in that space that I’ve seen are doing decent work on the two fronts I previously mentioned are Lenzing (TENCEL™) and Aquafil (ECONYL®).
Lenzing uses wood of various species from places in Europe, all managed well and FSC/PEFC controlled, to draw out fibers and filaments that are just as fine and useful as polyester fibers/filaments, yet with the added bonus of biodegradability. They also recycle cotton clothing from collection centers in Spain and some larger textile service companies in southern Europe and mix that in with their wood-based feedstock to produce the same rayon fibers.
Aquafil runs on a similar model to Lenzing, except they base theirs on nylon instead of rayon. Aquafil collects ghost nets from around Europe and South America, along with other corporations’ scrap nylon (pre-consumer waste) and post-consumer waste from a number of brands (e.g. sunglasses, jackets, etc.) to regenerate nylon back into the same quality as you would find in virgin materials. Now, I don’t think that plastic is sufficient anymore thanks to the non-degradable waste associated with it, but it’s better than nothing.
Are there flaws with those 2 companies: of course. Their chemical processes might not be 100% closed loop and their claims might be overexaggerated in ways, but it’s better than nothing.
Anyways, what this examples shows is that there are corporations and even people on the ground that are willing to make more sustainable choices because they legitimately see the benefit of doing so compared to convention. Someone else might describe this as a form of an adoption life cycle, where you have those more willing to change and those less willing to change as practices and habits shift over time.
Could government help with that? I believe so. I think that’s just one lever of change though. If you’ve been following solar PV growth over the last decade and a half, then you know about the “contagion” phenomenon: some early adopters pick up solar, only for considerers and even late adopters to do the same as word of mouth and other social drivers influence decision making at a people level.
Could the same happen with other sustainable choices in the economy? I fall more into the early adopter camp, so I would say yes. I think corporations spend a lot of time and marketing convincing their customers that said corporations are the best and only options and that no other alternative exists out there: when there absolutely is or might be. Perhaps all it takes is demonstrating to people, doing, not talking, walking the walk, to change their minds. I think the same tactics could be used, in addition to government intervention.
Bottom-up + top-down is the strategy I’ve heard described by many proponents of sustainability, most notably Al Gore, and I’m all for it too. Luckily humans, at least in some countries around the world, live in free societies and can divide and conquer to work on both of these fronts to affect change.
They produce like double of what we need, it’s not only what we need and buy, capitalism is extremely inefficient in the usage of resources, which brought us into this mess.
Yeah. Anything that isn’t consumed is destroyed. Case in point, dumpster diving at grocery stores is illegal. Fast fashion companies destroy clothes that don’t sell.
The entire system is fucked.
You get that nuance out of here, young man/woman! We won’t have that kind of thing round these parts!
Can we please leave these canned responses on reddit
Can we leave simplistic, reductionist arguments on reddit?
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.
this is a problem that we’ve all created
You mean this is a problem that the boomers and gen x created. THEY are the generations that controlled the corporations whose only concern was profit. THEY are the generations that pushed consumerism with no regard to the natural world. THEY are the generations that elected the politicians that allowed this all to happen. So here come the millennials and zoomers to clean up their mess, just like everything else they fucked up for the rest of us.
Looking at the voting results for younger generations, this isn’t even close to this simple. Yes, there is a slight shift towards more environmental policies/parties, but it is far from a majority even in the youngest age bracket that is allowed to vote (looking at voting results from the last general election in Germany).
although it’s very common for the earlier generation to blame the later generation for the world sucking (or what they percieve as “sucking”), in this case it doesn’t work because not every boomer and gen-x-er is a CEO or past CEO
like they’re wrong to blame the later generations for this, but that’s because it’s not mainly a generational thing
What an awkward speech.
Sure people spending all day on TikTok and playing with cryptocurrencies are actually solving problems created by people who worked in the mines and watched TV.
The truth is, across all generations, everyone is doing anything to live the most confortable life possible according to their convictions, and YouTubers today are not better promoting their shitty gamer drinks or VPN services than a 1980s vendor trying to sell as much diesel engines as possible. It’s even more true when it comes to corporate, or you’ll have to tell me what’s is Zuckerberg doing for the planet that Bill Gates is not.
At any given time there were people willing to change the world, trying to make it more fair. We’re just never enough. And being a millennial I can assure you it’s not changing anytime soon, even tho things are getting shittier and shittier.
Playing with cryptocurrency (monopoly money/disney dollars) is an incredibly energy intense process. Extremely wasteful and damaging just to play with some made up money.
Yeah, don’t put the blame on us. In all my 29 years of life climate change has always been a big topic no one has done anything about.
We’re living in this ridiculous gerontocracy where old lizards bought by corporations are making decisions to benefit said corporations for the next couple of months, all the while the coming generations suffer.
At this point it’s too late. It’s time to owe up, apologise for being so greedy that you used up the world, leaving nothing for coming generations.
If you’re 29 that means you’re borderline millennial/gen z. Definitely not blaming you here. You are correct, this has been an issue for our entire lives and the generations before us have done exactly nothing to curtail the destruction of our planet
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.
I didn’t get past you contradicting yourself in the first three sentences. Sorry.
Yes! If we’re expecting corporations to grow a conscience and “Do the right thingTM” then we’re doomed.
Though I do think the corporations are somewhat responsible for the narrative that everyone is powerless except for them. People pushing the “but the corporations!” while being unwilling to make any changes themselves are actually just carrying water for them. Promoting malaise and doomerism is just letting them have their way.
At any rate trying to appeal to the corporations to do the right thing is a complete waste of time. We need to make more effort ourselves. Which means making an effort to reduce our own carbon emissions as individuals. While also participating in the political process to create regulations that force the corporations to do the right thing. Because they sure as hell won’t do it on their own no matter how much people whine about it on the internet.
Is there a bracelet I can wear to show my solidarity with the people dying of heat stroke, or perhaps an instagram filter.
Also if you only eat meat in the weekends then the rich peoples private jets will suddenly have no environmental impact
These two things have no relation. One is about climate change, the other one about (micro)plastics in the environment and our food chain.
I mean, they both show a callous disregard for the fragility of life on this planet, and a keen disinterest in anything but short term convenience and comfort? Oh and profit, can’t forget about MONEY
Apparently there are still loads of people who don’t understand this simple fact and think everything that is done to make the world a better place is for climate change.
we have the 80% solution and it’s nuclear power, but whatever y’all keep wailing and gnashing teeth and denying the obvious. I’m just gonna keep on living I guess and hope my house survives the shitty weather.
We have what, 10 years to try stop the planet to get over 1,5ºC? 20 over 2ºC?, that’s pretty much the time it takes to build a new nuclear power plant from 0.
We are too late.
We had that 10 years ago, now it’s too late to prevent a cascade of collapsing systems. It’s already beginning with insect deaths
“No need to change, NUCULAR will save us.”
deleted by creator
What has that to do with anything? Reducing single use plastics is environmental protection which is not the same as fighting climate change. No one who fights against plastics does so for climate change. Stop spreading such nonsense. Not even your linked article claims something like that.
Why would that be orthogonal? Most plastics are created using crude oil and natural gas feedstocks - the creation of these single use plastics directly impacts climate change.
Energv wise plastics are often super cheap to produce especially compared to their reusable and non plastic alternatives. IIRC the CO2 footprint is drastically lower for items like bags and straws made of plastic.
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.
I feel the need to remind people that the concept of the ecological footprint was invented by BP to direct the focus of climate fears away from large corporations and onto individuals.
WE as humans are the problem.
you can count the owners of the entities that produce the most greenhouse gases within 3 digits; it’s not “everybody”
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.
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
the messaging has been consistently toned down in the hopes people would listen.
My guess is its even more than this: deadlines were extended to not let people fall into inaction. The tipping point always close enough so that its dangerous, but still far away enough so that there is still hope. It is a ploy analogous to the fascist “the enemy is strong enough to be dangerous and weak enough to be thoroughly defeated.”
This scene is far more realistic, I think. But as you can tell, it doesn’t play very well with either the audience or the media.
Imagine being that guy, telling people the same thing scientists have been saying for 100+ years and watching all of them put their hands over their mouths like it’s an earth shattering discovery. If only someone had told them repeatedly over the course of multiple generations!
“Who cares?” I feel ya bud.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=6CXRaTnKDXA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
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.
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.
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.
If I recall they said in that report that we’ve managed to avoid +4C with our efforts so far, which prevents extinction. But, we’ve also learned that even modest increases are way more severe than we first thought.
It’s a hell of a mixed bag :/
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.
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.
deleted by creator
I’m no climate scientist, but from the research I’ve done, there are phases like this to Earth’s natural climate cycle… Earth has gone through very warm eras, and very cold eras, aka ice ages.
If you look back at our modern history closely enough, climate science in the early years of the industrial age showed that we were headed towards a new ice age with lower than normal global mean temperatures… Clearly that didn’t come to pass.
There’s also an unprecedented amount of mammal biomass on the planet (Hank Green did a yt short talking about this recently); and I think it goes without saying that, there’s an astronomical amount more pollution than before.
Examining the evidence, the climate is changing more rapidly and more extremely than before and the causes for this are obvious to anyone paying attention… Simply, more people & mammal biomass, more industry, with next to no environmental protections that actually make an impact, with massive deforestation and destruction of sea life, where a significant amount of oxygen producing and CO2 filtering is happening.
So what I’m saying is, yes, there are “warming phases” to Earth’s natural ecosystem, however this rapid and drastic of a change is uncharacteristic of the natural changes or planet naturally goes through. At the very least, people should recognize that the amount of pollution and destruction of the natural ecosystem is damaging our planet’s ability to sustain life… Like human life. So whether the environmental protections are because of climate change or simply a self serving goal of trying to keep our planet habitable by humans, long-term, honestly, everyone should support environmental protections.
”Don’t be daft. We’re in a warming phase.”
Yeah, here’s what you tell them. Temperatures were at baseline when the industrial revolution began. That’s just a handful of generations. We’ve now seen an increase of, what 2 degrees C since then? I don’t know the exact number. The point is, this sort of increase is not present anywhere else in the geological record. It takes thousands of years for average global temperatures to naturally increase to a point like this one. There are literally no hard spikes–until the industrial revolution began. The only credible takeaway is that humans are the problem.
You’re right of course, but logical arguments aren’t the way with these people. It’s emotional at this point, and that is where you have to meet them.
Exactly
Which is why you threaten them with a knife!
You are actually incorrect. Of course there are massive spikes like when a meteor hits or a super volcano erupts. But A that is not relevant. And B records can not show this, they don’t have the chronological resolution to do that. Kind of the same way you can not measure the growth of hair over one day with a ruler, it is not possible. But over dozens of days it is possible. But how could you then tell if the hair grew much at one day and little on others? Your can’t.
The only way to win with these people is to not play
I was having a conversationg with some red necks a few years ago. They were all talking about winter’s not the same here anymore, above freezing half the winter, not as much snow, summer is weird is goes right through October now and we don’t really get an autumn anymore.
“Weather’s not like it used to be,” one of thems said, and I said, “yep the climate is changing.” They stared at me with their mouths open.
These retards are literally watching it happen with their own eyes and they still won’t believe it. It’s insane.
While it may be arrogant to insist it’s all mankind’s doing, it’s foolish to assume it isn’t.
How is it arrogant to believe what every scientist says the data shows?
My conservative family loves to use the arrogance argument. What I hear is that they don’t want to believe humans can change the climate, because they’re scared of humanity being responsible or accountable for their actions.
deleted by creator
The biggest problem with politics these days is there can’t be ANY overlap between the parties. They can’t agree on ANYTHING. If a democrat says “I like breathing oxygen,” a republican will say he prefers breathing something else. There’s so much that people in both parties agree on in principle, but they can never say it. I think the left is more willing to agree with the right, because the left is more principled, but a republican is simply incapable of telling someone on the left “you’re right and I agree with you.” They instead have to be contrarian about everything. Whatever the left says, never agree with it, and make a statement of complete opposition, no matter what. When the left starts supporting a war against Russia, the right starts supporting Russia. It’s sickening.
My housemate is like that, came up with some nonsense about how he saw a video the other day about how there was climate change happen when the Vikings were around or something so it’s not as clear cut as people think. And today, with it barely breaking 20 degrees in July, said half jokingly that we need more carbon. The shit summer here this year is fuel for his fire. Complete moron.
Don’t even waste your breath convincing idiots like that. They are too uninformed on too many topics to be worth investing the effort in. You’ve got a good shot at convincing people who are on the fence but culture warriors who rely on Steven Crowder for their talking points aren’t going to be convinced by anyone or anything.
Yeah I’ve given up on him to be honest. Kind of sad, we grew up together and he used to be quite alternative but has been sliding into someone I don’t recognise. I can’t comprehend it and most of the time I just let him expose what an idiot he’s become. Just the other day he said “Trump wasn’t that bad, he was the best of a bad bunch”. I could hardly believe it… absolutely staggering. But yeah, like you said, it’s a lost cause and he will only get worse and lost in his toxic Facebook groups.
