Post source: https://mas.to/@advisorybriefs/110769955083302457
Data source: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Just waiting for that sea level rise to kick in. There’s plenty of anchorages that are still too shallow for my boat.
Don’t worry, the ice is melting too!
Time to get out the guillotines. Socialism or extinction.
In what way would socialism prevent extinction, environmental degradation, or global warming? It might even make things worse, as capitalists only exploit the earth and its people to make profit. Marxism has a goal to expand industrialization to relieve humanity of harsh labor and to provide products for all people. The love affair with development is as much a capitalist value as it is a Marxist infatuation.
I don’t agree with everything in it but you might want to read Aaron Bastani’s Fully Automated Luxury Communism. You’ll find that Marxists aren’t infatuated with growth for growth’s sake, nor with growth at the expense of the environment.
The industrialization needed to carry out the Marxist project has already occurred. Capitalism is a religion of infinite growth on a finite planet just for growth’s sake.
Still, about half of the population of earth is in desperate need of basic necessities
You’re not wrong my friend, but it is because of hoarding by the capitalist class, as well as their willingness to destroy things rather than see the poor have them, as it would lower their perceived “value”. See: grocery stores and fast food joints throwing perfectly good food in the dumpster vs. giving it away, luxury brands like LV and others destroying handbags and what not to keep them artificially scarce, etc. We can make it happen with the industry and tech we have today.
Hopefully I’m not mistaken, but I’m going to assume you are asking in good faith.
Capitalism is an ideology of infinite growth. Capital is only invested for growth, that’s the whole point…so corporations have to consume more, produce more, sell more, or capitalists will take away their capital investments. Think of it this way, you’re a capitalist (by which, I don’t mean someone who believes in the idea of capitalism…I mean someone who makes the bulk of their wealth with capital investments instead of labor) with millions invested in an oil company – that oil company realizes that we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels for the sake of the planet – so they announce a plan to limit production (and therefore profits).
Your capital is how you make your money, so if they announce a very finite upside (with a real possibility that in a decade or two, their whole business will dry up), you will quickly take your millions and move them somewhere else. And you won’t be alone – think of the bank run that Silicon Valley Bank had once everyone suspected the bank would have solvency problems. And before you know it, that whole company has lost trillions and fails almost immediately.
Now repeat this while coal, commercial beef farms, and down the line of the worst industries for the climate.
The corporations that are the main source of climate change causing emissions also know that if any one of them chooses to do the right thing for the planet, other, less ethical corporations will see blood in the water, and take over their portion of the market; and nothing will change for the environment, all that CEO will have done is put thousands of their own workers out of business.
Socialism, by contrast, is not an ideology of infinite growth. At it’s core, it’s an ideology of collectivism – we all need to take care of everyone else – this includes making sure everyone has a habitable planet to live on. The government can make sure all companies play by the rules, for the benefit of all humankind, not just do as they do now…ask nicely for the corporations to be nice, and then shrug their shoulders when nothing changes.
Well put. I think David Harvey explains this kind of thing in more depth in Rebel Cities. I’ll explain his work not as a correction, as I agree with you, but to add to what you said as a different summary might help you people who haven’t heard this before.
There’s a chapter on the ‘surplus capital absorption problem’. The successful capitalist ends every day with more money than they began with. What do they do with the extra, the surplus?
They can spend some, sure. But there are only so many things to buy. And if they don’t invest, inflation will make them poorer and their competition will become more competitive, stealing their resources, labour, and customers. Part of the surplus, then, must be invested.
But what in? Everything is already owned by someone. So that leaves new industries, and the destruction of other things that already exist.
New industries implies that it’s possible to keep building and building forever, leading always to use more and more scarce and harmful resources.
And destroying things only to re-build them isn’t always very nice for the people who live in and use those things. Destructive wars, and consumer goods that break every three years and can’t be replaced, are terrible for the environment.
But all this is the essence of capitalism. A system where commodities are produced for their exchange value, not their use value. This the ‘commodity form’. It’s the exchange of commodities for money that creates the opportunity to profit. It’s this profit that allows the successful capitalist to end every day with more money than which they began. The problem of climate change cannot be solved within this capitalist logic.
The essence of Marxism, one might say, is the critique of the ‘commodity form’ and everything that flows from it. (This is what Marx works out in Capital, Volume I.)
The essence of socialism is the attempt to dissolve the commodity form, to produce things for their use value, not their exchange value. When society makes things on the basis of need and use, several things can happen: no more war; we can make consumer items that last and that can be repaired; we can build habitable, green homes for people to live in, not for property developers to speculate; etc, etc.
The essence of communism is the society that comes after socialists have fully taken us beyond the commodity.
Hence the argument: socialism or extinction.
You’re confusing the means with the goals. Marxism is about making the economy work for people (rather than the other way around). Industrialization was the obvious means to that end in Marx’s time, but any sane person trying to run an economy today would prioritize making sure people have a planet to live on over just making more stuff for them to consume.
Capitalism is fundamentally different because it’s highest goal isn’t to make people’s lives better—it’s to increase privately held wealth. Capitalism can’t pivot to prioritizing survival over private wealth, because if it did, it would no longer be capitalism.
Why are you defining socialism only as full Marxism?
Please read the book Socialist Reconstruction that was put out by the Party for Socialism and Labor. The sentence that you have starting with “Marxism” is not factual and completely debunked by not only the chapter on farming, but any of the chapters that touch on climate change at all.
Your heart is in the right place, but telling someone to read a book they already know they’re going to disagree with has got to be one of the least effective ways of persuading anyone. People read books about things they already think are worthwhile, not to convince themselves they’re wrong and some stranger on the internet is right.
I know I just don’t have the mental energy to argue with a chud right now
Porque no los dos?
Nah all the people with guns in America won’t allow that to happen in the USA. Every member of the US Military is also sworn to uphold the US Constitution and defend it against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
Maybe you could end up with a handful of socialist states trying to make their own idea of a socialist system work, but if the conservative-dominated states who produce most of the food won’t trade with you then you’d be stuck importing food.
The reality is there’s nothing any of us can really do about it. It’s up to the mega-polluters like industrial plants and international shipping companies to make changes where it counts.
I have no idea how many US service members there are in the US but it’s a non issue for two reasons. One, the US population far outnumbers them and two, I bet when the fighting starts there would be a lot of desertions because it would mean killing their friends, family and fellow countrymen.
Pessimistic defeatist attitude won’t get us anywhere.
Edit: oh and before I became a socialist my friend who is in the military (and has been for a while) reminded me how effective guerrilla warfare is. See: Vietnam and Korea.
You goobers are vastly underestimating the support for socialism in the USA if you really think that’s any kind of realistic possibility. It’s a sad delusion and you’re wasting your energy.
I’m not pessimistic about it, I’m glad. I don’t want socialism anywhere around me. I would shoot any of you who try to do anything like you’re describing about taking over the US government, because I too swore the oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Liberty will be defended, and you will fail. Fuck communists and socialists, you are barely better than Nazis.
The military is communist FYI.
The US Constitution is the highest law of the land in the USA, and it doesn’t give a shit what you think.
Some variation of that idea was used in at least two Supreme Court opinions and by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. But sure, feel free to speak on behalf of the Constitution itself, O mighty legal scholar.
Personally, though, I don’t need a legal justification for breaking the law when it impairs my survival, because I’m unwilling to sacrifice my survival or my conscience for the sake of obeying dead men. People who don’t recognize that laws can be wrong are, frankly, horrifying, because they have a tendency feel justified in doing horrible things.
That’s exactly us that could push and work to make those changes happen, you have more power than you realize. And that’s probably OUR responsability to make those changes happen, because we all know fossil-fuels companies won’t decide to stop selling their resources after their saw some of their most proficuos years (just look the datas for 2022, it was the most profitable year for them).
You say red states produce all the food yet red states only survive off of subsidies from blue states 🤔
Actually, California produces a ton of the US’s fruits and vegetables (like, 90%+ of a lot of fruits). Just not cereal grains. I bet the costs could probably grow their own food if it came to that. Were there no trade between the states, the middle of the country would have plenty calorie-wise, but not the most varied of diets.
I always thought it it was frightening enough to realize, if you were born in the 80’s, every year of your life had been the hottest year on record. Will stacking hottest days consecutively hit harder? I get the sense that it won’t hit all that hard until the capitalists can no longer keep off-loading the cost of climate change on the public. The outcry at that stage should be something to behold. I’m really sorry to the younger people watching us all give up, but every year of our lives has been the hottest in history and nobody has done anything about it no matter how willing we’ve been to do our part.
Where I’m from, we were massively talking about it in the 80s when I was a kid. It promply stopped by the end of the 90s. Then all of sudden, we don’t hear much about it.
It’s so fucked up to be told all your life that your are insane to believe in climate change, and then about 40 years later, most people talk about it as if it was a given.
We should not be anxious about climate change, we should be furious.
Nobody stopped talking about it.
Its that the channels that we watch news on have now been fragmented / specialized to the point where we can “watch the news” and only get right wing propaganda.
Same generation here. I really think boomers and their selfish politics are greatly to blame for lost momentum.
Fuck generational politics. There are class, gender, and racial divisions within each generation. We have more in common with working class and oppressed boomers than with ruling class members of our own generation.
Yeah, I remember the topic from school in the 90s, where it said “if we don’t start to do anything about it soon, it will have serious catastrophic consequences in about 30 years”. And now here we are.
I was a kid in the early 2000’s and I remember that page from the science book that we were reading during class, and it was also already alarming us about climate change/global warming. And like you said, here we are…
I remember this also in the 80s. But we were mostly worried about the ozone. Then that got figured out, more or less, and we got stuck with reduce, reuse, recycle.
It was being talked about in newspapers a century ago. The fossil fuels companies have known for a very long time, and have been suppressing it for a very long time, hiring many of the same people involved in suppressing evidence that tobacco causes cancer. We should be torches and pitchforks in the street livid.
Well this is it boys, hug your loved ones, make the most of the time that we have left. Shit feels like what the people at Horizon Zero Dawn felt.
Yes, the planet was destroyed in the name of insatiable capitalist greed.
But for one shining moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders!
(and just to be crystal clear, not you)
in the name of insatiable capitalist greed
The communist and socialist countries aren’t using any less oil either. We can’t fix a problem if we are blaming random things.
The path forward is nuclear and renewables for the next decades while we wait for grid-scale energy storage problems to be solved.
The communist and socialist countries aren’t using any less oil either. We can’t fix a problem if we are blaming random things.
I’ve come to accept that there isn’t hope to stop the runaway train of unchecked capitalist greed, at least not without the hard lesson of collapse and rebuild, and that means there will be apologists like you screaming that the ship (Our habitable world) isn’t sinking as you’re waist deep in ocean(city destroying weather events, crop failures, heat deaths, fresh water crises, etc).
That used to bother me, but I’ve come to appreciate you as the comedy relief you are in this tragedy. So by all means, keep crowing about how competition between humans in matters of life and death are “healthy” and how the capital markets will save us from the capital markets that don’t care about any future that is more than a fiscal quarter out, and will do anything they can get away with against the species for an extra nickel for shareholders.
I’m sure the benevolence of the sliver of the population that came to own almost everything through Extensive, merciless exploitation and
sociopathy“rational self-interest” will swoop in to save you and your loved ones for your devotion.Nobody is willing to tolerate a drop in quality of life for the climate. Third worlders like the Chinese have finally gotten a taste for a little meat with supper and they aren’t going to give it up so easily.
I don’t even think this is inherently capitalist. It’s a human issue. Obviously capitalism messes up incentives - so companies like ExxonMobil will deliberately lie about emissions or what have you and create PR campaigns to influence people into more carbon emissions.
So capitalism definitely makes it worse in that regard - but the ultimate cause of this is 8 trillion humans who want access to smartphones, cars, globalized consumer products, laptops, A/C, etc
The only real way to reduce carbon emissions to a point it won’t inevitably fuck up the planet is not to have humans exist in a large scale industrial society. Go ahead and campaign on that as a politician. It ain’t happening. We’re burning this bitch to the ground.
For what it’s worth, it’ll take a couple of centuries before we really start to feel the effects in full. Sure, a few unusual heatwaves here and there seem serious but it’s nothing like what’s coming.
There are no actual socialist countries, but if you’re referring to, for example, the Scandinavian countries, they use far less oil per capita than the United States.
No, Scandinavian countries just have a healthy government. Countries like China have awful, awful climate impacts, much worse off than most other countries. Though, them and France at least have started a nuclear build-out, which is needed to 100% de-carbonize the grid.
Countries like China have awful, awful climate impacts, much worse off than most other countries.
Except that isn’t true
How is it not true? Per capital they are lower but that doesn’t mean much when you have over a billion people. I think a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful awful climate impacts.
It’s a bit disingenuous to blame a country for having high emissions when it has 10x the number of people
That means it needs 10x the amount of electricity, vehicle fuel etc.
By the same logic, the Vatican City is a world leader in climate policy.
Should we start comparing China with the Americas and Europe combined? Because that’s a more like-for-like comparison
I… don’t think we disagree? China has a corrupt communist government. I was specifically referring to socialist governments, and the ones that are frequently (mis)labelled as socialist are doing a lot better on oil consumption than either China or the United States.
If you’re splitting hairs about communism, socialism, and “mislabelling” (even though socialism is a generic term that encompasses communism…?), why are you describing China’s government as communist? Communism is (ideally, at least) stateless, and like all socialist idologies it is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
You’re right that the Nordic model isn’t socialist, though. It’s a blend of social democracy and corporatism.
China isn’t socialist by any academic definition.
China manages to be the manufacturing hub of the world AND have a lower carbon footprint per capita than the United States. We don’t have time to keep pointing fingers and making excuses, we need to be making changes.
The one thing that makes me feel better is that all those greedy billionaires will also be dead.
The planet will be fine. It’s us that should be worried.
For the love of christ, stop saying that. Every single time someone makes this comment. We. Get. It.
Do we? Because the absolutely astonishing sense of self-importance humans have would indicate otherwise.
Other beings live here, and while humans fuck humans over in the name of greed and power, we bulldoze entire ecosystems without any consideration for the other creatures that lived here whatsoever.
No, you’re wrong. Most humans live, act, and speak as if the entire world, hell the entire universe, should be bent to better serve our naive, entitled species exclusively.
It’s a thought-terminating cliche that serves to downplay the problem because “hurr durr the animals will be okay” (even though they actually won’t since we’re in the middle of the Anthropocene mass extinction, but never mind that) and to act as a derailment tactic.
This is the best explanation I’ve seen for this
Nature will inevitably adjust. This isn’t the first mass extinction and it won’t be the last. I’m more concerned about agriculture and how the changing climate could lead to mass starvation, refugee issues, etc. The animals can inherit the Earth after we blow ourselves up with nukes.
I don’t read it that way, quite the opposite. So, so many people act like this is mostly about protecting the climate or the environment or animals, not about protecting our way of life. The way so many frame it as protecting the earth makes it so easy to make it sound optional.
But the world will be okay, it doesn’t need protecting. It’s the 8 billion humans that RELY on the world AS IT IS NOW that will be fucked. It’s human protection, not ecological protection.
I’ll stop saying it the minute people stop saying we’re destroying the planet.
I’m sure that will make all of the plants and animals feels better…/s.
Only an idiot thinks that when we say *we are destroying the planet " they literally means the planet will explode or something. It’s clear that we mean the only part of the planet that is meaningful for us, the biosphere.
Which we also won’t destroy. Life on earth will adapt, but we’re making it inhospitable for ourselves.
Look genius- we know the planet will be just fine. When ppl say we are destroying the planet we obvious (except to you) are talking about our own survival on the planet.
Again Sherlock, nobody is talking about the frame of view of random animals that may or may not be fine. We are only talking about our frame of reference.
If you actually considered the semantics of “technically some people will still be alive but living in a mad max like apocalypse or jellyfish will be fine” means that our biosphere hasn’t been destroyed for humans you are being ridiculously pedantic.
Well, I guess all the life forms that are going extinct through the Holocene/anthropogene extinction event, which humans caused, don’t matter?
Sure there will be life on earth and it will adapt, but don’t act like we’re not taking down whole families of plants and animals with us… because it’s already happening.
Honestly, I really don’t care about what happens to the planet after all humans are extinct…
But it’s the idiots that CONSTANTLY argue that the world will be fine. The framing of it as protection of animals/the planet/the climate makes it incredibly easy for people to pretend it’s optional, not directly related to them. This isn’t a hypothetical point, EVERY SINGLE climate discussion I’ve ever witnessed some mouthbreather has argued that “the climate will continue to exist, it doesn’t need protecting”.
What needs protecting isn’t the planet, the ecology, the animals or plants, it’s US. It’s ENTIRELY an US problem.
There are a lot of people still waking up to the situation so I think it’s worth saying even if you personally have heard it many times.
I expect it to be worse next year, and even worse the year after that.
What about the year after that?
In Germany it’s colder and wetter than usual while in southern Europe they’re boiling. Crazy weather.
The more that climate change continues we will see more and more extremes of weather. So cold places might get colder and hot places hotter, as well as more extreme/frequent storms. It’s not a super great time for the environment
Yeah, same here in NL, rainy summer so far
Carbon is good for the atmosphere. It’ll open up farmland in Canada and Russia.
When permafrost warms up it turns into a marshy bog, not farmland.
Not funny.
Missinformation
The hottest 21 days so far!
Not true. Fake news. Everyone knows that for the first few hundred million years after Earth first formed the average surface temperature was 80C (176F).
“ever recorded” - there was nobody around to record the formation of the earth.
God did! /s
Unfortunately he isn’t sharing his historical datasets sets with the wider community. :(
Um in case you’ve been under a rock George Santos obviously kept perfect records for the last 4.5 billion years.
Not as hot as ‘we’ were 13.7bn years ago!
Also when the impactor that hit us to form the moon melted the surface of the planet I bet it was pretty toasty.
Exxon is working on it. Give it another decade.
Weren’t there already some 82 C temperatures recorded at ground level already? I seem to recall a post here in the last couple of days saying that people ended up in hospital with burns and such from contact with very hot pavement.
Seriously! I give it pretty good odds this runs for a full month, then we’ll probably get some relief with days that are only near record-breaking 🥵
Why’s this guy so horny about climate change?
Because it’s hotttttt
And then the inevitable day or week or so where it’s unseasonably cold before we barrel into another couple months of record breaking heat. But during those weeks I will be told innumerable times “so much for global warming! This idiots don’t know anything!”
We’re at the top of the curve, we’re going to see record breaking temps till November, and then it’s summer in Australia.
We just had the coolest three weeks for the next 100 years! Awesome!
I’ll always upvote this, until The End comes
Keep it up everyone! We’re going to show Mother Nature who’s really in charge.
All I can picture with these posts is the SpongeBob montage when Mr Krabs decided to go 24/7 and everything looking increasingly disheveled
So how screwed are we? Obviously this isn’t good, but I don’t think it’s going to stop here - and at least in the US it doesn’t seem like the political landscape is going to change any time soon. So is this bad enough for people to start having to do something like move away from the equator? Or are we approaching a legit “move to Mars” scenario?
Move to Mars? I doubt that’s likely. If we can’t unfuck our own mostly functional atmosphere, what makes you think we can fix Mars’s
I mean, to be fair, at this point humanity can claim extensive experience in the area of planet scale terraforming.
We’re doing it as we speak!
That’s resumé energy for sure
We are completely screwed. One reason nobody in positions of power are doing anything is because they know this, and also money. All these green initiatives are simply another handout or money grab until the end. Not that we shouldn’t try or stop inventing new technology, but we must keep our expectations in line with reality as well.
To answer your questions though, yeah, in our final years, humanity will be split between the North and South poles. Areas around the equator will be too hot to sustain human life. I wonder what our communication would look like then, being unable to physically travel between poles.
Anyway, this endgame scenario is probably a bit past our lifetimes now, but not by much. We will get to see the beginning of the end, so to speak, probably around 2030s-2050s climate change will become extreme enough for it to be undeniable to the masses. Expect mass deaths from famine, disease, heat, drought, extreme weather, inability to grow food, etc., the usual, but worldwide.
You can escape it for a while but eventually the entire planet will become hostile to most life as we know it. Maybe some microbes will be able to survive but not much else in the way of more complex lifeforms.
in our final years, humanity will be split between the North and South poles.
It isn’t as simple as that. Some models suggest that the Sahara will green and be human inhabitable. Similarly, many models have habitable islands in Central America, South and Southeast Asia, etc. On the other hand, many polar regions (in particular the Atlantic coast of Europe) may actually become too cold (or too variable) for humans.
Yes, I’m saying after that, literally in our final years, at the bitter end, even if we live long enough to see our sun begin to die and expand, the poles will be the only habital places on earth for a fleeting moment until we’re finally extinguished.
ever recorded
When did the recordings start?
1979… Is the reading from the graph… I would guess that this is what the title refers to
Hottest three weeks in the last 44 years doesn’t sound as dramatic does it
Removed by mod
Even if it were the hottest 3 weeks in the last 44 years, it’s still the top 3 out of 2288 or so.
However, it’s not the hottest 3 weeks (which would be an average of 7 days each). It’s the hottest 21 individual days. Each and every single one of them. The top 21 out of 16060 all happened consecutively, “now”. I don’t get how much more “dramatic” it needs to get before people like you understand what’s going on.
You’re right, this chart is wrong and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Ecosphere collapse amid the 6th mass extinction event in our geologic record is all a sham to sell…something?
Hottest 3 consecutive weeks. Not, oh there were three weeks spread randomly throughout the year that were quite warm. It was starting from the beginning and going on continuously to the end, every single day was hotter than the previous for three weeks continuously.
And it’s worth pointing out that the graph can actually go back a lot further than 44 years. It’s just that we don’t have data yearly for prior to that point. What we have is from ice cores, which are unreliable at targeting periods of less than about a century, but we do know that the climate has been steadily getting hotter over that period as well.
So we have two data sets we can stick together, one taken every hundred years or so, the other taken every year, but if both were shown in the same graph climate change denyers would jump up and down on the discrepancy, despite it not actually being an issue.
There’s geological evidence going back thousands of years.
Roughly 500 years ago, maybe more. Recordings are spotty up to the 19th century. Monestaries often had a daily log of current weather, for example. There are likely recovered observations going back to Greek or Roman civilizations.
Average temperatures can be deduced from scientific observations of ice cores and geological records as well. The arctic and antartic ice cores revealed detailed oxygen, carbon dioxide, and particulate data going back a couple million years.
The last three weeks were constant rain and 17°C 🤷♂️
These are worldwide numbers. Your data is counted in here.
You mean - since 1979?
Who doesn’t know of the Summer of 1931 where everything was so much hotter than today, but they just didn’t have the technolgy back then to keep the records they made?..
1936 had a heatwave that is one of the most severe heat waves in US modern history.
Yes and it was toppled by the heat wave in 2012. And the one in 2018. And the one in 2021.
However the 1936 one was an anomaly affecting primarily the US. Here we are talking about global temperatures, so it is affecting everyone.
Try what exactly?
