‘Change course now’: humanity has missed 1.5C climate target, says UN head
‘Change course now’: humanity has missed 1.5C climate target, says UN head
Exclusive: ‘Devastating consequences’ now inevitable but emissions cuts still vital, says António Guterres in sole interview before Cop30Wajã Xipai (The Guardian)
like this
filister
in reply to silence7 • • •Our kids will be really ashamed of us.
Short term profits are way more important than the future of our kids I guess.
StinkyFingerItchyBum
in reply to filister • • •WhatAmLemmy
in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum • • •I just chose to never have kids because there was never any possibility that humanity would overcome our narcissistic greed prior to ecological collapse.
That was 20 years ago. The last decade has only solidified the certainty of collapse in my mind.
NewSocialWhoDis
in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum • • •Marshezezz
in reply to filister • • •lolola
in reply to filister • • •This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥
in reply to lolola • • •Tehbaz
in reply to silence7 • • •Even if it wasn't already too late, the oligarchs profiting from the demise of the planet are in full control of information sources and politicians worldwide. The only way the planet survives is if humanity is wiped out through a global incurable plague at this point.
We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the reckoning that is coming after decades of voting against our own interests and choosing convenience of fossil fuels over the environment.
Allero
in reply to Tehbaz • • •It's no use going for collective blame and doomerism.
"We have nobody but ourselves to blame..." yeah, except that guy over there burning coal and guzzling fuel like there's no tomorrow.
"The only way is to wipe humanity" ...or do something about it for once.
As long as we're here, no matter how bad it is, we have to step against it in the ways we can. It's not us who makes it so. We don't want that. And it's essential to make it a very clear and loud statement one can not turn away from.
Look up your local climate activist groups. See what can be done. Participate in protests. Do it.
TipsyMcGee
in reply to Allero • • •Honestly, I think we could have done with a lot more doomerism. thisisfine.jpg-ism is the biggest reason why a political solution is impossible.
HugeNerd
in reply to Allero • • •You mean the thing that allowed us to reach 8 billion and growing? There's no way you're getting from the 19th century to today without fossil fuels. You are here because of them. It's got nothing to do with "that guy" over there.
Unless you are in a log cabin you hewed yourself by hand, raise chickens with no feedstock that came from fossil-fuel powered agriculture, wear nothing but natural fibers and leather you tanned yourself with oak tannins, etc
AA5B
in reply to HugeNerd • • •That’s a great response for the 1970s but since then we’ve been developing awareness of the magnitude of the crisis and developing solutions. It’s been time to move on from the nineteenth century
We all should have been making better choices for half a century now. If you’re not at least making better choices today, you can’t blame lack of knowledge or lack of technology
HugeNerd
in reply to AA5B • • •You forget to mention the flipside: we can't sustain 8, let alone 10, billion with sustainable energy. The carrying capacity of the planet with sustainable energy is called the 18th century.
Sure, we can do it, who is ready for the consequences?
bluemoon
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Allero
in reply to HugeNerd • • •In the 18th century, we had the technology of 18th century. We did not have photovoltaics, electrical wind and hydro, batteries. We do have them now, and as things stand, renewables are already cheaper than the alternatives.
Energy-wise, we can sustain much, much more people.
And even agriculture can accomodate for more people than we have now. With modern green agricultural technologies improving the efficiency of green farming, as well as wider accomodation of vegetarian diets and alternative protein sources, we can provide food for much more people with much less fossils.
Besides, better logistics and organizational measures can lead to less food perishing before it reaches the consumer, and less of the perfectly good food being thrown away.
HugeNerd
in reply to Allero • • •Yes, and without the discovery of cubic miles of oil, we wouldn't have had the energy and power to get to the point we are now.
You are looking only at electrical energy, and we certainly DO NOT have the capacity to keep our little planetary civilization going without fossil fuels.
Think of it like this: Even if you could travel back in time to 1850 with the knowledge of GaNFETs, 30%+ efficient solar panels, and lithium batteries, how would you be able to do anything about it?
How would you mine the enormous amounts of copper and other materials needed with the infrastructure of 1850: wooden carts, horses, and a few steam shovels as advanced and precious as a modern-day aircraft carrier?
How would you feed the people that are now no longer working in the agricultural domain without inputs of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides?
The reason is that knowledge without energy is an abstract idea.
So, yes, short term, all the rich parts of world will be able to pat themselves on the back about solar energy, but as your everyday household appliances degrade, where and how will you get the materials and resources to say, make a new washing machine?
Please don't tell me you think we got to 8 billion people because of vaccines? Or that we shouldn't worry and just keep adding endless mouths on this planet?
Allero
in reply to HugeNerd • • •The thing is, there's no need to rebuild the world from the 1850s.
We already have the required machinery and energy. We can make use of what we have, even fossil-powered, to speed up the green transition. Our only goal is to keep it going at a growing pace.
As per agriculture, there are sustainable solutions that I addressed in my other response to you. There are green fertilizers, and there are also genetically modified plants able to produce their own pesticides. There are also innovations in logistics and food sharing initiatives to make less food rot without use.
We have the knowledge, we have the energy. What we lack is the political will to shut down those standing in the way for their own gain over our collective future.
bluemoon
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Allero
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Except we live in 2025, and we have modern green technology enabling us to do a lot of things differently.
We can get our power from renewables, and newest sodium battery/pumped hydro/thermal storage techniques are brilliant and more eco-friendly than ever.
We now have modern green fabrics, hydrogen steel, etc. etc.
We now have greener agriculture technologies, as well as efficient biogas collection and utilization. You can even make some polymers, like polyethylene, out of that alone!
We have what it takes to reverse course. But following that path means upsetting fossil giants, while also investing heavily into the infractructure. And right now, it is easier for politicians to ignore the passive crowd than it is to ignore their sponsors. We need to tilt that balance.
HugeNerd
in reply to Allero • • •Technology without energy is a sculpture.
Long term, 50 years, we are looking at a terminal decline in what humanity will be able to do as a species. Going from kites to Apollo 11 in 50 years, for example, will never, ever happen again. And it wasn't the guidance computer that got you to the Moon, it was 1000 tons of kerosene in a tube that did it.
You, like many, simply look at electrical power and think everything's solved.
We certainly can run our affairs on renewable (sun, wind, water, maybe geothermal, tidal) sources, but that society will look nothing at all like ours. Think wooden windmills, not skyscrapers.
Probably for the best too, but the assumptions built-in to the necessary changes simply mean endless strife and pain in the meantime.
What do you mean I can't have a car? What do you mean I can only travel on a jet 4 times in my entire lifetime? What do you mean we have far fewer citrus fruits in the grocery store in winter? Doesn't food, like, grow all the time, like in the dirt? What do you mean we need fossil fertilizers and synthetic pesticides and endless machinery and irrigation to get me my smokehouse almonds? What do you mean I have to repair and keep my 10 year old washing machine for 20 more years? What do you mean I have to wear the same clothes? What do you mean I have to live in a box when my parents had a home with a front and backyard?
It's going to get ugly, and the fact that the richest few, and I don't mean Elon, I mean you and me chatting on a workday afternoon, have shiny toys means all that much.
Electricity runs the appliances that fossil fuels allow us to build.
Allero
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Electrical power + water = rocket fuel. You don't have to use kerosene to launch to space - not that it's the highest priority anyway.
Why do you equate renewables with primitivism? What exactly stops you from building a skyscraper in a renewable-powered world? We do have green steel, concrete and glass. Besides, most use cases do not require skyscrapers in the first place, and they are seen as undesirable by many urbanists.
Now, yes, switching to sustainable lifestyles is not without compromise here and there, especially on the first stages of green transition. We have to put our effort into this, and there's no way around this. But with rational organizing, we can end up making something so much better!
In this age of sustainability, there's no issue in having a smartphone, or laptop, or whatever you write this on. In fact, right now there are tech brands oriented at sustainability, long-term support, user repairability and more. Fairphone, Framework, you name it!
We can build our tools, appliances and toys in a post-fossil fuel world. And we can make use of the materials we've already extracted to make it even greener.
Tryenjer
in reply to Tehbaz • • •The planet will survive just fine, it has been through worse cataclysmic events, but humans may not be able to keep up with climate change and disappear along with other contemporary species.
The problem is that humanity can be wiped by the actions of a handful of individuals with the connivance of a majority. What you are proposing makes no sense at all.
HugeNerd
in reply to Tryenjer • • •Finally something cheerful.
JoshuaFalken
in reply to Tehbaz • • •frunch
in reply to silence7 • • •arin
in reply to frunch • • •ExLisper
in reply to arin • • •Whats_your_reasoning
in reply to arin • • •Such a silly argument. Contributing genetics isn't the only way to influence future generations. I may not be a parent, but I (and many more people) educate others' children every day.
Just because someone doesn't bring a kid into the world doesn't mean they're giving up on the future. Individualist cultures may have people thinking that nuclear families are the end-all, be-all of child-rearing, but it still "takes a village."
frunch
in reply to arin • • •Bunbury
in reply to frunch • • •floofloof
in reply to silence7 • • •arin
in reply to floofloof • • •JoshuaFalken
in reply to arin • • •Funny how I don't remember the last hospital I saw in the middle of a corn field.
arin
in reply to JoshuaFalken • • •JoshuaFalken
in reply to arin • • •Farmers are also dependant on soil quality, temperature, sunshine, equipment that largely relies on fuel, and distribution for the crops they grow.
Not being an oracle myself, I'll take an educated guess that when the temperature keeps climbing, the conditions that allow for outdoor food production will also change. Likely, the hardiness zones will shift to places with no farmland, and the current hardiness zones will be subject to flooding or drought or both.
Might be tricky business if the best farmland is suddenly on the side of K2.
StinkyFingerItchyBum
in reply to silence7 • • •ms.lane
in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum • • •Naich
in reply to silence7 • • •arin
in reply to Naich • • •TipsyMcGee
in reply to arin • • •No, our best hope is that our best scientists learn magic and then rapidly enable wide scale adoption of fusion reactors that are efficient enough to generate free energy that we can use for a bunch of, yet to be invented, sci-fi technologies that deal with the huge pile of shitty challenges that are amassing at our doorstep.
The odds of short to mid term survival of civilization is statistically insignificant.
Waraugh
in reply to TipsyMcGee • • •TipsyMcGee
in reply to Waraugh • • •Vandals_handle
in reply to TipsyMcGee • • •KokoSabreScruffy
in reply to TipsyMcGee • • •TipsyMcGee
in reply to KokoSabreScruffy • • •SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to TipsyMcGee • • •TipsyMcGee
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •Well neither is "free" energy, but as opposed to solar and existing technologies, cold fusion is claimed to offer energy so abundant that it's basically free. Solar don't work on the scale required to solve the problems that climate change bring (carbon capture, water desalination, replacing every critical earth system we're breaking) AND maintaining the rising power requirements of modernity.
Solar and wind technologies would have been an excellent basis for building a different type of society, where we also vastly reduce our energy consumtion and rethink modern economy. That would be nice, but those discussions are simply off the table at the moment. People want cheeseburgers, Amazon Prime and pickup trucks. No such things in Solar Punk Utopia.
thax
in reply to TipsyMcGee • • •Tryenjer
in reply to Naich • • •SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to Naich • • •JoshuaFalken
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •If the politicians would have refused bribes,
the standards wouldn't have come into fruition that allowed the auto industry to decouple vehicle size and weight from energy efficiency;
the trams systems wouldn't have been bought up, shut down, and rails ripped from the ground to make room for more lanes;
the energy sector wouldn't have septupled down on an invisible gas that's 20x worse than burning coal;
the healthcare companies would be run by medical experts finding the best treatment instead of by money men denying care by default;
the technology we developed wouldn't be tracking every time we blink to create advertising opportunities;
the houses we build wouldn't sit vacant waiting for a tenant to pay half their income for the privilege of having no equity...
Greed is the problem.
It's understandable within capitalism why corporations would push boundaries to make money, but our politicians are supposed to be the force of opposition. Instead they look the other way while pocketing another cheque or airline ticket or deed to a brownstone.
I'm as pro active transportation as anyone I have ever met, but it's delusional to blame people for buying a large, expensive vehicle when the manufacturers keep discontinuing small, cheap cars because the return on investment isn't as high. The politicians could require them to make two compact cars for every pickup or SUV, but they don't because they're greedy just like the corporations.
There are no checks and balances anymore, and the politicians are to blame. Some blame in certain places should also land on the electorate, to be sure. But with every city, neighbourhood, and street gerrymandered to look like a hand drawn map by Michael J. Fox, it's mostly the politicians on the hook for all this.
Part4
in reply to Naich • • •The global co-operation necessary to deal effectively with climate change is actively prevented by [fossil-fuel-powered-]capitalism's inherent competition.
We are going to evolve through crisis, not pro-active change. Let's be polite and call climate change a crisis multiplier.
These are the good old days so try and find a way to enjoy them.
UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to Naich • • •HumanHistory_IRL
HubertManne
in reply to Naich • • •remon
in reply to silence7 • • •ExLisper
in reply to silence7 • • •icelimit
in reply to ExLisper • • •UnfairUtan
in reply to ExLisper • • •floquant
in reply to ExLisper • • •ExLisper
in reply to floquant • • •JoshuaFalken
in reply to ExLisper • • •HugeNerd
in reply to silence7 • • •Credibly_Human
in reply to silence7 • • •FlyingCircus
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Credibly_Human
in reply to FlyingCircus • • •No we don't.
What we really need is people to stop fantasizing about spherical revolutions in frictionless societies and do the boring, unfun, hard things that actually make a difference.
It requires people not doing nothing until magically the perfect thing comes along and realizing they'll have to wade through and actively support shit, until they've successfully reformed or composted said shit into something that is finally able to grow the first leafs of anything resembling a society they want.
I'm just so tired of people rejecting the facts of the political systems they live under in order to pretend to chase some other system they won't see within their life time.
We have to pick the least bad option and then try to make them better because that's just the way shit works. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you are complicit or any other such nonsense in the same way acknowledging climate change doesn't mean you don't want a climate that isn't rapidly deteriorating.
"But if x, y, and z people just..." yeah well they won't, and we know they won't, so we have the constraints we have.
Not super directed at you, I've just been seeing entirely too many naive, in my opinion, fake socialists that seem to only value socialism as far as they can use it as a weapon to brandish against liberals and other socialists who simply see reality and acknowledge that doing anything requires getting your hands dirty.
like this
HeerlijkeDrop likes this.
SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Credibly_Human
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •Have you ever considered taxes to pay for collective goods and services, making peoples lives easier, them smarter, building trust in the idea that government can work and giving the government more teeth?
The F150 people were sold on the ridiculous trucks by the automotive industry. Theyre also much smaller as a part of the problem.
The people who make decisions we all feel forced to live with are the ones whose businesses choose the path of least resistance
Fredthefishlord
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Credibly_Human
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •Fredthefishlord
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Credibly_Human
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •I feel you misunderstand my point.
I'm saying consumers are way less responsible for their purchasing decisions than many people think.
Car centricity is a societal problem. The big trucks are a car company propoganda problem.
Fredthefishlord
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Consumers are not babies. Most are not children. They can take full responsibility for their own choices and failure to research when it's available. There is a reasonable extent that can be forgiven from lack of information. But most is still their fault. See people drinking bottles water when they have perfect access to safe drinking water. See people driving to work when they're easily within public transit areas. See people buying slave labor made trinkets off temu, shein, amazon, AliExpress, and many more, or buying constant new shitly made polyester clothes because "fashion".
Society is created by those who participate. Hand waving "it's a society problem" denies the individual responsibility of everyone to guide society.
All the information is easily accessible and clear to everyone. They are making a conscious decision to pollute more for their own convenience. This is not saying companies are not also responsible for massive amounts of waste. Do not take it like that. But people need to also understand lifestyles cannot stay the same and still fight climate change. People need to give up their trinkets, fast fashion, cars, etc, if they want to actually fight climate change and pollution
Credibly_Human
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •This is an attitude that seeks to attribute blame rather than practically solve the problem.
This is evidenced by you continuing to say:
Which only deals with this from thinking about this as a "who do I blame" rather than a "How can society solve this problem".
We've seen that consumers for instance, don't choose excess packaging, companies do.
In that same way, with things like the CAFE standards, Chicken tax and other ways that trucks are incentivised not to mention propagandized, its easy to see how this consumer "switch in preference" was manufactured, in the same way that the consumer switch to eating 4 times the amount of cheese within a few decades was a manufactured choice by teams of lobbyists.
We could all simply choose to consumer less animal product, be healthier and leave the environment in a much better position, but yet schools are still forced to feed kids milk with every meal due to lobbying.
Basically always, the root cause lies somewhere with some lobbyist group pushing their interests over that of the consumer.
You can handwave that away and choose to focus on personal choice, but to do that is to ignore the fact that for every issue you care about a whole lot, many people have issues they care about more, even if you're just talking about fellow climate appreciating folks. What I'm saying is people can't put all of their energy into every issue all at once. No human can. They'd burn out and be unable to move. That's why these things matter and can only really be solved at the policy level.
You ever stop to think of the long history of car companies actively and successfully lobbying to ruin public transits image and efficiency in the US?
This didn't just put up over night. People didnt just magically have these conclusions.
I guarantee you there are areas of life you are blind to as well, where someone equally as idealistic to you and equally looking for someone to blame rather than solving the problem, is screaming at the top of their lungs angry you don't do something about it thinking the same as you "the information is all there!!!"
Yada yada yada, but they won't, and until you get the reasons why they won't, and how humans have finite focus, and do burnout, or become apathetic, often due to literal people whose jobs it is to get them to, you won't be trying to solve the problem, but instead you'll be trying to pin the blame to the least powerful people in the scenario.
- YouTube
www.youtube.comFredthefishlord
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Attribute responsibility. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions, and change them.
I'm not. I mention it in response to people's attempts to claim it's never their fault. It's always someone else's fault. That there's nothing they can do, it's always everyone else.
And society would be better off for that change anyways.
People who are in areas with public transit and refuse to use it because it's a minor inconvenience are specifically who I'm talking about that with. And yes, people's votes helped cause that change.
They don't need to. They can make multiple small choices and lifestyle changes to great benefit. A literal world ending threat should be the most important issue.
I'm sure there are. I know there are. Every year I strive to improve. To consume less. To eat less meat. To bike and rid myself of the car I drove for far too long. Improvement takes time. It's not a one second thing, it takes decades of effort. But it makes a difference, one little step, one person at a time, makes a difference. However, I can be sure I'm actually trying.
No rain drop thinks it caused the flood. Every, single, bit matters. A response needs to come from all sides. From the top down, regulating companies to use electric, tax heavily on plastic waste. From the bottom up, encouraging people to take public transit and bike, partly through public awareness campaigns and partly through increased bike and train infrastructure. You can't solve it by only focusing on companies. You HAVE to get the consumers to be willing to change their habits as well. People need to be aware that they DO have an impact, and their individual changes will make a difference.
A lot of people's apathy is driven by the false perception that they cannot make a difference with their own power. That their vote doesn't matter. These false perceptions are what need to be changes so that society can move forward, and push the companies, through laws, punishments, and boycotts, into being environmentally sound.
Credibly_Human
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •You're just playing word salad here.
It's still about attributing blame because you refuse to account for how people operate and how effective lobbying/propaganda groups are on regular people who aren't as aware on any given topic as you are.
This is a made up strawman. No one is saying that here, and people aren't typically saying that without a large amount of nuance and less absoluteness on this topic.
You say this like you're making a point when instead you make it clear you udderly missed my point. The point was that its "technically" peoples choice, but it clearly isn't with how heavy the lobbying is.
The hope was that this would moove your opinion and help you culture an appreciation for the extremely strong effects of propaganda and lobbying such that something people think is choice, is far less choice than they think.
Perhaps I'm milking this point now, but I really thought it persuede you to think more about how people who aren't in your specific bubble think and are affected.
People's votes after what though? People didn't just randomly form these opinions.
People in Europe have completely different opinions in general, and you know what the major factor is? A lack of the massive inertial propaganda that the US has had. Did you check out my link? I encourage you to watch it.
It's just not as simple as you make it out to be.
It sure does, now how can you say all that, but miss my point entirely that there could be someone putting the exact same amount of effort into being a better person yet not have their issues align with yours on this at all?
Do you not see why policy is the major way to change their habits?
You aren't arguing against me. You just aren't reading my points at all.
That is literally impossible for the very same reasons that you said "I’m sure there are. I know there are." above. If you can't, how the hell are you expecting other people to for the issues you find most important?
Quite frankly, you absolutely could. If the propaganda influencing consumer choices was stopped, you'd have a good enough solution.
Manufacturers would be making smaller vehicles due to regulations, people couldn't choose monstrosities, roads would get slimmer in new development, public transportation would be built better.
Its completely possible from a top down approach, but utterly impossible when trying to focus from a bottom up approach.
Partially because there are so many folks like you who without realizing they are doing so, expect everyone to understand and care about every topic, even while you yourself obviously could not live up to such an unrealistic standard.
But also partially because of propaganda.
Why do you think BP loves telling people to take personal responsibility over climate issues? They know its a dead end.
This part I absolutely agree with and constantly argue with people on lemmy about. So many people believe the only way out is some whimsical fantastical revolution that will never come, or a third party that would actually secure a victory for the enemies.
Fredthefishlord
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •I expect them to care about the potential mass death of most humans and environments that has been blasting on the news and taught to most for decades .. and I think that's reasonable.
If someone tells you to kill a guy and you do, does it make sense to exclusively blame the person who told you? No. They've been given the information and tools to find more information.
The standard I want is "trying" to do better. I want people to actually try to reduce their impact. That's it. It's not a high standard.
And simply, if you think propaganda can influence everyone enough that it makes changing individuals impossible, why do you think that convincing them to vote differently is possible?
It is a tad ironic that you talk about the influence of propaganda and are still stuck on the idea that people need cars.
Climate change is the single most important issue, bar none. There's no reasonable argument that can be made that the vast majority of humanity dying is the worst possible outcome, unless you go for an anti human perspective. I don't expect people to be perfect. I expect them to try.
I did not watch your video as I'm already well aware of the history of car lobbying in America. How people allowed car companies to do away with public transit. How they allowed propaganda to perpetuate. I don't believe people blindly believing clearly false propaganda are faultless
Credibly_Human
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •I promise you there are topics more important to other people than that.
Many, reasonably, care about the wave of fascism poised to severely harm them, their families, their loved ones or their fellow countryman, a more immediate threat.
Many, reasonably, care about the insane unaffordability of housing due to corruption, corporate landlords, landlords in general, and houses being treated as investment vehicles.
Many, reasonably are worried about the massively accelerating wealth inequality and the disaster this spells for them and their future generations.
Many....
The point is, every single one of these points is more not less important than the point you care about primarily to many people. They aren't wrong or stupid for having different priorities to you.
I would even go so far as saying that I think it's foolish to value something so large scale and existential like global collapse over the next few hundred years due to climate change than a lot of the societal elements that contribute to it.
What does it matter what climate future humans live in if they're enslaved or being murdered by fascists?
What does it matter if your descendants don't exist because they can't afford to live.
Again, many people think the same thing for you, and they're just as right, yet completely uselessly so as you are.
This is purely a self masturbatory blame assignment rather than a useful piece of information to accomplish goals.
Worse than that, it chooses to ignorantly fundamentally misunderstand how people work, yet expect to change what it doesn't understand.
There you are again, missing the point and it feels like it has to be purposeful at this point.
Many people try to do better but can't be as focused on this as you are because they're being better in areas you are not being better in.
This is an obvious and silly strawman.
I literally list why directly convincing people on this topic is less important and likely to work than impacting political systems that are used to uphold the propaganda points that cause these problems in the first place.
You're slamming into a brick wall rather than trying to pick the lock on the door.
Its crazy to be this ignorant and with a bad faith point to boot.
Carcentricity has made it such that many people do in fact need cars.
This is not a problem. that can be solved quickly.
You pretending that acknowledging this reality means that I can't conceive of anything else despite that obviously not being the case is you being dishonest in discussion, which at that point, why are you arguing? Why bother?
An extremely naive and privileged perspective.
You're worrying about the future of the species like that is an entity that can feel pain. No, it's an idea, a prediction. It's something that absolutely is not the top concern of the people struggling and facing real issues to their lives right now at this very moment. Just about the only people I can imagine could possibly hold this opinion are out of touch well to do people.
You are clearly missing a lot, so if you actually walked the walk, you'd watch it and see what you're missing, because in this conversation alone you've made it clear you don't understand how deep or effective it has been, what policies have been put in place due to it, etc.
North American roads are the way they are due to it.
You are so impossibly stuck up your own ass, sniffing your own farts.
There are literally thousands if not millions of you people on every conceivable issue under the sun, and you'd all hate each other if you met, because you all are so lacking in empathy and perspective that you'd all be befuddled and enraged you didn't all center around the single issues you all think are most important bar none. You'd all be irrate that the others dare "blindly believe this" and "foolishly follow that".
Until you people realize what a problem this mentality is, you'll literally never make substantive change.
Fredthefishlord
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Good to know you have no idea what you're talking about. Climate change is already causing serious deaths, now. It's not just some future issue. It's genuinely horrifying that you don't understand that. It isn't just Future generations. It isn't abstract concepts. It's my generation that will be dying because of this.
Because climate change won't.... ??
Yes, fascism is important. But not nearly as important as fighting climate change. There isn't a future to fight for if climate change isn't blocked, you do understand that, right?
It could be solved in under a decade if people cared.
You don't seem to actually understand how dangerous climate change is presently. You still see it as an abstract future rather than an awful and worsening present
I see what happened when voters and people actually cared. The cities changed, improved. It proves that propaganda is not some magical convincing force that forces people to think one way, the way you pretend it is.
Credibly_Human
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •Far less than the issues listed to the people affected.
Climate change deathes currently are largely avoidable and it comes up as a relatively small source of death.
You're nitpicking here to try to ignore the point.
Nope. No one alive today will witness any kind of apocalypse generation killing event.
You must worry about your house fire first before you fear the flood next month.
This is the type of "I'm a priveleged cisgendered straight white person so the marginalized people can be fed to the machine" ass comment I would expect from you.
They'll come for you eventually too bud.
Hysterics don't make you right. That is in more than 100 years when anyone talking right now is long dead.
Fascism could have you or I in a death camp within our lives, or trigger nuclear war, given it actually did the last time it flared up this seriously, except this time a shit ton of countries have nukes. Nukes? Talk about climate changing.
You continue to think from a perspective of blame rather than pragmatism.
People are the biggest hurdle for literally every major problem. Learning how the general public is propagandized too, what regulations reinforce and or strengthen the problem, how and which politicians are bought and paid off for to fight the problem and more.
The root cause and key is making the Overton window shift left. It is therefore the biggest problem, even to you, by being in the way for solving your problem as the actual biggest problem.
I completely understand it. You clearly do not understand how bad the other problems I listed are.
You care far more about the rock we float on, than the people on said rock. Everything you say is in service of the rock rather than the people. What has more influence in peoples lives right now? All the things I mentioned.
Other people have good reason to be focused on those first.
Oh which American cities are these? Are they per chance small mostly urban areas with progressive leaders?
I mean fuck it, I won't be coy, we all see Mamdani. Somehow you won't connect the dot's though.
This is once again you doing mental gymnastics to pretend that blaming people will solve the problem any at all. Blaming people does not work.
Fredthefishlord
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Ah. So you don't actually understand the reality of extreme heat and cold events. That... That makes sense how you wouldn't care. You've failed to do basic research.
If I meant it as "welcome fascism" , which I don't. Fascism should still be fought. You pulling out the "privileged" bullshit again is hilarious when you don't understand basic science
Credibly_Human
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •floquant
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •I'd like to see you "avoid" a wet bulb event in a 3rd world country. These have started becoming an increasingly common occurrence in the last decade or so. Climate change also disproportionately affects poorer countries, the ones no one cares about. Entire archipelagos projected to disappear in decades. So fuck off with your "caring about climate change is for privileged people".
You do realize that there's people alive today that will live in 2100 right? And that they will be in their 80's (those who can talk today), not 100+. Have you seen any graphs on what the temperatures and water levels will be at the current pace? Even optimistic scenarios are hellish.
You are factually wrong, no matter how confidently you say it. I am not insulting your intelligence for your opinions like you seem to do in almost every comment, just informing that you do not understand climate change like you claim to "completely" do. I guess what you actually mean is that it will get bad after you are dead, so it doesn't really matter.
Credibly_Human
in reply to floquant • • •We're clearly at a unproductive point in this conversation where you are slinging accusations and we clearly are at an impasse. I think your position ignores the valid perspective of others, you think it outweighs every other position even from people who try to do better just as you claim to.
That seems to be it. I can't convince you, and you certainly haven't convinced me.
Fredthefishlord
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •floquant
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •No we don't, and no it isn't. That's how the suppression of radical change works. I am not saying that anything short of utopia is not worth pursuing, just that I don't see why we shouldn't start from that and then work down to a realistic compromise, rather than starting from the bad options that are given to us. There are other choices, if you can look further than your nose.
Credibly_Human
in reply to floquant • • •You aren't doing jack shit of this radical change you spout on about. You don’t actually want to help, so you come up with excuses to do nothing while feeling better than those who do because your ideas all start with someone else moving first.
Because you don't have the leverage or organization to start there. Instead you must start by slowly working to put out the fire and getting your fellow countryman to see the benefits of socialist policy.
You exist in this system, not outside of it. You start here for that is reality, not fantasy. Id love to start from the position of being the rich using my wealth to sway policy. It's not reality though.
List one that doesn't start with some fantastical revolution you aren't organizing and aren't willing to risk your life in as a first mover
If the answer is about forming a new party in a country that has winner takes all or first past the post, I fear you've not thought it through.
floquant
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Uh, source? Do I know you?
The leverage is numbers. 8 billion humans against what, a stadium of people? And the organization at this point is just basic survival instinct?? We're on a burning planet and being told that yes we need change, but we also need to wageslave while doing it. I do agree on the "teaching" part btw.
The system is something that monkeys invented. I "exist in it" in the sense in the sense that I am contemporary to it, yes. I exist in what you could call the universe, nature, or reality.
Nice try glowie. I just know what has already happened in the past and can try to extrapolate. And again, I don't know what basis you have to speak of my character.
Jesus christ, is that the most radical, outside-of-the system take you could think of for global policy change?
Credibly_Human
in reply to floquant • • •You don't. That's why its up to you to make your point when making statements like this.
I've seen no such actions so without any particular claims, this is just fantasy posting.
I literally address the fact that you don't have said leverage and wont get it any time soon in the very thing that you quote.
No one is being convinced by your angsty, snarky, online leftist purity raging.
If you think basic survival instincts are in any way conducive to long term goals... I don't even have a clever retort. That's just an insane thing to think.
You aren't told, thats the reality.
People stop doing their jobs, without tremendous planning ahead, and they die.
That's reality.
You are nowhere near having the capacity for a general strike, and you're losing capacity as the tech feudal lords clamp down on the means of communication, and as people on decentralized platforms are notoriously completely impossible to deal with and hyper idealistic.
See, it's childish bullshit like this which means we can't make progress.
My point is clearly that nothing remotely like these fantastical ideas of an underground revolution are actually happening. We've seen these grumblings online for fucking decades.
You'd think you'd have literally anything, like non personally, to show for it. Instead its nothing but talk.
Some random not hyper online dude shooting a healthcare ceo in the back because his back hurt and he was hard done by them is the closest you've come to that, and it wasn't you.
You are remembering selectively, and remembering out of context, because the US is not WW2 germany. They're WW2 germany with nukes and a military multiples of times more formidable than the next multiple combined.
There is no coalition of countries currently equipped to take them on.
More than that, those countries are all having similar problems with right wing groups flaring up.
More than that still, in recent history, when there have been revolts, they haven't switched to socialism, or even just more socialism than before in notable ways. They've mostly just switched to more capitalism, supported by the US.
Because once again, the online fringe you represent simply has no track record to speak of. They simply have not done anything for decades, and if they had any teeth, there would be something, anything to show for it.
No, it isn't the previous thing you absolutely do not have the guts or organization for is. This is the accomplishable thing that would not accomplish the final goals and instead would be handing right wing fascists the long term victory on a silver platter.
Fredthefishlord
in reply to floquant • • •The idea that 8 billion people would be on your side is the forefront of showing why what you're suggesting is closer to fantasy than reality. More people than you care to admit are straight up fascist
floquant
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •Fredthefishlord
in reply to floquant • • •FlyingCircus
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Credibly_Human
in reply to FlyingCircus • • •Its completely relevant to anyone who isn't a child.
You can't magically have this whimsical revolution you dream of.
Its 100% a "you first" type of deal where you absolutely are not willing to be first, and don't realize you have a whole lot of the population you'd need to convince first, and until you do, you need to face the hard realities of the system you live in, and mitigate the damage.
merdaverse
in reply to Credibly_Human • • •Credibly_Human
in reply to merdaverse • • •If you can't see the difference where we have gay marriage, for a while had notably less discrimination, a massive improvement in workers rights, improvements to social security nets etc, I don't know what to tell you.
More than that, this childish opinion misses that you haven't tried this.
You've constantly swapped between democrats and republicans, and purity tested so hard that democrats have basically stopped seeing you as a real force for change within their party.
You have only tore down your chances while actual progressives keep trying, only to be disappointed that you're there as a roadblock to your shared goals.
To top this all off, you clearly do not understand that you not only need 3 of 4 branches of government and definitely need a super majority senate (Which you haven't had usably in 25 years) but you also need enough progressives within the party to sway their goals away from just the wishes of their corporate donors.
You want to pretend that we have tried this, but we haven't tried jack shit, because of folks like you.
More than that, you haven't tried any other method either, so your comment ends up boiling down to "lets try nothing because I don't like, nor do I want to try the 'boring, unfun, hard things that actually make a difference'"
DupaCycki
in reply to silence7 • • •Mediocre_Bard
in reply to DupaCycki • • •DupaCycki
in reply to Mediocre_Bard • • •explodicle
in reply to DupaCycki • • •TipsyMcGee
in reply to explodicle • • •TipsyMcGee
in reply to DupaCycki • • •The target of staying under 1,5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average temperature within the century was set less than 10 years ago. It was considered ambitious but possible back then, and so many world leaders and governments agreeing to it in the Paris climate accord of 2015, was considered a major political achievement.
However, there have been uncountable political setbacks since. Aside from Donald Trump's two election wins and subsequent horror shows, we've gone through a pandemic that brought insane financial, monetary politics and crushing inflation, the Ukraine war and the advent of power hungry AI (that totally will be good for something and ain't no god dammed bubble, seriously stop calling it a bubble, bro, it's the future). All of which has reduced climate change to a niche topic that don't hold any sway over political elections in the rich countries responsible for the brunt of greenhouse gas emissions (directly or indirectly).
Less than 10 years ago we thought it would be possible to stay below that target over the coming 85 years. Less than 10 years later that target is declared dead by the secretary general of the UN.. Was it realistic then? Well, a lot of planning and climate policy has involved exceeding 1,5 degrees and then using massive deployments of imaginary future technologies to bring the climate back. Not exactly prudent reasoning.
Some countries are still sticking to their plans, kinda. Norway are making headways installing carbon capture technology on their off-shore oil rigs (!!!) so that they can keep drilling for fossil fuels with a smaller impact on their own reported national emissions.
Vandals_handle
in reply to TipsyMcGee • • •bluemoon
in reply to DupaCycki • • •no, rhetoric only meant to motivate by fear turnt around into demotivation: helplessness.
look up Climate Clock to see the exact year.
MashedTech
in reply to silence7 • • •Mediocre_Bard
in reply to silence7 • • •Guys. Chill. The world will be fine. The planet will go on.
Humanity, on the other hand, is fucked.
Jhex
in reply to Mediocre_Bard • • •We deserve it
Sightline
in reply to Mediocre_Bard • • •UnfairUtan
in reply to Mediocre_Bard • • •That depends on how you define world. I would include all life on the planet to be part of the world. We are actively killing biodiversity, wiping species from the earth, all from our direct negative contributions to the world.
So yea, the planet and life overall will find a way, but not all life that happened to live in the same era (and after) as humans
like this
HeerlijkeDrop likes this.
bluemoon
in reply to UnfairUtan • • •foenkyfjutschah
in reply to bluemoon • • •bluemoon
in reply to foenkyfjutschah • • •JoshuaFalken
in reply to UnfairUtan • • •UnfairUtan
in reply to JoshuaFalken • • •Lyra_Lycan
in reply to silence7 • • •explodicle
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •Strider
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •It's not even about AI. It's just the next growth bubble to milk, there will be the next after.
It never stops.
NewSocialWhoDis
in reply to silence7 • • •hakunawazo
in reply to NewSocialWhoDis • • •Washedupcynic
in reply to silence7 • • •Plastic-Eating Microbe
BioInnovation Group at UC Davisdavepleasebehave
in reply to Washedupcynic • • •Vandals_handle
in reply to davepleasebehave • • •T00l_shed
in reply to davepleasebehave • • •davepleasebehave
in reply to T00l_shed • • •bluemoon
in reply to Washedupcynic • • •foenkyfjutschah
in reply to Washedupcynic • • •Washedupcynic
in reply to foenkyfjutschah • • •Teppichbrand
in reply to Washedupcynic • • •answersplease77
in reply to silence7 • • •Fredthefishlord
in reply to answersplease77 • • •Reginald_T_Biter
in reply to Fredthefishlord • • •flango
in reply to silence7 • • •Phoenixz
in reply to flango • • •And how do we stop those billionaires?
The way that I see it, they won't stop by themselves. We either get politicians to finally stop them (highly doubtful) or the world citizens stop them by force.
What other solution is there?
Garbagio
in reply to Phoenixz • • •I mean honestly a fundamental restructuring of democracy in the US. We need a 3rd party in the US that can hijack the Democratic party apparatus without falling victim to its trappings in order to crack the first-past-the-post system; without that, capital has the oppressive power of the top 5 most funded militaries in human history. The US squats on any country that even thinks of not playing nicely with capital, and without that there can be no resistance to climate change.
Beyond that, you really just need to prepare. Blah blah, mutual aid, community defense, etc. I'm not gonna bore you with what you know, just reiterate that it WILL help when shit hits the fan. I guarantee you when your kids are getting conscripted into the water wars, you're gonna want to have enough community presence to push back.
Tattorack
in reply to Phoenixz • • •Phoenixz
in reply to silence7 • • •Uh huh, that was by design
Those Paris climate accords were literally useless, as it was nothing more but a kind suggestion.
Even when we would have made hard contracts we know that half the countries out there would have failed for a variety of reasons (most of them being a variety of "ah but I want to be re-elected and if I try to save the world, things will be slightly harder for my base, so I sign for yes, and then do no")
This was just a "well let's give it a try" and the US immediately borked out with Trump because now it's cool to have mentally deficient adults controlling countries.
Nobody with a brain ever believed that we'd his that 1.5 degree limit. Ik actually fairly confident that we'll get a two degree limit, which we'll crash right through, then we'll start producing CO2 harder and faster than ever before just to be sure we can take straight through the 3 and 4 degree limits that we'll set because politicians don't give a fuck about any of this, they only care about their reelection and the populace of countries that matter either can't do anything about it (hello China, how is Winnie today?) or just too fucking dumb to even understand the issue (hello USA, how is the Cheeto today?)
I honestly believe that we're in humanities end-times. Not the biblical ones, those were fairytales, but the real one that humanity made for itself. There is no one to blame but us. I think GenX will live to see how humanity dies out, because nobody will fix this obvious problem with obvious solutions, everyone who matters can only think about themselves so enjoy the days that we have left, all.
thespcicifcocean
in reply to silence7 • • •redwattlebird
in reply to silence7 • • •Money buys power and influence and politicians react more to that than their own constituents. When money can bend reality and get people to vote against their own interests just to keep the status quo, there'll be no change.
I mean, for all the things we do right we get stuff like the Bezos wedding where everyone arrives via private jet or COP25 where everyone also arrives by private jet to discuss the climate.
We have Greta Thunberg who addressed the world leaders and voiced our discontent at their lack of action. Her views are not unique and are a reflection of many but yet, despite laying the truth bare and shaming leaders for their inaction, power and influence labels her as whatever they want to discredit her words and influence.
So, if we want to reverse things and change, we need to target the rich and tax them, shame them, eat them... Whatever it takes and only then will we be able to do something net positive. Doing 'our part' is not enough when the top 1% literally offsets all of our efforts everyday.
hotdogcharmer
in reply to silence7 • • •kossa
in reply to hotdogcharmer • • •EndlessNightmare
in reply to hotdogcharmer • • •Seth Taylor
in reply to silence7 • • •bitjunkie
in reply to silence7 • • •JoshuaFalken
in reply to bitjunkie • • •If everyone got together and came to the decision to fix the planet, it would probably still be possible, even though it'll likely get to a point where going outside is a complication. Generations, to be sure.
Though of course, we're never all going to agree on how to go about it, so you might be right.
PalmTreeIsBestTree
in reply to silence7 • • •chiliedogg
in reply to PalmTreeIsBestTree • • •Covid convinced me we're done.
We couldn't even get people to wear a fucking mask to protect themselves from a disease they saw killing their neighbors. Shit - we can't get them to allow other people to wear a mask.
dejected_warp_core
in reply to chiliedogg • • •The part that absolutely kills me about this is that there were anti-maskers during the 1918 "spanish flu" pandemic. This suggest that with two valid examples that this is a bad idea, people still chose to not do it. It also suggests that we're still the same society that we were 100 years ago.
history.com/articles/1918-span…
Homepage | Hearst Networks EMEA
Hearst Networks EMEANιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
in reply to dejected_warp_core • • •EndlessNightmare
in reply to chiliedogg • • •COVID (or more specifically, the response to it) was the turning point for me as well. The realization that we would not work together to manage a crisis.
If people won't do the easy shit, they sure as hell won't do the more difficult things that are needed to address climate collapse.
UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to PalmTreeIsBestTree • • •PalmTreeIsBestTree
in reply to UltraGiGaGigantic • • •DegenerationIP
in reply to silence7 • • •The next topic under this Post is that Texas sues Tylenol because of autism claims.
We're fucking doomed. Thats what I personally think and I really Wish and Hope that I'm wrong.
slaacaa
in reply to silence7 • • •CircaV
in reply to silence7 • • •Bennyboybumberchums
in reply to CircaV • • •UltraGiGaGigantic
in reply to silence7 • • •Gary Ghost
in reply to silence7 • • •n0respect
in reply to Gary Ghost • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to Gary Ghost • • •The old Soviet Union's environmental record wasn't great. And environmentalism was very low on the Dengist priority list.
Capitalism incentivizes industrial growth. But it was the "free" real estate of the colonial era and the massive surpluses of the industrial era that incentivized capitalism and created the illusion of unlimited economic expansion.
The problem is one of economic planning. Can we, as an intelligent advanced civilization, collectively manage the scarce resources of our planet? Or will a handful of individuals continue to divide and conquer the proletariat mass? Simply going socialist isn't enough. Bookchin will tell you that. Hell, Kropotkin will tell you that.
It isn't enough to merely establish a central and democratically managed local economy. We need a world wide organization capable of balancing the current demands against future resource constraints on the scale of centuries. And we need it to be equitably operated by a planetary consortium of committed socialist ideologues, not a handful of post-war juntas that run one another into the ground in another Cold War.
berno
in reply to Gary Ghost • • •JoshsJunkDrawer
in reply to silence7 • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to JoshsJunkDrawer • • •The bulk of greenhouse gas emissions are occurring outside the US. Americans have a far higher per-capita output but a relatively small gross population. Even then, the median American's emissions pale beside that of their billionaire neighbors.
If global change comes, it is going to have to come through the BRIICS, where the bulk of new industrial activity is taking place and the vast majority of emissions already occurs. Trump decoupling the US economy from the rest of the world and his inadvertent quest to tank the fuck out of the US consumer economy is (quixotically) working in favor of these ends.
The game isn't over, its simply changing. Areas of the world that were habitable will no longer be habitable. Mass migration began in earnest 20 years ago, at the outset of the Iraq War and near-total destabilization of the Middle East. Population growth globally has staled out due to exploding cost of living and economically engineered social isolation of the working class. Foodstuffs that we once considered staples - beef and almonds and oranges - are increasingly categorized as luxury goods.
But we've been in the Holocene Extinction Era for over 200 years. This is the sixth great extinction event in planetary history. And through it all, humans flourished. Hell, the advent of modern nitrogen fertilizers have made plant life flourish. The Earth isn't going anywhere. Humans aren't going anywhere (certainly not Mars, given how much more inhospitable it is than even the most nightmarish climate change scenarios). Life as we know it and human engineering as we've managed it are both far more stubborn and persistent than you're giving it credit for. We can endure at a much more efficient level of biome utility than we currently employ. We can persist at a scale of hundreds of millions rather than tens of billions.
But we're going to see sweeping changes. Really ugly ones. What we're seeing in Gaza today is the roadmap for the future of the Global South, unless they can organize and resist a modern western eugenics regime. There is going to be more war and more bombing and more industrial annihilation and more sophisticated efforts by one group of humans to massacre others.
That's probably good for the climate, long term. Not good for us or our kids or our grandkids, though.
inclementimmigrant
in reply to silence7 • • •The world is being run by conservatives and fascists.
The world will not change course, humanity is borked.
HubertManne
in reply to silence7 • • •Tigeroovy
in reply to silence7 • • •