15,000 Scientists Warn Society Could 'Collapse' This Century In Dire Climate Report
15,000 Scientists Warn Society Could 'Collapse' This Century In Dire Climate Report
“Global daily mean temperatures never exceeded 1.5-degree Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial levels prior to 2000 and have only occasionally exceeded that number since then,” the researchers noted. “However, 2023 has already seen 38 days with global average temperatures above 1.5°C by 12 September—more than any other year—and the total may continue to rise.”
That's not good.
If we all die in a climate event I'm saying the earth itself is an organism and we were an infection.
I'll tell you the best part, and it's irreversible
The Gulf Stream really is weakening, a new study confirms: a finding which has profound implications for one of the biggest weather systems on our planet. When the Gulf Stream changes, so does the climate
https://www.sciencealert.com/confirmed-new-study-shows-the-gulf-stream-is-definitely-weakening
I doubt society will even make it 50 more years. Hell I'm expecting the quality of life for the west to plummet with the decade.
"But we have a hundred years before the environment collapses!?"
Theoretically yes, but there's that sticky point of what happens to us when the environment is collapsing dying.
Not to mention empathy for the next generation.
Honestly, while it's very much an unpopular opinion, at this point I think it's unconscionable to add to that next generation and I definitely secretly judge my peers who do so as making an incredibly selfish decision likely dooming that child to a quite depressing future by the time they reach adulthood themselves.
Also, one of the worst things you can do for the environment in a developed nation is have a child.
And all the other creatures we are killing off right now not to mention their impact on us.
If there is one, tbh.
We also had decades to prevent climate change from happening and look how well we tackle it now.
I'm confident we'll have a plan to prevent that collapse that's due within 100 years, but to keep it reasonable, its execution will be spread over 100 years, and we think about starting in 80 years providing everything goes well in the meantime.
Chill, you can see it's all taken care of!
It reminds me about how people talk about not caring about how they treat their bodies because they'll die early anyways, but they don't realize that what it really affects is their quality of life as they get older
Has been known for years, has also been ignored for years. Infinite growth is much more important than sustainability.
I mean, it's not being ignored. There's electric vehicles, charging stations all around, subsidies for solar panels on houses, green branded products, banning of certain harmful things, the list goes on. Maybe you think it's not enough, but it's pretty out there to call that ignoring.
are you suggesting we need to curb the birth rate?
Infinite growth and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. There will always be market growth over time.
Wait, scientists think we're heading towards catastrophe??? Why hasn't anyone been saying this before? Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Find some comfort, prepare yourself for things to get worse for the rest of your life, and focus on and cherish the small things that make you happy. Those ones will stick around.
And remember, don't look up
Time to learn how to brew Beer
That's just a good, fun thing to learn to do. It's a lot easier than you might think. If you want an even easier skill to learn, make hard cider. Containers, apples, and time is basically all you need. You can wild ferment with the yeast on the apple skins, so you don't even have to pitch.
Learning to ferment things is one of those small happinesses that will stick around for a while.
An apt line from the article: "It’s natural to feel overwhelmed by the enormity of the challenge presented by climate change, but Ripple and his colleagues offer several solutions to avoid the worst possible outcomes."
I'm reminded of Mr. Rogers talking about how to stay optimistic and not fall into despair in the face of tragedy -- look to the helpers. No matter the crisis, there's always people helping out and showcasing the best of humanity.
15,000 scientists warned us -- 15,000 people are analyzing this issue to try and mitigate and solve it. On top of that you've got plenty of green energy companies across solar, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, geothermal, etc. People are doing their damnedest to fight against climate change no matter the odds, and that should fill you with inspiration and encouragement.
People are doing their damnedest to fight against climate change no matter the odds, and that should fill you with inspiration and encouragement.
This is like saying people on the Titanic are doing their damnedest to fight the iceberg that's approaching right ahead and that should fill you with inspiration and encouragement.
We're not even stopping new drilling or driving cars with better MPG than decades ago; forget net zero carbon emissions. We're still pushing more CO2 into the air every year.
To come back to my analogy the passengers may want to swerve from the iceberg, but the captain is mad, drunk, and stubborn and wants to teach the iceberg a lesson.
Except it's all of humanity and not a fucking captain. It's a canoe and we all have paddles of varying effectiveness.
It's not unfounded optimism because at least some people are trying to paddle away from the fucking iceberg.
Shutting down any and all attempts at being optimistic make people shut down and then ACTUALLY do nothing, rather than the minimal they already do because they feel bombarded by hopelessness and go "what's the point?".
So fucking point to the scientists, point to the companies going green, point to EVs and a grassroots movement towards walkability and public transport that's always growing.
Stop with the "unfounded optimism" bullshit unless you actually think future generations deserve to suffer for their ancestors' mistakes.
We're already hitting the iceberg. We're probably going to keep hitting it the next few decades, at best. I believe analysis still says however it won't be extinction level, partially because of the efforts made to this point already. This is the article I'm thinking of:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/climate/global-warming-ipcc-earth.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
"It’s not that if we go past 1.5 degrees everything is lost,” said Joeri Rogelj, director of research at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at Imperial College London. “But there’s clear evidence that 1.5 is better than 1.6, which is better than 1.7, and so on. The point is we need to do everything we can to keep warming as low as possible.”
The article also goes on to say that the +4C forecast is looking increasingly unlikely, and we're track to 2.1 - 2.9 C this century. That's because of what we've already done to curb emissions. The work people have done so far has made us likely avoid the worst. And the work we continue to do now, whether that's voting for pro climate politicians or turning a wrench at a hydrogen plant or researching a new generation of solar panels -- it will help us make the future worse.
This whole thing isn't colliding with an iceberg and sinking. A better analogy would be a snowstorm that we're trying to get through. Some places will be completely buried, but there's still people out there digging through the snow to try and minimize the accumulation as much as they can. There's people working hard to keep homes warm. There's people cooking meals for everyone.
We shouldn't be so despondent about the places that will be completely covered and destroyed by snow, that we don't fix and save what we can!
So we're kids screaming in the backseat while drunk dad swerves and pervs. Not much we can do, despite our efforts.
We’re not even ... driving cars with better MPG than decades ago;
That's not true.
As a private person, check you energy contract, I found a cheaper company producing only green energy. Just a tip and gentle reminder that you (all) can do the same and put pressure on the energy providers
People are not doing their damnedest. And it should fill you with anger.
Some people are doing something, most are not. As evidenced by the fact that we're still well in the path towards catastrophe.
Unfounded optimism can be toxic, because it gives you what you want (to not feel bad), and removes an emotional urgency towards action (feeling bad). It also blinds you to the reality of having to make sacrifices when needed, or more generally, being realistic with planning and decision-making.
It's also easy to remain uneasy knowing that there is almost nothing we can do as individuals to change anything. It's like a handful of people driving the ship and none of them give a fuck about anything that isn't short-term.
Some people are. It isn't enough by any means, but it's still managed to avoid the worst case scenarios. The +4C predictions are now less likely partially because of the work we've already done to reduce emissions.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/climate/global-warming-ipcc-earth.html?smid=nytcore-android-share)
What's very important, and mentioned in the article, is that a difference of 0.1 degrees is very significant. Every bit we do to reduce emissions makes the situation less dire.
This isn't a catastrophe like running into an iceberg or a meteor hitting. It's continuous and slow. I likened it to a snowstorm in another comment, and the current renewables industry and push for green energy are people out there shoveling the snow as it falls, to minimize accumulation.
Even though the snow is already beginning to pile up, we can still shovel it away. That's what my optimism is for -- mitigating this as much as we can so that as many people as possible will be alive when we see the sun again. Keeping the power on, shoveling the roads, making warm meals for people -- every little bit helps.
I don't want people to despair so much at the areas that will be completely covered and destroyed, that they don't fix and save what we can.
Some people are doing something, most are not
This describes every problem in all of human existence
People are not doing their damnedest. And it should fill you with anger.
Unfounded optimism can be toxic,
Humanity cannot survive with the level of anger that you wish to endeavor, we will tear each other apart before any solution comes to the foreground.
We need optimism (and cooperation) to survive.
Thank you.
Let me be clear. If we focused on de-desertification (rotating livestock between fields never should have stopped) and told the rich they can't have their fucking yachts and private jets, it would solve the crisis overnight. Fuck you.
(Edit: I probably shouldn't post right now. I am not having a good day.)
There's currently 5 bushfires burning around my state and it's only mid spring in the southern hemisphere. Last year we experienced devastating floods across the country on a scale we've never seen before. A few years before that we had one of the worst bushfire seasons in history.
We're also expected to have similar fuel loads and fire risk to 2019-20 bushfire season.
3 La Ninas in a row feels good while you're in it, but the El Nino that follows this year will be a disaster, for our country and the atmosphere.
At least the billionaires will be safe so there's nothing to worry about.
/s
meanwhile elon: planning to go to mars
Even people who accept and believe climate change is real are unwilling to make any personal sacrifices and magically think some scientists somewhere will just solve the problem.
Nobody is coming to your rescue, the planet will save itself from the plague that is our industrial society. We could pretty easily fix this, but it would be politically unpopular, and therefore, won't happen.
The real clowns are the ones thinking the everyman is making more impact than the massive corporations. People making personal sacrifices won't fix this.
And what would it take to stop those corporations? Individual actions. Be it voting in an election or with your wallet, it's our society that continues to not only allows those corporations to exist but to grant them every right to do so. The only alternative to a social rethinking would be the violent overthrow of capitalism and an authoritan installation of some alternative. And nobody could seriously want that.
Corporations are just the sum of their customers. One customer doesn't have much influence, that's true, but collectively they have a ton.
It's not even that people are unwilling, the problem is that personal sacrifices are a mere drop in the bucket compared to industry pollution.
The problem with industry pollution is that it happens in the shadows. Supporting greener products is fantastic, but so many are in dire situations where they are unable to spend the money to support the extra cost.
Also, a lot of the companies who are "reducing their carbon footprint" are doing it by shady or insignificant means. John Oliver did a segment on it, and I remember one company basically paid to "protect" an area of forest that was already protected by the government from logging etc. So, this company "offset" their carbon footprint with land that wouldn't have been used for resources either way.
Tragedy of the commons - no point in making personal sacrifices since it won't stop others from destroying everything so why bother.
My hippie commune friend here in the US says that the “tragedy of the commons” began as a lie of the landed gentry in Britain. In law school it’s taught as a fact.
Isnt this the prisoners dilemma?
"Meaningful", as in, "even if I alone do it this will somehow stop climate change"? Not possible, very obviously.
Meaningful as in "if everyone would adapt that mindset we'd be half way to the solution" - there are many, many options. Vegan diet, fuck cars, use public transport, buy local, vote green (or the closest approximation available), support sustainable companies, less consumerism in general, change your electricity provider, get politically involved, social activism, convince your friends and family...
Pick and chose as many as you want and can and you start becoming part of the solution.
Stop eating meat would be a good one.
Maybe because nothing we, the normal people, do will have any real impact?
Check your carbon footprint! You can choose to starve to death. You can choose to buy brand A which has 99% as big carbon impact as brand B!! Oh wow the differences! Regulating business is communism!!
Where’s Homelander when we need him?
Homelander is the type to side with oil.
I think people have a hard time imagining what its going to be like. They assume we'll just wake up one day and it will be Mad Max outside your window. It will be much more incremental.
Covid is probably the best analogy, it was a shock, there were major reactions and societal changes, but it got better over a couple years. It will probably be a lot like that, except the getting better part.
It will just slowly get worse and worse until you can hardly recognize the world around you. Floods getting slightly worse every year, hurricanes getting a bit stronger, insurance going higher until people just stop buying it, famines, gas price increases, food shortages.
Remember how people flipped out about not being able to buy TP? Wait until you can't buy coffee, then bread, and clean water becomes scarce, thats when shit gets real and we revert to survival of the fittest, or who has the most ammo.
Politicians will promise quick and easy solutions, none will work. We're in for a less comfortable, convenient world probably in most of our lifetimes. I'll be moving north, and at least +500 ft above sea level.
Don't forget shitloads of migrants and refugees fleeing areas that are unsuitable for living because of flooding or other disasters.
Yeah that is going to be a huge factor in reducing the quality of life. If people think we have issues with overwhelming migration now, they are in for a surprise when it reaches into the billions of people with no other choice
The reality is Western countries aren't going to bother accommodating climate refugees. Full on Fascism is still relatively fringe, but when your average person starts to feel the real fear and insecurity from the climate crisis it will be embraced. Walls and detention centers will be expanded, those seeking refuge in the "civilized" world will be met with bullets and gas chambers. There will be no safe havens.
Where ya headed? Michigan, Minnesota or Alaska? I’m thinking of beating the rush and moving straight to Antarctica.
Probably WA, although Minnesota and Michigan both have appeal.
The problem with your supposition is that the supply chain recovered and everyone got their toilet paper eventually. In the coming collapse, there's no toilet paper again ever.
You can do what I did. Move to a geologically stable area, make a fortress, not a house, and get solar panels and your own cistern for water. A pro grade freeze dryer so you can build up a food supply. And enough guns and bullets to hold what's yours. Oh and bidets on all your toilets, no toilet paper ever again, plus your pooper is considerably cleaner. Which as a bonus is wonderful for the environment as it cuts down on dead trees.
I think people have a hard time imagining what its going to be like. They assume we'll just wake up one day and it will be Mad Max outside your window. It will be much more incremental.
Yup, just look at what happened in Acapulco after it was hit by Hurricane Otis, people started looting and the security forces were helpless. Or in Greece when people blamed and hunted down refugees for causing wild fires.
On a larger scale, there will be wars over water or resources, crop failures, great famine, climate refugees
Politicians will promise quick and easy solutions, none will work. We're in for a less comfortable, convenient world probably in most of our lifetimes. I'll be moving north, and at least +500 ft above sea level.
Going for north isn't a great idea, remember the wild fires in BC? Also there's scientific journal where they run simulations, the northern part of America, Europe experiencing a deep freeze.
and other than figuring out how to make a quick profit...i doubt anyone will do anything until it is much much too late.
I've stopped worrying about climate change. I now worry about AGI instead, which seems much more imminent.
I can't handle worrying about both.
I think the threat of AGI is much, much lower than that of climate change. It is still debated under scholars whether AGI actually will happen (in the nearby future) and if it does, whether it will actually be a threat to humanity. On the other hand, we are sure that climate change will be a threat to humanity and it is already happening.
I think the main issue with AI on te short term is that humanity will not benefit from it, only large businesses and the already wealthy. While at the same time, people are manipulated at a large scale by these same algorithms (e.g., on social media) to make money for these large businesses or to create societal discord for parties benefitting from that.
I think instilling fears of AGI in the public distracts from that and reduces the chances that this technology will be available to the larger public as these fears might lead to strict regulations and only having a few powerful parties having access to it.
So, don't fear AGI. Fear climate change. Also, be very critical of who has the power over current AI systems and how they are being used.
Read half this thread wondering why everyone is worried about Adjusted Gross Income.
I agree with most of your points but here's where we differ.
I believe that climate change poses an existential risk to not just civilization but to (almost) all life on earth. I believe that there's a real risk of us doing a Venus in 100-200 years. And even if we don't do a Venus the current trajectory is likely civilization ending in a century (getting worse over time).
But. While I am not certain that AGI is even possible (no one can say that yet) I believe that it's very likely that we'll have AGI within 5 years. And with this assumption in mind I feel like I have no idea if it will be aligned with human values o not, and that scares me. And the other thing that scares me is if any of the big players actually had control over it. The Country/company/group that creates an AGI that they can control will dominate the world.
And I read the IPCC reports and I am kind of deep into AI development.
So it's fearing the threat that is most imminent that I think is likely to happen rather than fearing a more distant threat that I think is certain.
Hey GPT-4, figure out a way to cool these data centers.
Eh if anything will off us as a species I'd hope for AGI with full on SciFi applications (e.g. evolving into a borg mind/post human world) because at least then someone can tell the story of how we all fucked up.
Abother note: All life ends but all you can do in this existence is to be kind and help others at the end of the day. I think we as a species suck at that but do your best in the wave of nihilism and suffering and it'll help even a tiny bit.
I'm torn between those two, the looming financial crisis as the housing market collapses like 2008 all over again, and WWIII getting underway as we speak. It's a real Apocalypse How in this bitch.
What's that
As Shelena said it means Artificial General Intelligence. It's a term coined to distinguish a hypothetical future system with actual intelligence in the colloquial sense of the word from currently existing "Artificial Intelligence" systems, because that has turned into an almost meaningless buzzword used to sell machine learning systems to investors and the general public over the last two decades or so. Don't get me wrong, "AI" has indeed made impressive progress as of late, I'm not doubting that. But the existing systems are hardly "intelligent" in the sense that most people would define that word.
I think they mean Artificial General Intelligence
Gotta stay mentally healthy.
Hey it might be nice having some intelligence in charge again. We haven't had that since that hole in the ozone layer killed off the lizard people decades ago.
I am actually hoping for AGI to take over the world but in a good way. It's just that I worry about the risk of it being misaligned with "human goals" (whatever that means). Skynet seems a bit absurd but the paperclip maximizer scenario doesn't seem completely unlikely.
bring in the tropical iguana people
I’m worried about robotic warfare. We now have two wars being fought simultaneously where autonomous systems are providing the edge over the enemy.
On one hand you’re eating something you usually eat and you die immediately when later it turns out a certain toxin got into the food because of a complex event caused by climate change. No one not even the capitalists that are still pushing cars out onto the road are held responsible for millions of deaths.
On the other your identity could be wiped and you’re bank account emptied as AI grows into the greatest scambot rendering electonic funds completely annihilited. You’ll become sick likely because of climate change and you go see a doctor(maybe not cuz you cant afford it) but they are so incompetent (because they passed their course using chat gtp) that you die anyways over something like a basic infection. And no one not even the asshole coalition who were responsible for putting it into play are held responsible for causing world wide downfall.
Eh.....at this point I think we can't avoid it and at least I'll get to see the climate deniers, the folks who think the EPA is holding back business and the country and the bible thumpers suffer and some perish. That at least will give me a measure of schadenfreude.
They won't understand or have the epiphany that they were wrong. They'll blame anything and everything before they admit they were wrong.
"God is sending this flood because gay people."
No people but seriously. What are we gonna do about this?
If you haven’t watched Extrapolations on Apple TV, you should. It combines the existential dread of climate change with the upbeat and witty story tension of Chernobyl.
Seriously though, it’s a good show but maybe don’t drink while watching?
They accelerated the timeline quite a bit, greatly exaggerated things like wet-bulb events, and made up unlikely diseases. It's ok as fantasy entertainment, but it would've been better if they made it more plausible and grounded.
"entertainment"
Try "doomtainment"
It was too optimistic for me. /s
Seeing this posted right after reading this: https://apple.news/AulzFvgTVRTugNCCva61OjA New speaker of the (US) house thinks it’s best we cut back on climate funding.
Well, the Earth had a good 6,000 year run. Rapture time!
That didn’t take long.
I'm so fucking ready to be honest
MIT said 2040.
Something to look forward to. Are you referring to the Limits to Growth?
next decade more likely
It may already have collapsed before climate change really kicks into full gear.
Oh, definitely.
Is it worth saving?
Yes, why not? If we die off, all the hard leared lessons we learned will be gone. Some other creature will have to do all the horrible shit we already did to get to where we are today. No need to duplicate that suffering. Let's just try our best to suck less in the future.
Just think we should consider our options.
I became a doomer. Humanity is a failed species. But everything that reduces suffering is worth doing. And everything that leaves the planet in a better state after we are gone is worth doing.
Society? No. All globalization has done is ensure as many people as possible are working for as few people as possible.
Humanity? Absolutely. We could see a return to tribal culture where people work for each other instead of the ruling class.
I mean, if you’re afraid of zombies, then yes.
Well, it sure is taking its sweet time about it.
Ikr
Article doesn't work, where's tldr bot
damn i hope so
According to Bjorn Lomburg, many estimates of the degree of climate damage assume no actions taken to mitigate the damage.
Inaccurate.
For example with rising sea levels the damage estimates are based on property value assumed to drop to zero in places that would be covered by a rise.
But what actually happens is that we can build structures which cost orders of magnitude less than all that property values to keep the water out of those places.
And it’s not just speculation. People actually do build such structures, and extract economic value from places below sea level.
These models that talk about damages assume a total loss of value to all points below new sea level. Doesn’t match how things actually play out in reality.
Well, I mean, so far that seems to be the path being taken.
No that’s not true. Humanity takes action all the time to mitigate the damage from changing environments. For example when Egypt became less of a damp climate, humanity didn’t just abandon Egypt as a place to live. Instead we built irrigation systems which, while expensive to create, were less expensive than the total loss of the land as habitable space.
Found the billionaire
Honestly it's probably someone just burnt out from reading everyday how screwed we are. Whens the last time we got some actual good news it just doesn't happen anymore.
The average voter too, sadly.
Well, shit is definitely getting progessively worse. However, are we really at the point where the best narrative has shifted from "climate catastrophe in 30 years or so" to "the end of human civilisation in less than 100 years"?
One is trying to scientifically predict how massive climate systems beyond our current understanding may behave, while the other is just promoting doom hyperbole for clicks. You don't have to look at the URL to realise it's a massive multimedia organisation looking for clicks.
You're going to have hundreds of millions of migrants coming into our countries because they literally have no other place to exist. Of course that will lead to wars, oppression, and genocide. Will the collapse be so bad that there is no human civilization left? I can't imagine that. But will the civilization look anything like what we'd hope or find acceptable today? Hard to imagine that, either.
That being said, scientists have been hyperbolic for decades because no one gives a fuck unless you use terms like the end of civilization / life as we know it. They only have so many tools to get people to pay attention and from what I can tell none of them have worked, other than I feel there's an uptick in people choosing not to have kids because the future looks so bleak.
Scientists have not been hyperbolic. If anything, so far, they've been very cautious abut their statements.
I still remember reading headlines about "likelihood of global warming" then "probably caused by human activities" because 90% level of confidence is not enough, you need more data until you can reach 95% or 98% confidence before boldly writng "most probably".
But in their "probably" they predicted we would see more floods, droughts, violent storms, all of these happening one after the other causing devastation.
And Ô surprise: we see floods, droughts and storms following each other and causing devastation. Yet our leaders will claim "no one could have predicted all of that would happen at once!".
Now they start telling us our civilization could collapse ("could" must be what? 75% confidence level???)
We're going to spend 20-25 years claiming they exagerate, another 20-25 years saying "well, they maybe right, but we can't change things too fast because that would be unreasonable and the people would not accept it".
By the time, we will start reading articles stating no matter what we do now, we can only push out the end a bit, but we're doomed. And the first reactions will be "those damned scientists always exagerate and use hyperboles".
The present is too bleak for many people to choose to have kids. It's simply unaffordable in terms of time and money for a lot of people. Rent is unaffordable, both partners have to work but daycare is unaffordable, food and medical are expensive, schools are increasingly fucked up. Then you add the future uncertainty (or rather, probability of dystopia), and why would anyone do that?
It's either "the sky is falling" and nothing happens (because of all the work we actually did, like y2k, the ozone hole, or acid rain) or "this might be a problem someday" and nothing gets done.
Of course that will lead to wars, oppression, and genocide.
This isn't scientists being hyperbolic, you've invented that on your own just now.
That being said, scientists have been hyperbolic for decades because no one gives a fuck unless you use terms like the end of civilization / life as we know it.
No, they haven't. If you actually read scientific literature you will find a balanced argument that generally takes into account the previous estimations, regardless of whether or not they were proven false or correct. The only thing you find when you look into the claims of this Vice.com article is:
Request Error: DOI not a Pending Publication DOI!
Guy with binoculars: "captain, I think that's an iceberg ahead of us"
Captain: "its far away, don't be so glum"
...
1500 dead people: " "
This has been my Titanic themed ted talk analogy.
Thanks.
Request Error: DOI not a Pending Publication DOI!
Did you actually look into any of the claims in the article, or are you just reading a Vice.com headline and talking bullshit??
My observation about this is that we've moved from an era of asking whether or not climate change is real to one where we try to figure out how serious it is going to be.
Like I'm not even clear on what is meant by collapse.
This is what's meant by collapse:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
In a period of just 50 years, major stable empires simply ceased to exist, and it's believed that sudden (much less dramatic) changes to the climate induced this.
Well exactly. That's why hyperbole like that in this article frustrates me.
/u/chameleon@kbin.social posted a working link to the actual paper, which is much more reasonable in its claims: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad080
I actually agree with you.
I know people will say "we were casual about it and now look where we are".. but looking at this title, I can already see the debatable points before going into the argue... which is going to create that debate, since the majority of people aren't going to go into the article anyway.
I could be wrong and there is no way to prove or disprove my belief, but I think humanity would be more united working towards a solution if the majority of media stuck to purely facts. Ultimately, it should have the same content and less divisiveness over projected opinions.
Yeah, see I'm not saying that the article isn't pointing in the right direction, rather that it is generally wrong in its assertions. In doing so, it is actually causing harm by discrediting objective truth with a narrative filled with flawed hyperbole.
It's long been a thing that "all the ice is going to melt in 30 years" - for the past 100 years that's been the best estimate scientists could make. Now, it's actually happening, and scientists are scrambling to make better predictions - but they do so with a solid understanding of the previous predictions.
However this article does disservice to that effort, because it's just stretching the previous hyperbole as far as it can with the goal of attracting viewership, rather than with the goal of spreading news in the hope that people will be better educated to make better decisions as a society, and as a species.
Any scientist worth their salt wouldn't be stating so concretely what might happen in 100 years.
Personally, I think that is down to most scientists actually facing the reality. Previous expectation was that humanity will be able to adapt to some degree of changes with some sacrifice - then 2020~2021 demonstrated that assumption to be false.
Great, now scientists have joined the ranks of those religious doomer cults.
please go back to reddit
Can't... I was permanently suspended for mass reporting content that was promoting hate and violence. I guess one of the terrorist supporting mods didn't appreciate me reporting all his buddies and got me suspended for "Report Abuse"
bUt ClImAtE cHaNgE iS a WoKe HoAx To TaKe OuR gAs StOvEs
Meanwhile...
It's really wild how committed dumb people are to receiving Darwin awards for them and their families.
"Vaccines don't work and are a hoax, and it's unrelated people who agree with me are dying from COVID at a higher rate."
"Liberals want to take away my red meat every day of the week and limit how much high fructose corn syrup soda I drink in a day, but screw them. Unrelated, my whole family has diabetes and older members strangely have heart disease and colon cancers..."
People who treat science as a dirty word really seem to have higher all cause mortality. So bizarre and unexplainable.
The bigger crime is businesses that treat technological advancement as an excuse to charge more for what should be the new baseline standard.
Let nature take its course. Hopefully we’ll be rid of them sooner rather than later
And I like how we now have evidence this info was known and suppressed in fear of reducing sales
And also how this would mean gas stoves would require better ventilation to meet code, not that they'd be banned outright
Are you really trying to tell me that a good solution to our hollowed-out working class AND the climate crisis is to transition as rapidly as possible to renewable energy and sustainable tech that we design, develop, and produce in our own country????
You sound like a communist grrrrrr!
(I hope my sarcasm comes across. I’m very tired as I type.)
Unfortunately, good induction cooktops are not available everywhere. And certainly not available for cheap. Where I am, there are no 4 hob cooktops available.
Also, induction and electric cooktops need cookware that has flat bottom. However, constant heating and cooling of cookware means over time, the bottom will develop a curve for most of them.
This unfortunately means that gas stoves are not going anywhere, at least in Asia and Africa which are cost sensitive markets.
Gas explosions aren't real, they can't hurt you
Hello good day to you fellow Lemmy user, i will promply explain how it works. See, the hoax is to get you to spend money on you don't need, while viewing corporations as eco-friendly whilst they utilize it as an excuse cheapen the cost of resources and give you worse products. Source here. Henceforth, the entire thing is in fact a hoax. Thusly I hope this clears up any confusion about us anti climate changers
Edit: Fellow lemmiers, why do you downdoot me today?
If only there were some body of governance that could regulate things for an entire society. Too bad mankind never had any tools like that. Oh well. Enjoy growing gills.
Cites source that opens with satire agreeing with their point but then explicitly says the opposite:
Great source. You should read the whole thing.
Where in the source that you linked does it say that a switch to electric stoves is an aspect of greenwashing?
Also to argue that is bad faith. Obviously corporations will want to greenwash themselves and provide us with cheap products. That’s their whole MO. However, that doesn’t mean that a product is bad de facto. That’s like arguing that because corporations producing solar panels have an interest in selling us solar panels, that solar panels are really actually not better for the environment than fossil fuels. I’ll give you credit for only forcing me to read a Bernie Sanders op ed, but your argument doesn’t make sense and your source doesn’t support it.
Username doesn't check out
lemmy's sarcasm detector is about as bad as reddit's