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… interestingThe 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.
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.
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.
Still better than patroling the Mojave.
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
Ignore them. They’re so hopelessly black-pilled, they’re not likely to support any significant course of action.
We’re gonna have to kickstart human expansion into space to not only save ourselves from climate collapse but also what’s left of the biosphere. You’re not wrong at all.
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.
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.
If you think leaving earth is going to solve our problems then I have a huge fucking bridge to sell you.
Pretty sure Musk already sold it to him. It leads to Mars and is made of rainbows.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
At least we now get some attention by constantly overhitting the predictions.
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.
Yes but only for a couple of months, averaged over the whole year it’s significantly lower than that. Probably still on track to hit the annual average of 1.5 sometime in the next 10-20 years. Still definitely a dire situation but not entirely out of left field based on the recent estimates.
The recent records have now lifted the year-to-date global temperature to the end of August to 1.35C above pre-industrial levels, just 0.01C behind 2016 — the current record holder
i had my doubts. i was questioning the lack of coverage of this news.
regardless there is still good reason to be concerned.
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.”
So this may be our first example of the threats of NOT enacting terraforming for climate change will have.
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.
Ah so we’re entering the scorched sky time line of the apocalypse.
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.
deleted by creator
Hank Green had a pretty decent video in this.
https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL
We can do the same thing without the horrible pollution that ships produced.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
They’ve been saying that literally since the 60’s?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand they’re still wrong.
deleted by creator
Homer, everywhere’s gonna be a hellhole if you only focus on the pimps and the chuds.
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.
They have the money and/or ignorance to continue hiding from reality
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
What about the ultra rich that have built bunkers and have their security outfitted with locking, exploding collars to keep them in line?
I forget who, but some consultant said that they did a talk with a small group of the ultra wealthy that are doing this.
Edit: This is what I was referring to https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
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”
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
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.
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.
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.
They have the money to potentially avoid repercussions long enough. This is especially true when collapse is relatively gradual
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.
Sometimes, in an intimate relationship, babies.
Every time, choice.
I don’t really like this narrative where we make people feel bad about having a kid. People are allowed to have kids.
“We need to take drastic action to avoid causing our own extinction via climate change and leave a habitable world for future generations!”
People have kids so there will be a future generation
😠
and other people are allowed to react to it
The holier-than-thou attitude on Lemmy is arguably worse than reddit
someone disagreeing with you is not holier-than-thou
Well the guy acts surprised, like nobody has seen this coming for 50+ years and especially the last 20 years. Put some thought into having children before you do. If more people did, we wouldn’t be as deep in the shit as we are today. And people are allowed to criticise other poeple for having kids when they shouldn’t.
Hey, this is a fair sentiment. I took your tone initially as a judgmental one, but after rereading, I think I assumed too much. Thanks for the reply
deleted by creator
Cum in her mouth or ass or tits. Get a vasectomy.
Yeah right, like I’d give away my cum.
Conserve your vital essences
No kids = no future
But, bringing kids into this mess is practically immoral.
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.
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.
The problem is you having kids…
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
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 …
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.
Don’t worry about climate change, the US is hell bent on starting global thermonuclear war very soon. We can go fast and crispy instead of slowly choking.
Uh huh.
Been hearing this since Bush got elected.
It’s just announced plans to get rid of Mutually Assured Destruction and install nukes in Finland. Then they said they don’t care if their latest weapon ATACMS is used to attack civilians in Russia. This has been a red line for a long time, they just pushed it.
We’re closer to nuclear armoggedon now than ever in your lifetime before.
Uh huh.
Removed by mod
Psycho.
Fix my stupid rent problem that’s for sure. Of course it will never happen because I would benefit from it slightly.
Fully agree, Putin is a psycho
Just curious… I’ll bite… War with who?
This is why we have 2A in the US. Maybe we should start thinking about using it.
Every 2a person I’ve ever met who talks this way wants to shoot the wrong people.
It’s almost like maybe we shouldn’t rely on the lowest common denominator to resolve complex nuanced issues, huh?
You’ve never talked to a single socialist, anarchist, leftist, etc. about civilian firearm ownership before? It’s very commonly thought of as a necessary evil to prevent systemic oppression. Maybe don’t spend so much of your time talking to trumpers and neoconservatives?
To wit: there is no “right people” to want to shoot, and anyone who thinks there is probably has their own tribalism issue to work out. Community defense specifically does not have a target right up until the point someone else is an aggressor, and ends when violence is no longer needed. This is why you never saw “antifa burns down trump supporter’s house” or whatever in the news.
Oh yeah sorry I forgot to mention I’m in an area where redneck right wing stupidity abounds.
Yea fortunately im not a redneck. I totally understand how that line if thinking can make people uneasy. I think 2A is more useful in an “arm the workers” type of way
No, it’s not. It also solves nothing.
You sound unhinged.
Yeah man, that Thomas Jefferson guy was a real unhinged fuckwad.
that Thomas Jefferson guy was a real unhinged fuckwad
uhh, yeah? he fucked people he didn’t consider human, he’s at least unhinged as a dogfucker
Yeah, violence is the answer… 🤡
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.
Mosquitos are like “that species was delicious. I wonder what the next one will taste like”
we probably taste like shit… they sit around the campfire and remember the good old days of fresh, free range Dino blood as far as the proboscis could poke… not this Walmart meat they get now…
I dunno, they seem fucking determined to get as much of my blood as possible, little fuckers.
Are you a free range dinosaur perhaps?
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.
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.
You’ll start with millions of climate refugees
Millions? If only.
I’ve seen estimates which say at least a billion by 2050:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/climate-refugees-the-world-s-forgotten-victims/)
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.
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.
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.)
Food and water wars.
I wonder if primates are incapable of building a global economic system that doesn’t end in disaster
Their current attempt says no.
Hope everyone enjoyed the coldest summer of the rest of their lives.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
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?
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.”
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.
The problem is far worse than what any single billionaire can fix. Billions of dollars are being poured into renewable energy infrastructure. It’s just that while this is happening, we’re also emitting the same amount of CO2 as always. The only long-term resolution of this is de-growth.
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.
Oh, i am pretty sure we will see something like this soon…
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.
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!
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?
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’
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!
There is indeed an upper limit for global warming, because hot bodies lose more energy by radiating heat than colder ones. I think the equilibrium of energy gained by the sun and lost by heat radiation from the earth is at something like +5K in average global temperature. I doubt humanity would survive this though, civilization definitely won’t.
The homeopathic approach to climate change. Great.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope the corporation’s and governments are ok poor loves.
The environment is ok and all, but we need to think about the economy.
Only 7 years early. Yay.
*7 years earlier than the recently revised predictions YAY.
Is there anything i could/can do to make a difference?
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.
There are other things you can do individually as well, like try using the car and AC less, and generally live more frugally.
But remember that 100 companies make up 71% of all human made carbon emissions. It’s good to act locally, but we need global action to stop these companies and their supporters, that means voting for competent government.
The bulk of those companies are in the energy business and they respond to consumer demand. Chevron isn’t out there drilling, extracting, refining, and burning oil for no reason.
they respond to consumer demand.
they DICTATE consumer options.
They will respond faster to heavy regulations/taxation, national policy shifts towards renewable energies, fossil fuel bans and nationalisation/forced liquidation.
No individual is their primary customer, and doesn’t have the negotiating power to affect them, they are effectively Mega corps, and immune even to certain national laws.
Vote for a government that will affect them, the other meaningful option (for individuals) is sabotage/Eco-terrorism, which isn’t really a long-term solution.
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.
Please don’t have children. Think about the life you’re condemning them to.
this is sadly where my head is at.
Yup, my wife and I both want kids.
We’re now pretty set on adoption.
Adoption is great!
this message brought to you by eugenicists against english literacy. english literacy: if it didn’t make you sterile, it should have.
If we don’t have children because we care for our planet, we leave the world to those who don’t care at all. Not sure if this is the right decision.
Same with atheism, religious people have more children, so the religious population is increasing, despite people deconverting.
Honestly, I haven’t thought of it like that. I guess that’s a decent point. But having more than 2 children, and you are part of the problem.
My family had one kid. So we went from I believe seven grandparents and great aunts and uncles down to one child just within two generations!
At this rate my family could depopulate the whole planet in no time.
Also a friend of mine just told me that he met a lady who had 22 siblings so…
adoption
sounds like you’re advocating for BOTH eugenics AND brainwashing. please reconsider.
Yes, adoption is literally eugenics AND brainwashing, you are very smart.
who are you saying shouldn’t have children? whose children are you proposing to teach to care for the planet?
I never said anyone shouldn’t have children.
whose children are you proposing to teach to care for the planet?
children up for adoption
Why vegetarian, not vegan? Cows are a major contributor to the emissions, and people tend to increase their dairy consumption when going vegetarian.
One step at a time.
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.
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. ☹️
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.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/y9R6yJj5RO0?si=-bqRIP1zQKv0m5lG
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
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”.
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.
There are no peaceful ways to make a difference. Change my mind.
Shall i give fatwa for Green Jihad?
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
Depends on your definition of peaceful. Industrial sabotage that specifically targets unmanned equipment would still be peaceful by my definition, for example.
Vote!
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.
Do any really, though?
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.
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.
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).
You’re right, voting isn’t the most powerful thing you can do.
It’s getting involved in politics altogether, getting more people to vote.
And not “We got the president and maybe a senator” vote. The crowd that’s fighting climate change every step of the way has infested all the way down to the local levels making it harder to vote on the national platforms. I’d say this is a US thing, but if there’s voting, they seem to be infesting all of it.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
the next few decades
An optimist, I see!
We are a hardy bunch. But things are going to get very ugly.
Google the weather underground
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
If we all stop breathing at the same time…
Don’t procreate. Or if you do just yeet the baby into a furnace to skip a few steps, same outcome really.
We did it boys, cold is no more
We won the cold war
We came, we cold, we conquer
Climate change must be stopped by any means necessary. Start doing what must be done. You know what that means.
Eat the rich.
It’s not enough. We (rich and not so rich) must either consume less, or be less people.
The first route involves changing technologies AND habits. And I’m not talking about recyclable bags or save water at home.
You change habits by making it more expensive to do unsustainable shit. Very few states here in the US are willing to properly tax carbon emissions. Very few Americans are willing to remove the subsidies that the beef industry enjoys which would see steak at $35/lb.
Just saying “consume less” does very little. People respond to incentives. Peoples’ wallets are big incentives.
On the other hand, this problem is global. We all need to work together in order to succeed. That’s the hardest part.
Recycle harder?
Consume local!
Bring back ice from Mars
I HAVE ALL THE PAPER STAWS* IM DOING MY BEST!!! *now with more cancer microplastics!
I think he means vote or die.
Or eat the rich
Om nom nom
Way ahead of ya burp
That would not fight climate change at all.
It would significantly lower emissions given that the rich produce a hell of a lot more emissions than the average person.
They objectively do not because no percent of people are rich.
I mean if we lived in a society where we could tax billionaires out of existence, then we could probably solve climate change with all that tax revenue.
Maybe in a different playthrough, kid.
Says the rich.
Killing rich people doesn’t stop people from driving cars or eating livestock or flying on airplanes or trading on sea lanes or requiring heat for their homes/water/etc or needing electricity
That’s a meme my dude, literally from the first album I ever bought from Aerosmith…
What does that mean? I’m a little slow over here, but happy to help.
Economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare if necessary
Big words, why don’t you go ahead and show us how it’s done then? Or are you just going to chest pound from behind your monitor?
Hello fbi
Removed by mod
Such a counterproductive useless attitude. Not trying to be mean, but rhetoric like this is what spurs inaction.
Removed by mod
Careful, gonna cut yourself on all that edge dickhead.
Side note, If you squint your eyes that picture kinda looks like a pizza.
The fuck kind of pizza are you eating?
Probably some moldy pizza
Blue cheese maybe?
I thought those were blueberries😭
Almost Pizza! https://youtube.com/watch?v=KLHRjaUBb3o
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=KLHRjaUBb3o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
And if you close your eyes and imagine, EVERYTHING looks like a pizza!
Climate change is having a tremendous effect.
Tremendous, very smart people are saying it’s the biggest change we’ve ever seen. Nobody has ever seen the numbers this high before. The best people are saying we have the highest numbers. Isn’t that something?
By Jove it’s simply splendid!
Extinction event goes vroom
Pre
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!
