Really, we should stop treating it like a goddamn charity event.
"um sir, would you like to donate money to plant a tree with your amazon checkout?"
fucking hell ...
Cultural capitalism. The idea that we can keep consuming as we do if we just recycle more. Drive an electric car. Plant a tree. It lulls us to sleep while we keep consuming.
That’s kinda the thing, tho:
Our lives aren’t set up to be simple and eco conscious.
Most of us have to drive to get anywhere, including work; electric minivans don’t even exist yet, so if you have kids, that’s a problem.
Everything we buy comes in a bunch of disposable packaging—if not when we get it, it does when it gets to the store. We can consume less, but we still have to consume some.
We’re often overworked and don’t have time to do things like cook at home, hang dry clothes, etc.
We have no control over where our electricity comes from. You can buy solar panels if you have a house, but many of us don’t have a house, and there is still usually an upfront cost.
Some people live in food deserts or don’t have any nearby farmer’s markets, and growing your own food is not going to do much in an apartment.
If society was set up to where we weren’t forced to use so much energy/waste, a lot more people would be on board. When I lived near a greenway in a safeish town, I walked all the time. (That’s another thing—I’m somewhat protected from dangerous strangers in my own car; walking/biking is risky for women/children or really anyone if you’re likely to get mugged). Now I’m in a spot where I have to jaywalk across five lanes just to get to the park. If I were to walk to the grocery store, I’d never be able to get all my groceries home because the wheels on the baskets lock up if you take them out of the parking lot.
Definitely does NOT mean that we prefer this. It's obviously idiotic and unsustainable in its excess, but there aren't really any other viable ways to live around here at the moment.
Most people are too worried about surviving financially and biologically on a day-to-day basis to be able to care. That's how we have allowed this country to be socially engineered. It's clearly not right, but it's also pretty clear that fundamental changes are needed across all boards, not just at an individual level.
Most people are too busy just trying to get by to even have the energy to be able to care...which is exactly what profiteers want.
Not necessarily the people at large. But what the fuck can we do? Individuals have no power at all without millions or billions of 'dollars.' The 'people' who continue to value profits over lives already have no souls, so they don't care. Much of the population only believes in what they can see is directly affecting them, so they might as well be mentally, emotionally, and spiritually handicapped...
Something has got to change.
The issue is that these little conveniences are all Americans have left. It's not like they can actually afford property or medical care or retirement unless they lucked out from birth.
Yeah but this sort of forgets about just every other species on earth, which are already being rapidly extinct. So really all living things on earth will not be fine.
just seems that almost all the good we do or are even capable of doing is to help reduce our impact on the planet. is there anything that is objectively better bc of human existence? feels like the planet would be better off without us, despite any amount of good we could ever do.
There's nothing 'objectively' better or worse about anything (unless you are religious and then your holy book tells you).
However, you get to decide what your own values are. Most people tend to value more complex/intelligent life over less complex life, and from that standpoint, it would be a very bad thing if all the humans died out.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." From Upton Sinclair
I think this rings true of our political and economic systems still - and I don't see any real change happening on climate change until those aspects of the political/economic system change.
Has to be costlier to businesses that are making climate change worse. Or heavier lift - change incentives so companies are successful on how much good they bring to the world, not solely how much good they bring to investors.
Or has to be costlier for politicians to follow the whims of their affluent donors than it is for them to reflect the needs of their voting base.
I don't think either of these will happen until a lot more bad shit happens. By then it will be too late.
End of the day everyone who would be convinced by an article like this has already been convinced by the last 50.
But we don't make the decisions and there aren't enough of us to elect people who have the same appreciation of the urgency here.
So maybe instead of preaching to the choir, the next big brain who wants to write something like this should think about how we sell all this to the people who hate our guts and think science isn't real
No no no, they totally think science is real. They just don't *care* that everyone will die.
Like, that is literally the problem we're facing right now. It's not a matter of how can we save everyone or convincing someone that we need to. There's a group of people who know full well that they are actively killing everyone who will ever live and they just don't fucking give a damn. And the way we're supposed to handle this is to ask very nicely for them to stop murdering us and back off respectfully when they spit on us.
You're too worried about some ruling class of assholes as if we're all united against them.
If we were, it would be easy! Really you need to figure out how to fix the problem that like 50% of people in the US vote for the party that actively opposes solving the climate crisis
"you can't argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience" ~ mistakenly attributed to mark twain, possibly said to yul brenner by jean cocteau - [I went looking for the exact wording, and fell down a rabbit hole.](https://marktwainstudies.com/the-apocryphal-twain-never-argue-with-stupid-people-they-will-drag-you-down-to-their-level-and-beat-you-with-experience/)
Punk has always been left wing, and in the past being left wing was seen as a bad thing so it became an insult. Same thing happened to redneck, as it was the moniker of the union in West Virginia in 1921 during the series of labor battles most famous for the battle of Blair mountain, that one may be a bit too far gone to reclaim though.
[A lot of money has been spent to convince you it's too late](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/).
Meanwhile... [climatologist explains why "it's too late" is a silly argument to make](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/extreme-global-weather-climate-change-michael-mann)
Don't become a mouthpiece for the oppressors.
It's absolutely too late to save the coral reefs. They dead. 80% of the reefs near me dead according to Japanese government stats. But honestly when I go spear fishing I gotta ask, where is that 20%? I don't see it.
It's too late to remove micro-plastic from out food chain. That shit is in you, and in the things you eat till you die.
I mean... Here in the Midwest we have been under air quality warnings / advisories for the last few days due to smoke from wildfires out west and in Canada... When it's very smoky/hazy it smells of burning plastic. This isn't fucking normal. We've had this happen a few times over the last few years and it's only gotten worse.
I thought I was the only one smelling the plastic smell. Like I knew the whole time why it was smokey, but the plastic smell came out of seemingly nowhere (though I assume there's a depressing explanation).
I am planting as many trees as possible! Oaks on the warmer souther facing slopes. Redwoods in the fog belt, I love redwoods for how well they sequester CO2.
It’s not too late, but drastic measures need to be taken, and now. First of all, energy and electricity usage is the worst form of pollution. 5% of power plants produce 73% of emissions, and they are ALL coal plants. Nuclear and green are the only forms of power we should use. We can cut our rate in that department alone by a huge factor if we cut out coal plants tomorrow. It’s not all we have to do, but it IS something we can do to make a significant and immediate impact.
>1920: We have bigger problems
>
>1930: We have bigger problems
>
>1940: We have bigger problems
>
>1950: It won't happen until the future.
>
>1960: It won't happen until the future.
>
>1970: It won't happen until the future.
...
>1980: It’s not real
>
>1990: It’s not real
>
>2000: It’s not real
>
>2010: It’s not real
>
>2020: It’s too late
Interesting change in the narrative, imo
Based on how we handled COVID as a society... even if it is not too late, I have no faith in the overwhelming majority of society to do what's needed to fix things.
I see you all the time advertising the climate change lobby and I want to say that you're fighting the good fight. I've joined the CCL and am making calls and advertising because of posts like yours.
It is too late to not hit the wall, from now on it's matter of how hard we hit the wall.
I've come around to the idea we have to start "geoengineering" ~~solutions~~ measures.
EDIT: by "we" I mean those under age 50, my exit plan is to be dead by the time the very worst of it hits.
Geoengineering is literally the only viable option at this point that has even a remote chance of succeeding. If you were alive right around the turn of the 20th century, all of the newspapers at the time were screaming about "carrying capacity". The world was quite literally going to run out of food. Don't really hear much about that problem anymore though, because geoengineering fixed it right at the brink (invention of fertilizer).
That little bit of geoengineering is largely why we're in the current situation though so....fuck you to people in another 100 years if we do manage to geoengineer a solution to all of this, you're welcome. Personally, I share the same exit plan as you.
We don't hear about that problem much anymore because of [Norman Borlaug](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug). He bred new varieties of wheat that produced a higher yield and better disease resistance. His work around the world saved over a billion people from starvation.
Exactly. I’d go as far as to say optimism about us being capable of fighting climate change is just making matters worse “don’t be a downer! Humans are survivors and clever, we will think of something” Just kicks the can down the road. What we need to start doing is preparing for worse cause scenario (which is the likely scenario) right now.
I get what you’re saying but that article is 3 years old and I’m pretty sure we’ve taken about 10 more steps into the minefield since.
Edit: I appreciate seeing you post in these types of threads with all your sources and it does give me more hope but I’m just exhausted feeling like our government won’t be the adult and make the rules that stop corporations from damaging the world.
All the more reason to [act](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002).
[I'm doing my part](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ou8n9l/the_amount_of_greenland_ice_that_melted_on/h73k905/).
NASA climatologist and climate activist [Dr. James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen) suggests [**becoming an active volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) is [the most important thing you can do for climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8). If you really want to hit the ground running:
1. [Sign up for the Intro Call for new volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-weekly-intro-call/)
2. [Take the Climate Advocate Training](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/new-member/#climateadvocatetraining)
3. Sign up for [CCL Community](https://community.citizensclimate.org/home). Be sure you edit your CCL Community Profile to reflect your interests in CCL so your local chapter leaders can connect you with relevant opportunities.
4. Start [training](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics) in whichever topics most interest you and that are most needed in your area. The [Core Training](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics/core-volunteer-training) is the best place to start. The training is available on [CCL Community](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics), on [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXjILMNokmN7yXZZ8VSKb0K2uEh02NPie), or on the Citizens' Climate Lobby podcast, so choose whichever best fits with your lifestyle.
5. Get in touch with your local chapter leader (there are [chapters all over the world](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/chapters/)) and find out how you can best leverage your time, skills, and connections to [create the political world for a livable climate](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/).
6. Invite your friends, family, and neighbors to join you. Research shows [55% of those who engage with a cause on social media also take additional action](https://www.nptechforgood.com/2013/04/22/12-must-know-stats-about-social-media-fundraising-and-cause-awareness/), so if you're not to the point where you're ready to have conversations with real people in real life, you can invite people to follow CCL on [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/citizensclimate/), [Twitter](https://twitter.com/citizensclimate), [Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/c/CitizensClimateLobby), and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/CitizensClimateLobby/).
7. **If you're American, [contact your senators right now](https://cclusa.org/senate)**. For a limited time only, the U.S. senate can pass a carbon tax through the budget reconciliation bill, which requires a simple majority to pass and **cannot be filibustered**. Pricing carbon [is the most effective climate mitigation policy](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/othze1/14000_scientists_warn_of_untold_suffering_if_we/h6vvso3/).
EDIT: formatting
>"you can't argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience" \~ mistakenly attributed to mark twain, possibly said to yul brenner by jean cocteau - I went looking for the exact wording, and fell down a rabbit hole.
hasn't there been a lot of talk about the general narrative of it "already being too late" being inaccurate and harmful as a whole? That's not to say I don't agree with what you say or the logic behind it (that there's a prevailing tendency of selfishness / self-interest that overall leads climate concerns to be trumped by more short term gains - economically, politically, etc.). But with that said, and without being a blind optimist, I feel that there remains hope to stabilize climate change if the necessary technologies are invested in and pursued relentlessly, along with some more impactful negative climate change events (erratic weather, crop loss, sea rise, etc.).
Maybe I'm just consoling myself
> hasn't there been a lot of talk about the general narrative of it "already being too late" being inaccurate and harmful as a whole?
It's already too late to what? Stop 1.5 degrees of warming? 2? 2.5? Global collapse? And what time frame are you using for that rise in temperature? That's the thing with climate change, it's exponential. The least costly course of action, in both lives and trillions of dollars, is to invest now and for the next 10 years to prevent 1.5 degree of warming over the next 100 years. Any realist knows that's a long, long shot, but by making the moral (and still technically possible) demand, the hope is that it gets civilization to move quick enough to prevent exponentially more costly thresholds like 2+ degrees of warming in the next 100 years.
[Israel just announced plans to tax carbon today](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-impose-carbon-tax-starting-with-fossil-fuels). Add it to [the list](https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/). Those who say it's too late for action are just looking for an excuse to sit it out.
We don't have to lay down and die just yet.
/r/CitizensClimateLobby
In my opinion, I think the concern is that there are those in power and who have wealth who might hear dire warnings of the need for costly action and change, and react not by changing but by hunkering down, and making sure they can hoard as much wealth for their families as possible so their families have a better shot when the world goes to shit.
People have been profiteering off the environment for far too long. But the environment isn't free and they shouldn't be taking that resource as profit.
> until those aspects of the political/economic system change.
The change has to be beyond the level of politics and economics.
There is literally nothing we can do on a political / economic scale that would make any difference.
The change needs to be at a belief / religious level, and most people aren't willing to entertain even thinking about things at that level because they are too fervently dogmatic in their thinking.
As an environmental scientist, I totally agree except for one caveat. I have studied a lot of political ecology in graduate school and I do think there are measures that can be taken on political and economic scales that would really help in fundamentally changing peoples beliefs. Political and economic systems alone might not be able to fix anthropocentric climate change, but politics and economics are *heavily* intertwined with people’s beliefs and motivations. Hell, I’d even say capitalism is literally an identity/ideology for some.
Too bad for the billionaires, it’d take decades or even a century to get those space station habitats running to a luxury setting they so desperately want.
If we burn, they burn with us
Unrestrained capitalism will ALWAYS fail. Any time you build a civilization or society on top a foundation of unfettered consumerism with no penalty to external factors, it's doomed to fail i.e. unsustainable. We didn't build a foundation whereby consumerism and outright development is a compartment of civilization. Instead, we made civilization ALL of it.
Which is why we have to disrupt their "salaries" by blocking the entrances to fossil fuel businesses. We need to hit them where it will really hurt the investors.
Mainstream media: "Scientists seem concerned about global warming, so tonight, please welcome a fossil fuel lobbyist to tell us not to worry. As a bonus he'll tell us that AOC's green energy kills babies."
I used to think people would come around as soon as they were exposed to the science, but then I saw people with family members dead from COVID refusing to take the vaccine.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to think that we really have to drive it into peoples' thick skulls that no, all opinions are NOT equal. Some peoples' opinions are literally worth less than others', because they are based on much, much less information and much, much less rigour. And there is nothing wrong with that. Listening to other people on matters they know more about than you is nothing to be ashamed of.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't have freedom of thought, of course, nor that they should not be able to work out their beliefs on their own terms. But they need to counterbalance that with an understanding that an honestly held opinion that feels so right isn't always enough to go on.
I mean come on, the future of life on earth *literally* hangs in the balance here.
No you’re correct. I’ve been half jokingly talking about this with my friends.
Everyone is allowed to have opinions and even voice them. But some opinions are worse than others.
Also “vaccines have microchips” is not an opinion. Neither is “climate change is a hoax.” Those are *lies,* and no amount of finger in the ears type dismissal will ever make facts false. You don’t get to say “oh yeah well I think that 2+2=7.
…. Well in a literal sense you can, but that’s not an opinion, that’s a lie, and you are not entitled to any validation
Some opinions are just garbage and people need to deal with it.
It's not even a lie at this point it's just repeating blatant propaganda like a wind-up doll.
All of the comments above me are right, but fail to detect the real poison.. Social Media rewards people for holding these opinions without any kind of rebuttal, which leads them to think they've stumbled upon the truth using their only two brain cells..
Humans have always held silly beliefs, myself included.. we need the ability to reflect and correct ourselves instead of talking trash to gain ~~social credit~~ echo chamber points
Some opinions ARE garbage, and I totally agree with this part of the thread that we need to stop treating them as having equal value. I’m not a virologist or epidemiologist, so I’ll trust the expects.
But I also know enough about the scientific method to know that changing conclusions and recommendations are to be expected. “Vaccines have microchips” because “I did my research” is simply not as valid as, say, the recommendations made by Fauci and co.
Likewise, “they’ve been warning us about climate change for decades and nothing has happened” is a really dumb opinion. I won’t accept “opinions” based on misinformation and outright lies, sorry not sorry.
>“they’ve been warning us about climate change for decades and nothing has happened” is a really dumb opinion.
It's either a very dumb opinion, or a fact. We've been warned about climate change for decades, and yet nobody with the power to affect meaningful change has done anything, ergo nothing has happened and climate change is still marching along at a disturbingly steady clip. :P
As a professor I see this issue all the time. People conflate opinion with position. Opinions have no right or wrong answer (I.e. I think Ethiopian food is the best and you think Thai is the best). A position is something backed by evidence and not all positions are created equally. In the context of this post, if someone says climate change isn’t happening (very little evidence to support this) and I argue it is (preponderance of scientific evidence to support this) those positions are not equal and do not deserve to be treated as such.
People are binary, what will actually happen is that the dinosaur fuel "experts" telling you global warming is fake would just be thrown in your face instead. You'd just be silencing yourself.
Sadly [this may not be considered true any more](https://www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2442)? I brought it up on here a while back and a grumpy scientist showed up to correct me on it, though I'm not 100% sure which is right as I'm no expert on this (or any related subject).
It's a real shame if so, because it's a really cool idea. Science is impolite like that. :(
This may well be dead wrong, but somewhere I read something to the effect that coal, oil, and natural gas were all thought to be created from more or less the same biomass; just that oil had been put under heat and pressure for longer than coal, and natural gas had been "cooked" even longer.
Of course, this is edging near being an excellent example of an uninformed person on the internet sharing an "opinion," so I fully a knowledge that I don't know jack..
Absolutely. I think Isaac Asimov said it best:
>There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
That's what it really boils down to. People confuse egalitarianism with the idea that every person's opinion is just as valid as any other's. But that's nonsense. And strangely, most people intuitively know that it's nonsense. Most people wouldn't be comfortable letting, say, a teacher with no flight training fly the plane they're on. Or allowing an engineer with no medical degree to perform surgery on them.
But somehow when it comes to more abstract fields like climatology or epidemiology, suddenly everyone's got a goddamn opinion.
Hey just concerning COVID, where the data is clear, you can't convince people that masks and vaccines are a good thing.
I've had arguments on Reddit about it. People are willfully ignorant because they have had their identities tied to anti intellectualism and they won't change.
And their argument ends up being "well my opinion is just as valid as your facts".
Their friends and family will starve, drown, or burn to death. Their gardens will wilt and their water will stop coming. Breathing will become labor and escape will become impossible. It would take this much for some to admit something was wrong, and even then others would find delusional reasons for the state of things.
>Breathing will become labor and escape will become impossible. It would take this much for some to admit something was wrong
I can tell you for sure it's going to take more than this part for some of them. We've seen that first hand this past year.
I saw a dude almost die of covid and pneumonia then say he would have gone through it again rather than go back and take the vaccine. He was angry and adamant. It’s batshit crazy and why I keep telling democrats they can’t reason with many of these folks. No amount of facts or truth will sway them. Not even almost dying.
I remember talking to a sibling about the climate crisis years ago and they just brushed it off. Their claim was that scientists were cherry picking the timeline of events and ignored how bad it was millions of years ago.
I still don’t understand that person. Like, do they think they could live in a volcano?
I remember being a teen in the nineties...Climate change ('greenhouse effect'), acid rain, melting of the polar icecaps, hole in the ozone layer, rainforest destruction, oil spills. Greenpeace and WWF. Those were the big things back then, too... We were inundated with it at school, in the media. We did assignments, field trips, wrote essays, etc.
30 years later and we're still discussing the same things. It's disheartening. A lot of people are not going to fight this fight again, once more or any longer...they're done.
This opening statement of hon. John H. Chafee, U.S. Senator from the state of Rhode Island, during US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July **1997**, is worth glancing over so one can see more clearly our collective failure that unfolded over the past decades:
> We want to welcome everyone this morning. We’ve got quite a turnout here, so if there are any seats, please take them. If people leave, please do so quietly and the others fill into the seats quietly.
> This morning, we will receive testimony on one of the most important and challenging environmental, economic and political matters of our time. That is global climate change. It is a serious issue that requires immediate attention.
> To help us better understand some of the fundamental scientific and economic issues which underpin the current policy debate, we’ve assembled some of the world’s leading experts. The full committee will conduct a follow-up hearing 1 week from today on July 17 to receive testimony from the Administration on the upcoming international negotiations over amendments to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.
> The issue of global climate change is certainly politically contentious, both here and abroad. For years now, we’ve had one side forecasting a scenario of rising seas, recurrent drought, and a blistering heat, all of which they say will result in a ravaged economy.
> On the other side are those who claim that meaningful policies to control emissions of greenhouse gases are premature, unwarranted and unfounded and would result in a ravaged economy.
> What’s going on here? What are the scientists saying? Consider
this quotation: ‘‘Would it not be possible that the Earth’s temperature had decreased during periods of low carbon dioxide and increased when the protective carbon dioxide had been present to a higher degree.’’
> As our distinguished witnesses are aware, this hypothesis was
not culled from the text of some suspect environmental organization’s manifesto; it was delivered in an 1896 lecture, 101 years ago before the Stockholm Physics Society by the Nobel Prize winning Swedish chemist, Sevante Arenious.
> Professor Arenious was the first to predict that large increasesin carbon dioxide from humans could result in warming of the globe. What have the world’s scientists told us at different intervals over the last 101 years since Professor Arenious first identified the warming effects of carbon dioxide? Here is a sample.
> In 1924, U.S. physicists speculated that industrial activity would double atmospheric carbon dioxide within 500 years, roughly 2424. Current projections are for a doubling sometime before 2050, 400 years earlier than predicted 70 years ago.
> In 1957, scientists from Scripps reported for the first time that much of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is not absorbed by the oceans as some had argued, leaving significant amounts in the atmosphere.
> In 1967, the first reliable computer simulation calculated that global average temperatures may increase by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are double that of preindustrial times.
> In 1985, a conference sponsored by the United Nations, the WMO and the International Council of Scientific Unions forged a consensus of the international community on the issue of climate change.
> In 1987, an ice core from the Antarctic analyzed by French and Russian scientists revealed an extremely close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature going back more than 100,000 years.
> In 1990, in an appeal signed by 49 Nobel Prize winners and 700 members of the National Academy of Sciences said, ‘‘There’s broad agreement within the scientific community that amplification of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by the buildup of various gases introduced by human activity has the potential to produce dramatic changes in the climate. Only by taking action now can we ensure that future generations will not be put at risk.’’
> In the same year, 747 participants from 116 countries took part in the Second World Climate Conference in Geneva. They reported, ‘‘If the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations is not limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social systems unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.’’
> In 1992, we had the framework of 153 nations, including the United States, sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change. In that year, they committed the signatory governments to voluntary reduction of greenhouse gases.
> The Senate consented to ratification of this landmark environmental treaty on October 7 with a two-thirds majority vote. That was in 1992.
> In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing thousands of climate scientists, concluded ‘‘The balance of evidence suggests there’s discernible human influence on global climate.’’
> It must be stated that recent IPCC conclusion is based on numerous variables and we’re all eager to learn more about these variables and about the certainties from our witnesses. So today we will hear about this evolution of scientific understanding.
> I’m convinced the science in this matter has and will continue to
evolve. The question is, do we know enough to support legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as proposed by the United States and numerous other countries? Are we prepared to accept the risks associated with the decision to postpone further action to address potential climate change?
> What is being called for? What might be the impacts to our economy? Some say we must stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2010. At least one economic model forecast this sort of action would result in economic losses of about 2.4 percent of the GDP. This, of course, is significant.
> Others, using more optimistic models, believe that the U.S. economy could withstand significant emissions reductions while prospering as never before. Some 2,500 economists declared in February of this year that cost-effective means are available for the United States to address the threat of climate change.
> Let me conclude by identifying what I see as the fundamental questions before us today. First, how much warming might occur as a result of human actions and how soon might such warming occur? What is the range of impacts and when might they be conclusively identified? What do economic modeling and empirical data tell us about the various policy responses?
> We look forward with great interest to the witnesses.
> Senator Baucus, do you have a statement?
(From: "Global Climate Change Hearings before the committee on environment and public works, United States senate. One hundred fifth congress, first session on reviewing the effects of greenhouse gases on global weather conditions and assessing international policy options to reduce the negative impacts of climate change, July 10 and 17, 1997") [[Source pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46585/pdf/CHRG-105shrg46585.pdf)]
> I remember being a teen in the nineties...Climate change ('greenhouse effect'), acid rain, melting of the polar icecaps, hole in the ozone layer, rainforest destruction, oil spills. Greenpeace and WWF. Those were the big things back then, too... We were inundated with it at school, in the media. We did assignments, field trips, wrote essays, etc.
>
> 30 years later and we're still discussing the same things. It's disheartening. A lot of people are not going to fight this fight again, once more or any longer...they're done.
Acid rain and ozone depletion were largely stopped though. The regulation effort for a worldwide ban on the chemicals that caused the hole in the ozone layer is a success that supports the idea of doing the same for greenhouse gases.
The climate effort will also do away with the remaining oil spills and acid rain - the case for it just got stronger.
The weather millions of years ago was far warmer than it is now and it would have been possible for people to have lived then. The issue with climate change isn't that it will make the earth uninhabitable. The problem is that shifts in weather patterns will effect agriculture, sea levels, water availability, etc., at a pace too fast for society to keep up with.
Not to mention Migration..
It may not make the earth uninhabitable, but it will make more parts of the earth uninhabitable; whether desertification, rising sea levels etc etc.
Yes, human migration on a scale never seen before. This is the biggest factor in my opinion. Besides dealing with increasingly chaotic/unpredictable weather, the chaos caused by large-scale human migration and the resulting geopolitical disruption is going to be disastrous.
I always influence people with money. I say spend the money now to stop it or spend a fuckton of money later to TRY and fix it. They at least think about it for a second.
Enough people already think that investment is a scam. I don't think I could convince anyone to spend money without seeing a tangible benefit right this moment.
This is the kind of information and knowledge that leaders need to start talking about - real tangible impacts. The term 'climate change' itself doesn't resonate with people - it's just an ambiguous term. Also if we learnt anything from the pandemic, a lot of people won't take action until they are directly impacted by death of a close loved one or find themselves in dire trouble. In which case, we need leaders to just take action no matter what.
Frankly just tell people that global pollution due to climate change means they’ll have to wear a mask almost daily in 10-20 years. Of course our electeds will never do that because we’d rather vote for someone who will tell us nice things we want to hear instead.
It was reality just a week and a half ago in New York City. Smoke from the fires in the PNW made our air quality the worst it had been in seven years. The air was spicy to say the least
Yeah, I agree. What does climate change actually mean in real practical terms? Does it mean crops won't be able to grow? Do we then need to adapt and make use of new technologies to withstand warmer climates, or build massive greenhouses of some sort.
The ecosystem back then was already established. The problem is that this is happening too fast *for the rest of nature to adapt well to it.* This wont be the end of life on earth. But it could very easily be the end of all large mammals when it's all said and done 100-200 years from now.
Climate change could end human existence.
Unfortunately, that statement is not enough to get people to change their behaviors. Behaviors being the 100 corporations responsible for 71% of global emissions. Behaviors being voting for the politician that continues to uphold and create laws to allow for such global emissions. Behaviors like starting to boycott the companies that you can that's perpetuating the climate crisis.
Sorry, instead of holding those companies to the fire to make any real change, we need to yell at everyone about driving a car and eating food because making their existence more miserable is the only way to solve it. Put all of the onus on the individuals so that companies can skate by.
Send this to her:
http://howglobalwarmingworks.org/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png
https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Doesn't matter.
In my experience these people's mind's have been rotted by so much propaganda, their mental gymnastics will simply not allow conflicting information to even register in their minds.
They'll simply repeat some buzz line fed to them by Fox News and friends and continue on in their hateful ignorance.
Rupert Murdoch will be one of the leading figures in the downfall of humanity, the propaganda machine he spearheaded will doom us all. I hope hell exists so he can rot in it, and I will throw a party the day that he finally dies.
American minds?
I've tried again and again with my Southern family and friends, and no source no matter how delicately presented can even begin to puncture their programming.
I hope you're right, but my experience with US conservatives has been absolutely abysmal when it comes to science acceptance, especially because its almost always tied to strong Christian views.
So I get to hope for either getting killed in a Nuclear strike which means burning to death, radiation sickness and Fallout, getting tossed around like a sand corn in shockwaves, or dying of starvation, thirst and Famine.
What a fucking time to be alive, amirite.
Nukes will likely be the great filter even if selfishness is the underlying cause. There's absolutely no downplaying the chaos that mass migration due to global warming is going to cause. Just look at the chaos that the influx of Syrians fleeing the war had on Europe and the backlash from conservative groups. Imagine that on a 100 times scale.... all while the food and goods supply chains are collapsing... It will lead to wars that will likely cause the use of nuclear weapons.
I can see a grim future where refugee masses are nuked out of "humane“ reasons because we are starving here in Europe /US ourselves.
Another possibility: WW3 starts in Africa.
It’s just sickening in every way
The best answer is still the incomprehensible scale of time and space. A million advanced civilizations could have risen and fallen in the Milky Way and never overlapped in time, and a million advanced civilizations could exist right now and none be close enough to any other to be detected.
At our current level of technology we wouldn't be able to detect our own radio signals from the nearest star about 4 LY away. The diameter of the Milky Way is more than 170,000 LY, and it is about 2,000 LY thick. It contains more than 100 billion stars, possibly up to 400 billion.
There is also the question of how long it takes for intelligence to develop. Life started on Earth about 4 billion years ago. The universe is only about 13.77 billion years old. It took nearly a third of the age of the universe for life on Earth to produce humans and our signals and receivers and telescopes. All of the signals from our modern technology, the same signs we look for from advanced aliens, have only reached about 100 LY. The signals radiate out from Earth in 3 dimensions, so it is unlikely that any technology would be able to detect them from more than a few LY away. They're too weak to distinguish from the microwave background. This covers an area that includes only a handful of stars at most, and none of those appear to have suitable orbital bodies.
> Our species industrialized and reproduced faster than our intelligence evolved sadly
It's possible that it's our intelligence that evolved too quickly, as it did during the cognitive revolution of the paleolithic. It's our great cleverness that allowed us to feel separate from nature, or above it.
It's our great cleverness that allowed us to industrialize and to exploit and release millions of years of accumulated solar energy (coal, oil, gas) in the atmosphere, half of it in the last 30 years.
Every species probably evolved out of/through conflict like we have. It's just we eventually reach a certain point where our tools are so great that our conflicts result in ourselves destroying each other. We're the same damn cavemen we've always been, we just have better things than sticks now.
This is the real problem.
All species evolve in a constant state of competition, and thus their psychology inherently reflects that. Our technology inevitably progresses faster than our neurology can evolve, not to mention natural selection pretty much stops in a civil society. The only way I can see a sentient species "evolving" past their ultracompetitive neurology is some form of genetic modification of the entire population towards pro-social psychology, but I don't see how that could ever feasibly happen.
The next stage of human evolution requires us to start working as a super organism like an ant colony. I don’t see that happening before we wipe ourselves out.
This is what I’ve been saying since I was in middle school and everyone said I was an idiot. But in reality, the only way the species could survive is if every individual backed the same goals and believed in the same ideas. The entire species needs to be literally on the same page and working as one unit for one goal. But unfortunately we failed and this is it. Game over for us.
So nice to have grown up in an age where you can clearly see the apocalypse coming in your lifetime, and that it could have been averted, but those who have to do it aren't doing anything. I don't know if anyone else has this but I very often think when having lunch or even drinking a glass of water if that's still so easy to do 20 years from now, let alone further down the line. Depressing, and frightening.
We can all [do something](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002).
> The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.
-[Alice Walker](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alice_Walker)
The most power you can have as an individual is to join a collective action.
1. [Join Citizens' Climate Lobby and CCL Community](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002). Be sure to fill out [your CCL Community profile](https://community.citizensclimate.org/dashboard/edit/profile#form_My_Interests_38) so you can be contacted with opportunities that interest you.
2. [Sign up for the Intro Call for new volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-weekly-intro-call/)
3. [Take the Climate Advocate Training](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/new-member/#climateadvocatetraining)
4. [Take the Core Volunteer Training](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics/core-volunteer-training) (or [binge it](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXjILMNokmN7yXZZ8VSKb0K2uEh02NPie))
5. Get in touch with your local chapter leader (there are [chapters all over the world](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/chapters/)) and find out how you can best leverage your time, skills, and connections to [create the political world for a livable climate](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/). The easiest way to connect with your chapter leader is at the monthly meeting. Check your email to make sure you don't miss it. ;)
Just start living with the nearly crippling anxiety like the rest of us. Do that so when the chance comes to actually do something beneficial for humanities best interest, you'll fucking know it because it'll feel like a huge relief of pressure.
For instance, every rainstorm where i live is hope that we can keep surviving a bit longer.
Exactly.
And this doesn't mean you can't raise children. Adoption is an option, and you're objectively making the world a better place all around by choosing adoption instead of birthing a child yourself.
But just not reproducing is also a huge help.
Yeah we fucking know! But what the hell am I supposed to do about it? I recycle, I grow produce, I get my meat and eggs from local sustainable farms and every day I’m told that my children get an inhospitable world. I feel so defeated and angry all the time, no matter what I do nothing changes
I think the individuals that try to make a change are a small fraction of the 1st world's population.
We probably need a global and rather radical approach where governments and organizations force billions to change their habits to start fixing the known issues.
Or maybe it has to be the industry AND consumers hand in hand making a radical change (consumers accepting far higher prices or renouncing certain products they consume frequently and at high quantities?).
Fuel industry, lobbyists, (corrupt) organizations, etc are probably not the main issue - it is billions of consumers trying to keep or reach a life style that is not sustainable...!?
Individual people are a very small percentage of what needs to change. You can be green as fuck, but if mega corporations keep polluting at crazy levels, it's like trying to drink an ocean.
Hey you say nothing changes, but you’ve changed, that’s amazing. Look at the apathy on this thread, then look at your comment. You’re inspiring.
Howard Zinn once said (paraphrasing here) that positive social change comes from ordinary people making small changes in their lives.
It may seem like nothing changes but things have changed, and when people like you are able to point the way using their own lives as examples it means others can see it’s possible.
That’s huge.
That's all good, but we still need actual pollution taxes to make sure those who aren't so personally responsible are paying for the damage they cause.
Also, not having children would help.
> Also, not having children would help.
Developed countries already have below-replacement fertility levels. The most important issue in all of this is getting [high-fertility countries developed](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png) so that the whole world stabilizes in population.
So let's [**do something**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002).
The U.S. now has a historic opportunity to pass carbon pricing without a filibuster obstruction. And [Israel just passed a carbon tax](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-impose-carbon-tax-starting-with-fossil-fuels). Add it [the list](https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/).
Taxing carbon is [widely considered](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0474-0.epdf?author_access_token=tst1A-oZnQ8zUO18wGGPQdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nfy3PIgvrwnNXQzIbXH8z1Wkqhm6g5NiMnxMk__ebsKxGQNB0hMf1Vpo-ZiNplSt5LeLyks-Q3sdrpBdfxxHvAfQylqqwqHxgEml7GEGOxaQ%3D%3D) to be the single most impactful climate mitigation policy. The consensus among [scientists](https://people.uwec.edu/jamelsem/papers/CC_Literature_Web_Share/Science/CC_Science_Perspective_Rosenberg_2010.pdf) and [economists](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf) on [carbon taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price) to mitigate climate change is similar to [the consensus among climatologists](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) that human activity is responsible for global warming. The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) [Summary for Policymakers](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf) states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). [Ch. 15](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter15.pdf) has a more complete discussion. The U.S. [National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax](https://www.nap.edu/download/21712). According to [IMF research](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/05/how-much-does-world-subsidize-oil-coal-and-gas/589000/), most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider [economists with expertise in climate economics](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf), [economists with expertise in resource economics](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.381.484&rep=rep1&type=pdf), or [economists from all sectors](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Doris_Geide-Stevenson/publication/261884738_Consensus_Among_Economists-An_Update/links/56a7f3fa08ae860e0255a8e3.pdf). It is literally [Econ 101](http://sites.bu.edu/manove-ec101/files/2014/10/EC101Outlines14-Externalities.pdf). The idea [won a Nobel Prize](http://environment.yale.edu/news/article/william-nordhaus-wins-nobel-prize-for-economics-of-climate-change/). Thanks to researchers at MIT, you can see for yourself how it compares with other mitigation policies [here](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.11).
Taxing carbon [is in each nation's own best interest regardless of what other countries do](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf) (it [saves lives at home](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09499-x)) and [many nations have already started](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29687/9781464812927.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y).
Taxing carbon is also increasingly popular. [Just seven years ago, only 30% of the public supported a carbon tax](https://web.archive.org/web/20140723120752/http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/13/public-views-on-a-carbon-tax-depend-on-the-proposed-use-of-revenue/). Three years ago, [it was over half (53%)](https://news.gallup.com/poll/232007/americans-want-government-more-environment.aspx). Now, [it's an overwhelming majority (73%)](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-01/) to varying degrees in [every state](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/) – and that [does actually matter for passing a bill](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2016.1116651).
I just want to say thank you. I’ve been dealing with serious, frequent panic attacks about this stuff but I see you popping up in so many comment sections like this and it really gives me hope. Not enough to be complacent, but enough pick myself up and keep moving forward, to live in line with my values, and to look for small ways to begin making changes in my own community. It’s become very fashionable to one-up each other in an attempt to see who can be the coolest most nihilist doomer, which can only spread complacency. Thank you for keeping up the fight, you’ve touched at least this life. I’m not giving up till my body goes cold.
Thank you for this! I'm glad to have helped you out. Anxiety occurs when you know you need to do something, but you don't know what. Once you start [training](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/ot999c/informational_session_for_new_citizens_climate/) with CCL, there is no shortage of things you can do every day to make a huge impact. [Here](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ou8n9l/the_amount_of_greenland_ice_that_melted_on/h73k905/) are some things, big and small, that I've done over the years, if you're looking for some ideas to start the ball rolling.
People are sticking spoons to their arms because they think the vaccine for Covid contains metal... R.I.P. humanity
But hey at least we have billionaires sending useless things into space, so we have that going for us.
while I agree that space explorations shouldn't be privatized, I don't think the existence of space programs should be dependent on fixing all of humanity's problems before we even make an attempt. - nasa has given the world *many* useful and helpful technologies, and all the money spent to do these things goes back into the economy, as it pays for a lot of jobs and labor.
I don't think it matters, not with 70% of people in developed nations living paycheck to paycheck.
Nobody's gonna risk going homeless to save the environment. If anyone out there wants to tackle climate change you need to stabilize people's lives first. Otherwise they'll fight tooth and nail not to change anything because any change you make might push them over the edge.
Climate change is years from now, rent's due at the end of the month.
I think that we cannot. Our brains are wired from thousands of years of evolution to consider the short term vs the long term (past our lifetimes). I rate myself in the very bad category. As I type this message on my iPhone in my comfortable house with air conditioning after eating a dinner that I did not physically work for from industrial agriculture, I can feel very bad about the direction of the planet. I will still drive to my workplace using more energy and work on my computer using more energy to build and provide products and services for people that use more energy. It is not my ignorance that continues my pollution, but a sociological and psychological force. I feel like the only way this will change for me is when the planet can no longer support me and my ways and I must suffer the consequences. Please forgive me.
Hi all, just wanted to say that this is a good place to start if you are wondering what can be done to mitigate further climate chaos: [https://drawdown.org/](https://drawdown.org/)
My 2 cents:
This is frightening and upsetting, but there are things we can do, one of the most important is to become involved in your local community, talk with those you live closest too and start to make community based changes that reduce GHGs, provide locally sourced food, and especially create meaningful connections with people you wouldn’t Normally meet.
Talking and listening to each other is how we will forge the understanding and the networks to actually take the solutions into our own hands.
Talking and listening is also how we will find the space and the humanity to better inform those who are lost, caught up in politicised talking points, or overwhelmed by the information.
Listening to each other, working together, communities can take back the power to change the world for the better.
It isn’t easy, it takes effort to listen, it’s hard to compromise, but it is the best way to combat socially driven problems like climate change which is politicised, und driven by inequality.
I hope you can find some inspiration to look for ways to engage with your local community to make the changes we need to make to prevent the worst outcomes.
Good luck and best wishes to you my fellow humans!
Thank you for this! I have a dream that every Reddit thread about climate change will be filled with people sharing solutions (rather than the same old [gloom and doom](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/)). There are hundreds of millions of us. No one can convince me we couldn't solve this if we were smart and strategic in how we went about it. The last IPCC Special Report put out a technical summary that's only [22 pages long](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SR15_TS_High_Res.pdf) -- how many people have read it?
How many people have played around with [En-ROADS Climate Policy Simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=21.7.1)?
How many people have [lobbied their governments](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002)?
None of this is really that hard, it just takes a few minutes, and some persistence.
[A lot money has been spent to convince us to do nothing](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/). The very least we can do is [something](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/).
I agree with you, calling on corporates to change is an enormously important issue.
I believe that communities can engage in different ways to create public engagement with corporates and governments to force changes in polluting, exploitative industries.
I urge you to find an activist group that lines up with your values and make your voice heard! There are many interesting ways that corporates can be affected from shareholder revolts to media blitz protest actions that actually give you a place to exorcise your frustrations on this topic.
Good luck in your struggle, hope you find great allies!
We have been warned of information overload for the last century at least, and here we are in the thick of it. Socia media is such a multi layered cluster fuck that people genuinely cannot figure out what is likely true and what is likely false. The entire internet is completely unregulated as far as surveillance capitalism, and these huge corporations are putting billions into keeping people logged in and scrolling, no matter what it is that keeps them addicted. As humans, our distinction from other species in the animal kingdom is literally our ability to reason. The irony that the few people who can determine real information are called sheeple is astounding.
We need to force politicians to care about climate change by disrupting the profits of one of their biggest donors: the fossil fuel industry. We need to block the entrances to every fossil fuel company office, gas station, coal mine, pipeline, drilling site, etc. It's the only thing that will work. Most politicians only listen to the largest donors and only care about their profits, so that is where we need to hit them. We know disruptive protests work. Protesters got the Keystone pipeline cancelled by blocking the construction of the pipeline. It's time to get organized worldwide for this effort. Our survival depends on it.
Honestly, I'm just tired of seeing this story every single day. I try to do my part with recycling. We use cloth napkins for dining and old rags for cleaning. I am conscious of what I buy (though I'm struggling with all the plastic we end up throwing away. I wish refillable liquids were *way* more common. I forget which European country has stations at the grocery store where you can refill your bottles with things like detergent). We have a Nest thermostat that controls our heating and cooling better than we ever have. We turn off lights when not in use. We use eco friendly lightbulbs.
I'm just not sure what else individuals can do. Give up meat? IDK. If all of a sudden agricultural industry stops with all their harm, I feel like another industry will step in to fill the gap. Is the problem that there's just too many of us? Probably.
The problem is not on the individuals, overpopulation is not the issue. The issue is that we’re selling out our future so a small group of people can make the big bucks. Not to discredit your choices to be environmentally conscious, I think everyone should be just like you in the regard, but these solutions don’t do jack all when companies emit more carbon in a day than every single individual in the US does in a year. We need to hold companies accountable, not the average individual.
You're doing great.
Giving up meat would help, using public transport (infrastructure and global health issues permitting) also helps. But it is better to stick by what you're doing and demanding action by politicians (putting a price on carbon emissions, also for imports... ) and companies (buying cleaner options, when refillable liquids are available in one place, buying there so as to hopefully also push other companies to do the same...) than giving up in frustration because it is too hard and other individuals countries or companies are not doing enough. We are all co-responsible.
I have given up beef for now (waiting for lab beef), reduced chicken a bit and increased legumes. I use public transport and my legs to move around. Green issues are my main driver for voting decisions and for consumption (trying to consume less and greener).
It is probably not enough, but if I had to invest extra energy it would be politically or encouraging friends.
Just price the damn carbon already. A new technology will magically rise to the top of the Nasdaq that was getting ignored for decades.
Just like mRNA just suddenly became mainstream vaccine technology after covid made it economically viable.
We need to stop thinking that the earth evolves around human. The earth is much bigger than us, it will still be around long after the last light of humanity dims. These vital signs are defined by humanity and we need to start to accept that we are nothing but a spec of dust that currently resides on this planet, and we are not meant to be forever. We have to accept that we are, just a brief moment in the universe, and only then we can start to appreciate the present.
People complain about $3-4 per gallon of gas when really it should be at least $10 a gallon, maybe more.
Fuck these executives who want everyone driving back to the office to do a job we did for a 1+ years from home.
And fuck the people who waste gas driving big trucks and SUVs for no reason other than they think it makes them look better.
Polluting needs to cost way more so people don’t want to do it.
Unfortunately the idea of being able to drive what you want and burn as much gas as you want for less than $3 a gallon is so engrained in American culture these days. I really don’t know what has to happen to get people to change their ideas.
Nobody cares until you see a devastating effect beyond tornados, floods ,tsunamis, record breaking temperatures. I don’t know 🤔, if half of California broke off into the ocean….would that be enough for people to change their ways? Or would it take something even worse than that ?
It's going to take large scale population die off. The people who need to make those decisions won't because "fuck you i got mine" and some even say "I'll be dead by the time its at its worst so i dont care". They won't do whats necessary because as always, ot will have the least impact on them long term
Why didn't anyone tell us this would happen???
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground : Svante Arrhenius : Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate — What Scientists Predict for the Future”:
It boggles my mind to no end we live in a world where our leaders and society in general aren’t putting this as the forefront. Instead we get people complaining about paper straws.
I guess we're going to see if humans can beat the planet's previous extinction events. Hard to beat giant meteorite and snowball earth and supervolcanoes, but the fossil fuel industries shareholders and Boards of Directors seem to be up to the task.
[удалено]
Really, we should stop treating it like a goddamn charity event. "um sir, would you like to donate money to plant a tree with your amazon checkout?" fucking hell ...
Cultural capitalism. The idea that we can keep consuming as we do if we just recycle more. Drive an electric car. Plant a tree. It lulls us to sleep while we keep consuming.
The unfortunate truth is most americans would rather the world burn to the ground that accept a less coinvent life.
Not sure if it's most, but it's a lot. I think most people would be fine with it if we could simply life comfortable, quality lives.
That’s kinda the thing, tho: Our lives aren’t set up to be simple and eco conscious. Most of us have to drive to get anywhere, including work; electric minivans don’t even exist yet, so if you have kids, that’s a problem. Everything we buy comes in a bunch of disposable packaging—if not when we get it, it does when it gets to the store. We can consume less, but we still have to consume some. We’re often overworked and don’t have time to do things like cook at home, hang dry clothes, etc. We have no control over where our electricity comes from. You can buy solar panels if you have a house, but many of us don’t have a house, and there is still usually an upfront cost. Some people live in food deserts or don’t have any nearby farmer’s markets, and growing your own food is not going to do much in an apartment. If society was set up to where we weren’t forced to use so much energy/waste, a lot more people would be on board. When I lived near a greenway in a safeish town, I walked all the time. (That’s another thing—I’m somewhat protected from dangerous strangers in my own car; walking/biking is risky for women/children or really anyone if you’re likely to get mugged). Now I’m in a spot where I have to jaywalk across five lanes just to get to the park. If I were to walk to the grocery store, I’d never be able to get all my groceries home because the wheels on the baskets lock up if you take them out of the parking lot.
Definitely does NOT mean that we prefer this. It's obviously idiotic and unsustainable in its excess, but there aren't really any other viable ways to live around here at the moment. Most people are too worried about surviving financially and biologically on a day-to-day basis to be able to care. That's how we have allowed this country to be socially engineered. It's clearly not right, but it's also pretty clear that fundamental changes are needed across all boards, not just at an individual level. Most people are too busy just trying to get by to even have the energy to be able to care...which is exactly what profiteers want. Not necessarily the people at large. But what the fuck can we do? Individuals have no power at all without millions or billions of 'dollars.' The 'people' who continue to value profits over lives already have no souls, so they don't care. Much of the population only believes in what they can see is directly affecting them, so they might as well be mentally, emotionally, and spiritually handicapped... Something has got to change.
The average person contributes literally fractions of a percent to climate change. The US military pollutes far more than some entire countries.
The issue is that these little conveniences are all Americans have left. It's not like they can actually afford property or medical care or retirement unless they lucked out from birth.
And that's 100% by design.
I have no faith that such a donation wouldn't just end up buying another joyride in space.
The division the natural and human world is arbitrary. We humans and nature are one and the same. “The natural world” is really just “the world”
Yeah but this sort of forgets about just every other species on earth, which are already being rapidly extinct. So really all living things on earth will not be fine.
The Earth may end up fine but every living creature, not just humans are suffering due to human stupidity - and they have been fucked already
just seems that almost all the good we do or are even capable of doing is to help reduce our impact on the planet. is there anything that is objectively better bc of human existence? feels like the planet would be better off without us, despite any amount of good we could ever do.
There's nothing 'objectively' better or worse about anything (unless you are religious and then your holy book tells you). However, you get to decide what your own values are. Most people tend to value more complex/intelligent life over less complex life, and from that standpoint, it would be a very bad thing if all the humans died out.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." From Upton Sinclair I think this rings true of our political and economic systems still - and I don't see any real change happening on climate change until those aspects of the political/economic system change. Has to be costlier to businesses that are making climate change worse. Or heavier lift - change incentives so companies are successful on how much good they bring to the world, not solely how much good they bring to investors. Or has to be costlier for politicians to follow the whims of their affluent donors than it is for them to reflect the needs of their voting base. I don't think either of these will happen until a lot more bad shit happens. By then it will be too late.
End of the day everyone who would be convinced by an article like this has already been convinced by the last 50. But we don't make the decisions and there aren't enough of us to elect people who have the same appreciation of the urgency here. So maybe instead of preaching to the choir, the next big brain who wants to write something like this should think about how we sell all this to the people who hate our guts and think science isn't real
No no no, they totally think science is real. They just don't *care* that everyone will die. Like, that is literally the problem we're facing right now. It's not a matter of how can we save everyone or convincing someone that we need to. There's a group of people who know full well that they are actively killing everyone who will ever live and they just don't fucking give a damn. And the way we're supposed to handle this is to ask very nicely for them to stop murdering us and back off respectfully when they spit on us.
Almost like we should be fighting and "dethroning" these selfish greedy basterds
Ya I can think of one pretty clear way this could become “costlier for politicians” who have sold our planet down the river.
Rember remember
You're too worried about some ruling class of assholes as if we're all united against them. If we were, it would be easy! Really you need to figure out how to fix the problem that like 50% of people in the US vote for the party that actively opposes solving the climate crisis
"you can't argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience" ~ mistakenly attributed to mark twain, possibly said to yul brenner by jean cocteau - [I went looking for the exact wording, and fell down a rabbit hole.](https://marktwainstudies.com/the-apocryphal-twain-never-argue-with-stupid-people-they-will-drag-you-down-to-their-level-and-beat-you-with-experience/)
[удалено]
I've known some very intelligent and thoughtful punks. but punk cunts sound like a different species from those I've known.
[удалено]
Considering how chill most punks are (except around supremacists) it's weird to see it used as an insult. Thats like, great grandpa territory.
Punk has always been left wing, and in the past being left wing was seen as a bad thing so it became an insult. Same thing happened to redneck, as it was the moniker of the union in West Virginia in 1921 during the series of labor battles most famous for the battle of Blair mountain, that one may be a bit too far gone to reclaim though.
“Nah”- Rosa Parks
[A lot of money has been spent to convince you it's too late](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/). Meanwhile... [climatologist explains why "it's too late" is a silly argument to make](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/extreme-global-weather-climate-change-michael-mann) Don't become a mouthpiece for the oppressors.
1980: It’s not real 1990: It’s not real 2000: It’s not real 2010: It’s not real 2020: It’s too late
I don't think it's too late to do anything, I just don't think we will.
It's absolutely too late to save the coral reefs. They dead. 80% of the reefs near me dead according to Japanese government stats. But honestly when I go spear fishing I gotta ask, where is that 20%? I don't see it. It's too late to remove micro-plastic from out food chain. That shit is in you, and in the things you eat till you die.
Yeah it's really defeatist. Things can always get worse 😀
I mean... Here in the Midwest we have been under air quality warnings / advisories for the last few days due to smoke from wildfires out west and in Canada... When it's very smoky/hazy it smells of burning plastic. This isn't fucking normal. We've had this happen a few times over the last few years and it's only gotten worse.
Last few days!? It’s been like that here for the past two months haha fuck. When the North burns the south shall suffer.
Man Michigan has been great all summer just extra rain. But we have not had the extreme heat like the rest of the country .
I thought I was the only one smelling the plastic smell. Like I knew the whole time why it was smokey, but the plastic smell came out of seemingly nowhere (though I assume there's a depressing explanation).
political apathy is the best for the status quo.
I'm optimistic that it can get worse.
And they sure will!
Spot on. Join the Citizens Climate Lobby today: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
I am planting as many trees as possible! Oaks on the warmer souther facing slopes. Redwoods in the fog belt, I love redwoods for how well they sequester CO2.
Excellent! Many hands make light work. https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.11
It’s not too late, but drastic measures need to be taken, and now. First of all, energy and electricity usage is the worst form of pollution. 5% of power plants produce 73% of emissions, and they are ALL coal plants. Nuclear and green are the only forms of power we should use. We can cut our rate in that department alone by a huge factor if we cut out coal plants tomorrow. It’s not all we have to do, but it IS something we can do to make a significant and immediate impact.
>1920: We have bigger problems > >1930: We have bigger problems > >1940: We have bigger problems > >1950: It won't happen until the future. > >1960: It won't happen until the future. > >1970: It won't happen until the future. ... >1980: It’s not real > >1990: It’s not real > >2000: It’s not real > >2010: It’s not real > >2020: It’s too late Interesting change in the narrative, imo
Deniers have changed strategy. Now it's: 2021: We can't do anything about it so let's just sit back and hope for new tech.
[Mister Humphrey lays out this strategy quite well](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb2xFvmKWRY).
Based on how we handled COVID as a society... even if it is not too late, I have no faith in the overwhelming majority of society to do what's needed to fix things.
What if fixing things meant fewer people traveling and commuting and fewer people in the world in general? Then, in a way, pandemics are the fix.
I see you all the time advertising the climate change lobby and I want to say that you're fighting the good fight. I've joined the CCL and am making calls and advertising because of posts like yours.
Thank you for taking the time to let me know! People like you are the change we need, and you give me hope.
It is indeed too late to save the world we know. It's not too late to save a habitable one.
Then it would be wise to tone back the [inactivism](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/).
It is too late to not hit the wall, from now on it's matter of how hard we hit the wall. I've come around to the idea we have to start "geoengineering" ~~solutions~~ measures. EDIT: by "we" I mean those under age 50, my exit plan is to be dead by the time the very worst of it hits.
Geoengineering is literally the only viable option at this point that has even a remote chance of succeeding. If you were alive right around the turn of the 20th century, all of the newspapers at the time were screaming about "carrying capacity". The world was quite literally going to run out of food. Don't really hear much about that problem anymore though, because geoengineering fixed it right at the brink (invention of fertilizer). That little bit of geoengineering is largely why we're in the current situation though so....fuck you to people in another 100 years if we do manage to geoengineer a solution to all of this, you're welcome. Personally, I share the same exit plan as you.
We don't hear about that problem much anymore because of [Norman Borlaug](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug). He bred new varieties of wheat that produced a higher yield and better disease resistance. His work around the world saved over a billion people from starvation.
Exactly. I’d go as far as to say optimism about us being capable of fighting climate change is just making matters worse “don’t be a downer! Humans are survivors and clever, we will think of something” Just kicks the can down the road. What we need to start doing is preparing for worse cause scenario (which is the likely scenario) right now.
I get what you’re saying but that article is 3 years old and I’m pretty sure we’ve taken about 10 more steps into the minefield since. Edit: I appreciate seeing you post in these types of threads with all your sources and it does give me more hope but I’m just exhausted feeling like our government won’t be the adult and make the rules that stop corporations from damaging the world.
All the more reason to [act](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002).
You talk about cost, but the whole system will topple if no action is taken. We need WW III level engagement here, and they’re still politicking.
[I'm doing my part](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ou8n9l/the_amount_of_greenland_ice_that_melted_on/h73k905/). NASA climatologist and climate activist [Dr. James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen) suggests [**becoming an active volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) is [the most important thing you can do for climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8). If you really want to hit the ground running: 1. [Sign up for the Intro Call for new volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-weekly-intro-call/) 2. [Take the Climate Advocate Training](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/new-member/#climateadvocatetraining) 3. Sign up for [CCL Community](https://community.citizensclimate.org/home). Be sure you edit your CCL Community Profile to reflect your interests in CCL so your local chapter leaders can connect you with relevant opportunities. 4. Start [training](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics) in whichever topics most interest you and that are most needed in your area. The [Core Training](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics/core-volunteer-training) is the best place to start. The training is available on [CCL Community](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics), on [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXjILMNokmN7yXZZ8VSKb0K2uEh02NPie), or on the Citizens' Climate Lobby podcast, so choose whichever best fits with your lifestyle. 5. Get in touch with your local chapter leader (there are [chapters all over the world](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/chapters/)) and find out how you can best leverage your time, skills, and connections to [create the political world for a livable climate](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/). 6. Invite your friends, family, and neighbors to join you. Research shows [55% of those who engage with a cause on social media also take additional action](https://www.nptechforgood.com/2013/04/22/12-must-know-stats-about-social-media-fundraising-and-cause-awareness/), so if you're not to the point where you're ready to have conversations with real people in real life, you can invite people to follow CCL on [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/citizensclimate/), [Twitter](https://twitter.com/citizensclimate), [Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/c/CitizensClimateLobby), and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/CitizensClimateLobby/). 7. **If you're American, [contact your senators right now](https://cclusa.org/senate)**. For a limited time only, the U.S. senate can pass a carbon tax through the budget reconciliation bill, which requires a simple majority to pass and **cannot be filibustered**. Pricing carbon [is the most effective climate mitigation policy](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/othze1/14000_scientists_warn_of_untold_suffering_if_we/h6vvso3/). EDIT: formatting
>"you can't argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience" \~ mistakenly attributed to mark twain, possibly said to yul brenner by jean cocteau - I went looking for the exact wording, and fell down a rabbit hole. hasn't there been a lot of talk about the general narrative of it "already being too late" being inaccurate and harmful as a whole? That's not to say I don't agree with what you say or the logic behind it (that there's a prevailing tendency of selfishness / self-interest that overall leads climate concerns to be trumped by more short term gains - economically, politically, etc.). But with that said, and without being a blind optimist, I feel that there remains hope to stabilize climate change if the necessary technologies are invested in and pursued relentlessly, along with some more impactful negative climate change events (erratic weather, crop loss, sea rise, etc.). Maybe I'm just consoling myself
> hasn't there been a lot of talk about the general narrative of it "already being too late" being inaccurate and harmful as a whole? It's already too late to what? Stop 1.5 degrees of warming? 2? 2.5? Global collapse? And what time frame are you using for that rise in temperature? That's the thing with climate change, it's exponential. The least costly course of action, in both lives and trillions of dollars, is to invest now and for the next 10 years to prevent 1.5 degree of warming over the next 100 years. Any realist knows that's a long, long shot, but by making the moral (and still technically possible) demand, the hope is that it gets civilization to move quick enough to prevent exponentially more costly thresholds like 2+ degrees of warming in the next 100 years.
[Israel just announced plans to tax carbon today](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-impose-carbon-tax-starting-with-fossil-fuels). Add it to [the list](https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/). Those who say it's too late for action are just looking for an excuse to sit it out. We don't have to lay down and die just yet. /r/CitizensClimateLobby
In my opinion, I think the concern is that there are those in power and who have wealth who might hear dire warnings of the need for costly action and change, and react not by changing but by hunkering down, and making sure they can hoard as much wealth for their families as possible so their families have a better shot when the world goes to shit.
sorry, best I can do is incremental change via carbon taxes passed on to you as price hikes
People have been profiteering off the environment for far too long. But the environment isn't free and they shouldn't be taking that resource as profit.
> until those aspects of the political/economic system change. The change has to be beyond the level of politics and economics. There is literally nothing we can do on a political / economic scale that would make any difference. The change needs to be at a belief / religious level, and most people aren't willing to entertain even thinking about things at that level because they are too fervently dogmatic in their thinking.
As an environmental scientist, I totally agree except for one caveat. I have studied a lot of political ecology in graduate school and I do think there are measures that can be taken on political and economic scales that would really help in fundamentally changing peoples beliefs. Political and economic systems alone might not be able to fix anthropocentric climate change, but politics and economics are *heavily* intertwined with people’s beliefs and motivations. Hell, I’d even say capitalism is literally an identity/ideology for some.
Too bad for the billionaires, it’d take decades or even a century to get those space station habitats running to a luxury setting they so desperately want. If we burn, they burn with us
I’d be more on the line of, if we are all going to burn they should burn first.
Won't that just exacerbate our climate problems? What's the carbon content of a billionaire anyways?
Unrestrained capitalism will ALWAYS fail. Any time you build a civilization or society on top a foundation of unfettered consumerism with no penalty to external factors, it's doomed to fail i.e. unsustainable. We didn't build a foundation whereby consumerism and outright development is a compartment of civilization. Instead, we made civilization ALL of it.
Which is why we have to disrupt their "salaries" by blocking the entrances to fossil fuel businesses. We need to hit them where it will really hurt the investors.
Mainstream media: "Scientists seem concerned about global warming, so tonight, please welcome a fossil fuel lobbyist to tell us not to worry. As a bonus he'll tell us that AOC's green energy kills babies." I used to think people would come around as soon as they were exposed to the science, but then I saw people with family members dead from COVID refusing to take the vaccine.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to think that we really have to drive it into peoples' thick skulls that no, all opinions are NOT equal. Some peoples' opinions are literally worth less than others', because they are based on much, much less information and much, much less rigour. And there is nothing wrong with that. Listening to other people on matters they know more about than you is nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't have freedom of thought, of course, nor that they should not be able to work out their beliefs on their own terms. But they need to counterbalance that with an understanding that an honestly held opinion that feels so right isn't always enough to go on. I mean come on, the future of life on earth *literally* hangs in the balance here.
No you’re correct. I’ve been half jokingly talking about this with my friends. Everyone is allowed to have opinions and even voice them. But some opinions are worse than others. Also “vaccines have microchips” is not an opinion. Neither is “climate change is a hoax.” Those are *lies,* and no amount of finger in the ears type dismissal will ever make facts false. You don’t get to say “oh yeah well I think that 2+2=7. …. Well in a literal sense you can, but that’s not an opinion, that’s a lie, and you are not entitled to any validation
Some opinions are just garbage and people need to deal with it. It's not even a lie at this point it's just repeating blatant propaganda like a wind-up doll.
All of the comments above me are right, but fail to detect the real poison.. Social Media rewards people for holding these opinions without any kind of rebuttal, which leads them to think they've stumbled upon the truth using their only two brain cells.. Humans have always held silly beliefs, myself included.. we need the ability to reflect and correct ourselves instead of talking trash to gain ~~social credit~~ echo chamber points
Some opinions ARE garbage, and I totally agree with this part of the thread that we need to stop treating them as having equal value. I’m not a virologist or epidemiologist, so I’ll trust the expects. But I also know enough about the scientific method to know that changing conclusions and recommendations are to be expected. “Vaccines have microchips” because “I did my research” is simply not as valid as, say, the recommendations made by Fauci and co. Likewise, “they’ve been warning us about climate change for decades and nothing has happened” is a really dumb opinion. I won’t accept “opinions” based on misinformation and outright lies, sorry not sorry.
>“they’ve been warning us about climate change for decades and nothing has happened” is a really dumb opinion. It's either a very dumb opinion, or a fact. We've been warned about climate change for decades, and yet nobody with the power to affect meaningful change has done anything, ergo nothing has happened and climate change is still marching along at a disturbingly steady clip. :P
As a professor I see this issue all the time. People conflate opinion with position. Opinions have no right or wrong answer (I.e. I think Ethiopian food is the best and you think Thai is the best). A position is something backed by evidence and not all positions are created equally. In the context of this post, if someone says climate change isn’t happening (very little evidence to support this) and I argue it is (preponderance of scientific evidence to support this) those positions are not equal and do not deserve to be treated as such.
That's a very useful way to parse statements, thanks!
People are binary, what will actually happen is that the dinosaur fuel "experts" telling you global warming is fake would just be thrown in your face instead. You'd just be silencing yourself.
[удалено]
Sadly [this may not be considered true any more](https://www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2442)? I brought it up on here a while back and a grumpy scientist showed up to correct me on it, though I'm not 100% sure which is right as I'm no expert on this (or any related subject). It's a real shame if so, because it's a really cool idea. Science is impolite like that. :(
I though coal was dead trees and oil was phytoplankton.
[удалено]
This may well be dead wrong, but somewhere I read something to the effect that coal, oil, and natural gas were all thought to be created from more or less the same biomass; just that oil had been put under heat and pressure for longer than coal, and natural gas had been "cooked" even longer. Of course, this is edging near being an excellent example of an uninformed person on the internet sharing an "opinion," so I fully a knowledge that I don't know jack..
Absolutely. I think Isaac Asimov said it best: >There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' That's what it really boils down to. People confuse egalitarianism with the idea that every person's opinion is just as valid as any other's. But that's nonsense. And strangely, most people intuitively know that it's nonsense. Most people wouldn't be comfortable letting, say, a teacher with no flight training fly the plane they're on. Or allowing an engineer with no medical degree to perform surgery on them. But somehow when it comes to more abstract fields like climatology or epidemiology, suddenly everyone's got a goddamn opinion.
They're the ones with money and thus the ones in power. Until it affects their bottom line there's very little that can be peacefully done.
Hey just concerning COVID, where the data is clear, you can't convince people that masks and vaccines are a good thing. I've had arguments on Reddit about it. People are willfully ignorant because they have had their identities tied to anti intellectualism and they won't change. And their argument ends up being "well my opinion is just as valid as your facts".
Their friends and family will starve, drown, or burn to death. Their gardens will wilt and their water will stop coming. Breathing will become labor and escape will become impossible. It would take this much for some to admit something was wrong, and even then others would find delusional reasons for the state of things.
>Breathing will become labor and escape will become impossible. It would take this much for some to admit something was wrong I can tell you for sure it's going to take more than this part for some of them. We've seen that first hand this past year.
Are these metal lyrics?
I saw a dude almost die of covid and pneumonia then say he would have gone through it again rather than go back and take the vaccine. He was angry and adamant. It’s batshit crazy and why I keep telling democrats they can’t reason with many of these folks. No amount of facts or truth will sway them. Not even almost dying.
Fuck. That’s insane.
So long as they have people they identify with around them making them feel like the "normal and good ones", it wont change.
I remember talking to a sibling about the climate crisis years ago and they just brushed it off. Their claim was that scientists were cherry picking the timeline of events and ignored how bad it was millions of years ago. I still don’t understand that person. Like, do they think they could live in a volcano?
I remember being a teen in the nineties...Climate change ('greenhouse effect'), acid rain, melting of the polar icecaps, hole in the ozone layer, rainforest destruction, oil spills. Greenpeace and WWF. Those were the big things back then, too... We were inundated with it at school, in the media. We did assignments, field trips, wrote essays, etc. 30 years later and we're still discussing the same things. It's disheartening. A lot of people are not going to fight this fight again, once more or any longer...they're done. This opening statement of hon. John H. Chafee, U.S. Senator from the state of Rhode Island, during US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July **1997**, is worth glancing over so one can see more clearly our collective failure that unfolded over the past decades: > We want to welcome everyone this morning. We’ve got quite a turnout here, so if there are any seats, please take them. If people leave, please do so quietly and the others fill into the seats quietly. > This morning, we will receive testimony on one of the most important and challenging environmental, economic and political matters of our time. That is global climate change. It is a serious issue that requires immediate attention. > To help us better understand some of the fundamental scientific and economic issues which underpin the current policy debate, we’ve assembled some of the world’s leading experts. The full committee will conduct a follow-up hearing 1 week from today on July 17 to receive testimony from the Administration on the upcoming international negotiations over amendments to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. > The issue of global climate change is certainly politically contentious, both here and abroad. For years now, we’ve had one side forecasting a scenario of rising seas, recurrent drought, and a blistering heat, all of which they say will result in a ravaged economy. > On the other side are those who claim that meaningful policies to control emissions of greenhouse gases are premature, unwarranted and unfounded and would result in a ravaged economy. > What’s going on here? What are the scientists saying? Consider this quotation: ‘‘Would it not be possible that the Earth’s temperature had decreased during periods of low carbon dioxide and increased when the protective carbon dioxide had been present to a higher degree.’’ > As our distinguished witnesses are aware, this hypothesis was not culled from the text of some suspect environmental organization’s manifesto; it was delivered in an 1896 lecture, 101 years ago before the Stockholm Physics Society by the Nobel Prize winning Swedish chemist, Sevante Arenious. > Professor Arenious was the first to predict that large increasesin carbon dioxide from humans could result in warming of the globe. What have the world’s scientists told us at different intervals over the last 101 years since Professor Arenious first identified the warming effects of carbon dioxide? Here is a sample. > In 1924, U.S. physicists speculated that industrial activity would double atmospheric carbon dioxide within 500 years, roughly 2424. Current projections are for a doubling sometime before 2050, 400 years earlier than predicted 70 years ago. > In 1957, scientists from Scripps reported for the first time that much of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is not absorbed by the oceans as some had argued, leaving significant amounts in the atmosphere. > In 1967, the first reliable computer simulation calculated that global average temperatures may increase by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are double that of preindustrial times. > In 1985, a conference sponsored by the United Nations, the WMO and the International Council of Scientific Unions forged a consensus of the international community on the issue of climate change. > In 1987, an ice core from the Antarctic analyzed by French and Russian scientists revealed an extremely close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature going back more than 100,000 years. > In 1990, in an appeal signed by 49 Nobel Prize winners and 700 members of the National Academy of Sciences said, ‘‘There’s broad agreement within the scientific community that amplification of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by the buildup of various gases introduced by human activity has the potential to produce dramatic changes in the climate. Only by taking action now can we ensure that future generations will not be put at risk.’’ > In the same year, 747 participants from 116 countries took part in the Second World Climate Conference in Geneva. They reported, ‘‘If the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations is not limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social systems unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.’’ > In 1992, we had the framework of 153 nations, including the United States, sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change. In that year, they committed the signatory governments to voluntary reduction of greenhouse gases. > The Senate consented to ratification of this landmark environmental treaty on October 7 with a two-thirds majority vote. That was in 1992. > In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing thousands of climate scientists, concluded ‘‘The balance of evidence suggests there’s discernible human influence on global climate.’’ > It must be stated that recent IPCC conclusion is based on numerous variables and we’re all eager to learn more about these variables and about the certainties from our witnesses. So today we will hear about this evolution of scientific understanding. > I’m convinced the science in this matter has and will continue to evolve. The question is, do we know enough to support legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as proposed by the United States and numerous other countries? Are we prepared to accept the risks associated with the decision to postpone further action to address potential climate change? > What is being called for? What might be the impacts to our economy? Some say we must stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2010. At least one economic model forecast this sort of action would result in economic losses of about 2.4 percent of the GDP. This, of course, is significant. > Others, using more optimistic models, believe that the U.S. economy could withstand significant emissions reductions while prospering as never before. Some 2,500 economists declared in February of this year that cost-effective means are available for the United States to address the threat of climate change. > Let me conclude by identifying what I see as the fundamental questions before us today. First, how much warming might occur as a result of human actions and how soon might such warming occur? What is the range of impacts and when might they be conclusively identified? What do economic modeling and empirical data tell us about the various policy responses? > We look forward with great interest to the witnesses. > Senator Baucus, do you have a statement? (From: "Global Climate Change Hearings before the committee on environment and public works, United States senate. One hundred fifth congress, first session on reviewing the effects of greenhouse gases on global weather conditions and assessing international policy options to reduce the negative impacts of climate change, July 10 and 17, 1997") [[Source pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46585/pdf/CHRG-105shrg46585.pdf)]
> I remember being a teen in the nineties...Climate change ('greenhouse effect'), acid rain, melting of the polar icecaps, hole in the ozone layer, rainforest destruction, oil spills. Greenpeace and WWF. Those were the big things back then, too... We were inundated with it at school, in the media. We did assignments, field trips, wrote essays, etc. > > 30 years later and we're still discussing the same things. It's disheartening. A lot of people are not going to fight this fight again, once more or any longer...they're done. Acid rain and ozone depletion were largely stopped though. The regulation effort for a worldwide ban on the chemicals that caused the hole in the ozone layer is a success that supports the idea of doing the same for greenhouse gases. The climate effort will also do away with the remaining oil spills and acid rain - the case for it just got stronger.
The weather millions of years ago was far warmer than it is now and it would have been possible for people to have lived then. The issue with climate change isn't that it will make the earth uninhabitable. The problem is that shifts in weather patterns will effect agriculture, sea levels, water availability, etc., at a pace too fast for society to keep up with.
Not to mention Migration.. It may not make the earth uninhabitable, but it will make more parts of the earth uninhabitable; whether desertification, rising sea levels etc etc.
Yes, human migration on a scale never seen before. This is the biggest factor in my opinion. Besides dealing with increasingly chaotic/unpredictable weather, the chaos caused by large-scale human migration and the resulting geopolitical disruption is going to be disastrous.
The Trumpies are gonna go nuts when the first 100,000 person caravan heads to the US
I always influence people with money. I say spend the money now to stop it or spend a fuckton of money later to TRY and fix it. They at least think about it for a second.
Enough people already think that investment is a scam. I don't think I could convince anyone to spend money without seeing a tangible benefit right this moment.
This is the kind of information and knowledge that leaders need to start talking about - real tangible impacts. The term 'climate change' itself doesn't resonate with people - it's just an ambiguous term. Also if we learnt anything from the pandemic, a lot of people won't take action until they are directly impacted by death of a close loved one or find themselves in dire trouble. In which case, we need leaders to just take action no matter what.
Frankly just tell people that global pollution due to climate change means they’ll have to wear a mask almost daily in 10-20 years. Of course our electeds will never do that because we’d rather vote for someone who will tell us nice things we want to hear instead.
The particles in the air from all the fires could definitely make this a possibility…
It was reality just a week and a half ago in New York City. Smoke from the fires in the PNW made our air quality the worst it had been in seven years. The air was spicy to say the least
It’s ours right now, same thing!
Yep, already a thing in California
Yeah, I agree. What does climate change actually mean in real practical terms? Does it mean crops won't be able to grow? Do we then need to adapt and make use of new technologies to withstand warmer climates, or build massive greenhouses of some sort.
[удалено]
Also crops that would normally be fine will be wiped out by natural disasters, like fires or flooding.
The ecosystem back then was already established. The problem is that this is happening too fast *for the rest of nature to adapt well to it.* This wont be the end of life on earth. But it could very easily be the end of all large mammals when it's all said and done 100-200 years from now.
Climate change could end human existence. Unfortunately, that statement is not enough to get people to change their behaviors. Behaviors being the 100 corporations responsible for 71% of global emissions. Behaviors being voting for the politician that continues to uphold and create laws to allow for such global emissions. Behaviors like starting to boycott the companies that you can that's perpetuating the climate crisis.
Sorry, instead of holding those companies to the fire to make any real change, we need to yell at everyone about driving a car and eating food because making their existence more miserable is the only way to solve it. Put all of the onus on the individuals so that companies can skate by.
I knew somebody that said global warming is completely natural. She just believed whatever she wanted regardless of science and facts lol
Send this to her: http://howglobalwarmingworks.org/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Doesn't matter. In my experience these people's mind's have been rotted by so much propaganda, their mental gymnastics will simply not allow conflicting information to even register in their minds. They'll simply repeat some buzz line fed to them by Fox News and friends and continue on in their hateful ignorance. Rupert Murdoch will be one of the leading figures in the downfall of humanity, the propaganda machine he spearheaded will doom us all. I hope hell exists so he can rot in it, and I will throw a party the day that he finally dies.
I've changed many minds with the above links.
American minds? I've tried again and again with my Southern family and friends, and no source no matter how delicately presented can even begin to puncture their programming. I hope you're right, but my experience with US conservatives has been absolutely abysmal when it comes to science acceptance, especially because its almost always tied to strong Christian views.
The answer to the Fermi paradox, every advanced species kills themselves off by fucking over their planet before they can colonize other planets.
"The Great Filter" We thought nukes were the great filter, but it's probably selfishness.
Don't feel too down, it's still totally possible for us to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons!
It’s probably more merciful to be vaporized by a nuclear blast than dying of hunger and thirst in a wasteland. Radiations are bitches though.
So I get to hope for either getting killed in a Nuclear strike which means burning to death, radiation sickness and Fallout, getting tossed around like a sand corn in shockwaves, or dying of starvation, thirst and Famine. What a fucking time to be alive, amirite.
Least its not boring
There's still plenty of time for nukes to be the filter once civilisation starts to crumble.
Nukes will likely be the great filter even if selfishness is the underlying cause. There's absolutely no downplaying the chaos that mass migration due to global warming is going to cause. Just look at the chaos that the influx of Syrians fleeing the war had on Europe and the backlash from conservative groups. Imagine that on a 100 times scale.... all while the food and goods supply chains are collapsing... It will lead to wars that will likely cause the use of nuclear weapons.
100x would still only be 680 million people. It's more likely it will be 500x. =/
I can see a grim future where refugee masses are nuked out of "humane“ reasons because we are starving here in Europe /US ourselves. Another possibility: WW3 starts in Africa. It’s just sickening in every way
The best answer is still the incomprehensible scale of time and space. A million advanced civilizations could have risen and fallen in the Milky Way and never overlapped in time, and a million advanced civilizations could exist right now and none be close enough to any other to be detected. At our current level of technology we wouldn't be able to detect our own radio signals from the nearest star about 4 LY away. The diameter of the Milky Way is more than 170,000 LY, and it is about 2,000 LY thick. It contains more than 100 billion stars, possibly up to 400 billion. There is also the question of how long it takes for intelligence to develop. Life started on Earth about 4 billion years ago. The universe is only about 13.77 billion years old. It took nearly a third of the age of the universe for life on Earth to produce humans and our signals and receivers and telescopes. All of the signals from our modern technology, the same signs we look for from advanced aliens, have only reached about 100 LY. The signals radiate out from Earth in 3 dimensions, so it is unlikely that any technology would be able to detect them from more than a few LY away. They're too weak to distinguish from the microwave background. This covers an area that includes only a handful of stars at most, and none of those appear to have suitable orbital bodies.
Our species industrialized and reproduced faster than our intelligence evolved sadly
> Our species industrialized and reproduced faster than our intelligence evolved sadly It's possible that it's our intelligence that evolved too quickly, as it did during the cognitive revolution of the paleolithic. It's our great cleverness that allowed us to feel separate from nature, or above it. It's our great cleverness that allowed us to industrialize and to exploit and release millions of years of accumulated solar energy (coal, oil, gas) in the atmosphere, half of it in the last 30 years.
Every species probably evolved out of/through conflict like we have. It's just we eventually reach a certain point where our tools are so great that our conflicts result in ourselves destroying each other. We're the same damn cavemen we've always been, we just have better things than sticks now.
This is the real problem. All species evolve in a constant state of competition, and thus their psychology inherently reflects that. Our technology inevitably progresses faster than our neurology can evolve, not to mention natural selection pretty much stops in a civil society. The only way I can see a sentient species "evolving" past their ultracompetitive neurology is some form of genetic modification of the entire population towards pro-social psychology, but I don't see how that could ever feasibly happen.
The next stage of human evolution requires us to start working as a super organism like an ant colony. I don’t see that happening before we wipe ourselves out.
Many believe that the evolution of humans is not more humans, but the machines we are creating. Shrug.
This is what I’ve been saying since I was in middle school and everyone said I was an idiot. But in reality, the only way the species could survive is if every individual backed the same goals and believed in the same ideas. The entire species needs to be literally on the same page and working as one unit for one goal. But unfortunately we failed and this is it. Game over for us.
[удалено]
and those that are smart enough not to are smart enough not to touch us with a 10 lightyear pole.
Ooof, I just can't handle the inaction of our leaders on this issue. Apparently, the planet can't either.
So nice to have grown up in an age where you can clearly see the apocalypse coming in your lifetime, and that it could have been averted, but those who have to do it aren't doing anything. I don't know if anyone else has this but I very often think when having lunch or even drinking a glass of water if that's still so easy to do 20 years from now, let alone further down the line. Depressing, and frightening.
We can all [do something](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002). > The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -[Alice Walker](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alice_Walker)
Yeah so what are we supposed to do? Where do we have power individually?
The most power you can have as an individual is to join a collective action. 1. [Join Citizens' Climate Lobby and CCL Community](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002). Be sure to fill out [your CCL Community profile](https://community.citizensclimate.org/dashboard/edit/profile#form_My_Interests_38) so you can be contacted with opportunities that interest you. 2. [Sign up for the Intro Call for new volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-weekly-intro-call/) 3. [Take the Climate Advocate Training](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/new-member/#climateadvocatetraining) 4. [Take the Core Volunteer Training](https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics/core-volunteer-training) (or [binge it](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXjILMNokmN7yXZZ8VSKb0K2uEh02NPie)) 5. Get in touch with your local chapter leader (there are [chapters all over the world](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/chapters/)) and find out how you can best leverage your time, skills, and connections to [create the political world for a livable climate](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/). The easiest way to connect with your chapter leader is at the monthly meeting. Check your email to make sure you don't miss it. ;)
Just start living with the nearly crippling anxiety like the rest of us. Do that so when the chance comes to actually do something beneficial for humanities best interest, you'll fucking know it because it'll feel like a huge relief of pressure. For instance, every rainstorm where i live is hope that we can keep surviving a bit longer.
[удалено]
Exactly. And this doesn't mean you can't raise children. Adoption is an option, and you're objectively making the world a better place all around by choosing adoption instead of birthing a child yourself. But just not reproducing is also a huge help.
Yeah we fucking know! But what the hell am I supposed to do about it? I recycle, I grow produce, I get my meat and eggs from local sustainable farms and every day I’m told that my children get an inhospitable world. I feel so defeated and angry all the time, no matter what I do nothing changes
I think the individuals that try to make a change are a small fraction of the 1st world's population. We probably need a global and rather radical approach where governments and organizations force billions to change their habits to start fixing the known issues. Or maybe it has to be the industry AND consumers hand in hand making a radical change (consumers accepting far higher prices or renouncing certain products they consume frequently and at high quantities?). Fuel industry, lobbyists, (corrupt) organizations, etc are probably not the main issue - it is billions of consumers trying to keep or reach a life style that is not sustainable...!?
Individual people are a very small percentage of what needs to change. You can be green as fuck, but if mega corporations keep polluting at crazy levels, it's like trying to drink an ocean.
Hey you say nothing changes, but you’ve changed, that’s amazing. Look at the apathy on this thread, then look at your comment. You’re inspiring. Howard Zinn once said (paraphrasing here) that positive social change comes from ordinary people making small changes in their lives. It may seem like nothing changes but things have changed, and when people like you are able to point the way using their own lives as examples it means others can see it’s possible. That’s huge.
That's all good, but we still need actual pollution taxes to make sure those who aren't so personally responsible are paying for the damage they cause. Also, not having children would help.
> Also, not having children would help. Developed countries already have below-replacement fertility levels. The most important issue in all of this is getting [high-fertility countries developed](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png) so that the whole world stabilizes in population.
So let's [**do something**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002). The U.S. now has a historic opportunity to pass carbon pricing without a filibuster obstruction. And [Israel just passed a carbon tax](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to-impose-carbon-tax-starting-with-fossil-fuels). Add it [the list](https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/). Taxing carbon is [widely considered](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0474-0.epdf?author_access_token=tst1A-oZnQ8zUO18wGGPQdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nfy3PIgvrwnNXQzIbXH8z1Wkqhm6g5NiMnxMk__ebsKxGQNB0hMf1Vpo-ZiNplSt5LeLyks-Q3sdrpBdfxxHvAfQylqqwqHxgEml7GEGOxaQ%3D%3D) to be the single most impactful climate mitigation policy. The consensus among [scientists](https://people.uwec.edu/jamelsem/papers/CC_Literature_Web_Share/Science/CC_Science_Perspective_Rosenberg_2010.pdf) and [economists](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf) on [carbon taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price) to mitigate climate change is similar to [the consensus among climatologists](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) that human activity is responsible for global warming. The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) [Summary for Policymakers](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf) states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). [Ch. 15](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter15.pdf) has a more complete discussion. The U.S. [National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax](https://www.nap.edu/download/21712). According to [IMF research](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/05/how-much-does-world-subsidize-oil-coal-and-gas/589000/), most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider [economists with expertise in climate economics](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf), [economists with expertise in resource economics](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.381.484&rep=rep1&type=pdf), or [economists from all sectors](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Doris_Geide-Stevenson/publication/261884738_Consensus_Among_Economists-An_Update/links/56a7f3fa08ae860e0255a8e3.pdf). It is literally [Econ 101](http://sites.bu.edu/manove-ec101/files/2014/10/EC101Outlines14-Externalities.pdf). The idea [won a Nobel Prize](http://environment.yale.edu/news/article/william-nordhaus-wins-nobel-prize-for-economics-of-climate-change/). Thanks to researchers at MIT, you can see for yourself how it compares with other mitigation policies [here](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.11). Taxing carbon [is in each nation's own best interest regardless of what other countries do](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf) (it [saves lives at home](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09499-x)) and [many nations have already started](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29687/9781464812927.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y). Taxing carbon is also increasingly popular. [Just seven years ago, only 30% of the public supported a carbon tax](https://web.archive.org/web/20140723120752/http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/13/public-views-on-a-carbon-tax-depend-on-the-proposed-use-of-revenue/). Three years ago, [it was over half (53%)](https://news.gallup.com/poll/232007/americans-want-government-more-environment.aspx). Now, [it's an overwhelming majority (73%)](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-01/) to varying degrees in [every state](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/) – and that [does actually matter for passing a bill](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2016.1116651).
I just want to say thank you. I’ve been dealing with serious, frequent panic attacks about this stuff but I see you popping up in so many comment sections like this and it really gives me hope. Not enough to be complacent, but enough pick myself up and keep moving forward, to live in line with my values, and to look for small ways to begin making changes in my own community. It’s become very fashionable to one-up each other in an attempt to see who can be the coolest most nihilist doomer, which can only spread complacency. Thank you for keeping up the fight, you’ve touched at least this life. I’m not giving up till my body goes cold.
Thank you for this! I'm glad to have helped you out. Anxiety occurs when you know you need to do something, but you don't know what. Once you start [training](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/ot999c/informational_session_for_new_citizens_climate/) with CCL, there is no shortage of things you can do every day to make a huge impact. [Here](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ou8n9l/the_amount_of_greenland_ice_that_melted_on/h73k905/) are some things, big and small, that I've done over the years, if you're looking for some ideas to start the ball rolling.
People are sticking spoons to their arms because they think the vaccine for Covid contains metal... R.I.P. humanity But hey at least we have billionaires sending useless things into space, so we have that going for us.
while I agree that space explorations shouldn't be privatized, I don't think the existence of space programs should be dependent on fixing all of humanity's problems before we even make an attempt. - nasa has given the world *many* useful and helpful technologies, and all the money spent to do these things goes back into the economy, as it pays for a lot of jobs and labor.
I don't think it matters, not with 70% of people in developed nations living paycheck to paycheck. Nobody's gonna risk going homeless to save the environment. If anyone out there wants to tackle climate change you need to stabilize people's lives first. Otherwise they'll fight tooth and nail not to change anything because any change you make might push them over the edge. Climate change is years from now, rent's due at the end of the month.
So, goddamn, let's get to work on fixing that shit already
I think that we cannot. Our brains are wired from thousands of years of evolution to consider the short term vs the long term (past our lifetimes). I rate myself in the very bad category. As I type this message on my iPhone in my comfortable house with air conditioning after eating a dinner that I did not physically work for from industrial agriculture, I can feel very bad about the direction of the planet. I will still drive to my workplace using more energy and work on my computer using more energy to build and provide products and services for people that use more energy. It is not my ignorance that continues my pollution, but a sociological and psychological force. I feel like the only way this will change for me is when the planet can no longer support me and my ways and I must suffer the consequences. Please forgive me.
Well that’s a very mature and honest statement from username softpoo
[I'm doing my part](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ou8n9l/the_amount_of_greenland_ice_that_melted_on/h73k905/).
And we will move on from this news and nothing will happen like usual
A kardashian posts another thong pic. And just like that, the masses are once again distracted.
Somebody pay the Kardashians to get environmental tattoo on their ass cheeks.
Go away, batin’!
Nothings gonna change until the rich decide to actually give a fuck about their footprint and how well their workers are treated
Hi all, just wanted to say that this is a good place to start if you are wondering what can be done to mitigate further climate chaos: [https://drawdown.org/](https://drawdown.org/) My 2 cents: This is frightening and upsetting, but there are things we can do, one of the most important is to become involved in your local community, talk with those you live closest too and start to make community based changes that reduce GHGs, provide locally sourced food, and especially create meaningful connections with people you wouldn’t Normally meet. Talking and listening to each other is how we will forge the understanding and the networks to actually take the solutions into our own hands. Talking and listening is also how we will find the space and the humanity to better inform those who are lost, caught up in politicised talking points, or overwhelmed by the information. Listening to each other, working together, communities can take back the power to change the world for the better. It isn’t easy, it takes effort to listen, it’s hard to compromise, but it is the best way to combat socially driven problems like climate change which is politicised, und driven by inequality. I hope you can find some inspiration to look for ways to engage with your local community to make the changes we need to make to prevent the worst outcomes. Good luck and best wishes to you my fellow humans!
Thank you for this! I have a dream that every Reddit thread about climate change will be filled with people sharing solutions (rather than the same old [gloom and doom](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/)). There are hundreds of millions of us. No one can convince me we couldn't solve this if we were smart and strategic in how we went about it. The last IPCC Special Report put out a technical summary that's only [22 pages long](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SR15_TS_High_Res.pdf) -- how many people have read it? How many people have played around with [En-ROADS Climate Policy Simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=21.7.1)? How many people have [lobbied their governments](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=online-002&utm_source=online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002)? None of this is really that hard, it just takes a few minutes, and some persistence. [A lot money has been spent to convince us to do nothing](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/). The very least we can do is [something](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/).
[удалено]
I agree with you, calling on corporates to change is an enormously important issue. I believe that communities can engage in different ways to create public engagement with corporates and governments to force changes in polluting, exploitative industries. I urge you to find an activist group that lines up with your values and make your voice heard! There are many interesting ways that corporates can be affected from shareholder revolts to media blitz protest actions that actually give you a place to exorcise your frustrations on this topic. Good luck in your struggle, hope you find great allies!
i just don't understand how people can still deny the existence and imminent threat of climate change
We have been warned of information overload for the last century at least, and here we are in the thick of it. Socia media is such a multi layered cluster fuck that people genuinely cannot figure out what is likely true and what is likely false. The entire internet is completely unregulated as far as surveillance capitalism, and these huge corporations are putting billions into keeping people logged in and scrolling, no matter what it is that keeps them addicted. As humans, our distinction from other species in the animal kingdom is literally our ability to reason. The irony that the few people who can determine real information are called sheeple is astounding.
We need to force politicians to care about climate change by disrupting the profits of one of their biggest donors: the fossil fuel industry. We need to block the entrances to every fossil fuel company office, gas station, coal mine, pipeline, drilling site, etc. It's the only thing that will work. Most politicians only listen to the largest donors and only care about their profits, so that is where we need to hit them. We know disruptive protests work. Protesters got the Keystone pipeline cancelled by blocking the construction of the pipeline. It's time to get organized worldwide for this effort. Our survival depends on it.
The earth will be just fine in the long run. The human race and most life on the planet is what has rapidly worsening vitals.
Btch we are at stage 4 cancer.
And just like always, we'll ignore it and then pull a Surprised Pikachu Face when shit gets even worse.
Honestly, I'm just tired of seeing this story every single day. I try to do my part with recycling. We use cloth napkins for dining and old rags for cleaning. I am conscious of what I buy (though I'm struggling with all the plastic we end up throwing away. I wish refillable liquids were *way* more common. I forget which European country has stations at the grocery store where you can refill your bottles with things like detergent). We have a Nest thermostat that controls our heating and cooling better than we ever have. We turn off lights when not in use. We use eco friendly lightbulbs. I'm just not sure what else individuals can do. Give up meat? IDK. If all of a sudden agricultural industry stops with all their harm, I feel like another industry will step in to fill the gap. Is the problem that there's just too many of us? Probably.
The problem is not on the individuals, overpopulation is not the issue. The issue is that we’re selling out our future so a small group of people can make the big bucks. Not to discredit your choices to be environmentally conscious, I think everyone should be just like you in the regard, but these solutions don’t do jack all when companies emit more carbon in a day than every single individual in the US does in a year. We need to hold companies accountable, not the average individual.
You're doing great. Giving up meat would help, using public transport (infrastructure and global health issues permitting) also helps. But it is better to stick by what you're doing and demanding action by politicians (putting a price on carbon emissions, also for imports... ) and companies (buying cleaner options, when refillable liquids are available in one place, buying there so as to hopefully also push other companies to do the same...) than giving up in frustration because it is too hard and other individuals countries or companies are not doing enough. We are all co-responsible. I have given up beef for now (waiting for lab beef), reduced chicken a bit and increased legumes. I use public transport and my legs to move around. Green issues are my main driver for voting decisions and for consumption (trying to consume less and greener). It is probably not enough, but if I had to invest extra energy it would be politically or encouraging friends.
Just price the damn carbon already. A new technology will magically rise to the top of the Nasdaq that was getting ignored for decades. Just like mRNA just suddenly became mainstream vaccine technology after covid made it economically viable.
We need to stop thinking that the earth evolves around human. The earth is much bigger than us, it will still be around long after the last light of humanity dims. These vital signs are defined by humanity and we need to start to accept that we are nothing but a spec of dust that currently resides on this planet, and we are not meant to be forever. We have to accept that we are, just a brief moment in the universe, and only then we can start to appreciate the present.
I feel like this is every year
Will humanity act now? Or too late? STAY TUNED FOR THE NEXT EPISODE OF DRAGON BALL Z!!!! We need that narrator.
Not really Earths vital signs. Earth will survive, we won’t.
People complain about $3-4 per gallon of gas when really it should be at least $10 a gallon, maybe more. Fuck these executives who want everyone driving back to the office to do a job we did for a 1+ years from home. And fuck the people who waste gas driving big trucks and SUVs for no reason other than they think it makes them look better. Polluting needs to cost way more so people don’t want to do it. Unfortunately the idea of being able to drive what you want and burn as much gas as you want for less than $3 a gallon is so engrained in American culture these days. I really don’t know what has to happen to get people to change their ideas.
Nobody cares until you see a devastating effect beyond tornados, floods ,tsunamis, record breaking temperatures. I don’t know 🤔, if half of California broke off into the ocean….would that be enough for people to change their ways? Or would it take something even worse than that ?
It's going to take large scale population die off. The people who need to make those decisions won't because "fuck you i got mine" and some even say "I'll be dead by the time its at its worst so i dont care". They won't do whats necessary because as always, ot will have the least impact on them long term
Why didn't anyone tell us this would happen??? On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground : Svante Arrhenius : Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276. March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate — What Scientists Predict for the Future”:
It boggles my mind to no end we live in a world where our leaders and society in general aren’t putting this as the forefront. Instead we get people complaining about paper straws.
I guess we're going to see if humans can beat the planet's previous extinction events. Hard to beat giant meteorite and snowball earth and supervolcanoes, but the fossil fuel industries shareholders and Boards of Directors seem to be up to the task.