• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Remember, conservatives did this. If not for conservatives worldwide, normal people would be able to proactively address this.

    When we are starving and potable water is scarce, be sure to aggressively thank a conservative neighbor for involuntarily sharing all their resources with the normal people.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Plus the complete lack of effort on the part of any government anywhere… we are all so fucked.

        • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          13 hours ago

          The effort isn’t enough, and that’s the problem. U.S. emissions dropped 2.7% from 2023, that’s great, but that still means we pumped 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere (I don’t remember the exact phrasing your article used).

          We’re still pumping too much in, and not taking any out, and we’re already hitting limits we needed to avoid. And based on that recent AMOC collapse report that came out, a lot of these climate models weren’t even taking that into account, so I highly doubt we see a reverse of course on climate change as it continues to expound on itself year over year.

          The WWF reported a 69% average decline in all animal species populations on the planet since 1970.

          We missed the exit, everything until the cliff is grifters trying to set themselves up for the inevitable collapse at your expense.

          • nictophilia@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            The effort is not enough…yet. As long as we don’t start backsliding, we’re seeing an increase in effort year over year.

            the inevitable collapse

            THIS is the grifter bullshit. “Don’t bother acting, it’s too late”. Fossil fuel doomer propaganda.

            • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              12 hours ago

              THIS is the grifter bullshit. “Don’t bother acting, it’s too late”. Fossil fuel doomer propaganda.

              That’s not what I said, I said it’s too late, we missed the exit. Fossil fuel companies hid the research for decades, and I’ve heard nothing my entire life except how we need to act and change the ways we live and interact with the world.

              I’m almost 30, and our dependency on fossil fuels hasn’t changed, I’ve yet to see a meaningful societal shift away from the consumerism that drives the majority of climate change.

              And ok, we keep driving emissions down, what about biodiversity loss across the planet? How many plants and animals are currently on the brink of extinction?

              Let’s bring up developing countries, who are increasing their use of fossil fuels. Where is the international agreement to help modernize these countries with renewable energies? Who’s going to pay for it? We can’t get the countries of the world to agree we’ve overfished the oceans and they’re on the brink of collapse, where’s the international agreement to reverse that?

              I would argue I’m giving people a pessimistic reality of the future, sure, but at least it’s based in the current reality. Climate change extends far beyond the overall global temperature, and I’m sure climate and environmental scientists will be the first to say that there are a lot of pieces and variables we don’t fully understand, or haven’t even accounted for, because that’s just how science works.

              • nictophilia@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 hours ago

                our dependency on fossil fuels hasn’t changed

                What is this crap? EVs are all over the place and so is renewable energy. Emmissions are falling. We haven’t opened a new coal plant in a generation.

                And ok, we keep driving emissions down, what about biodiversity loss across the planet? How many plants and animals are currently on the brink of extinction?

                Ok? It’s bad and we’re working to fix it. That’s very different than “we’re all doomed and should stop doing anything”.

                Where is the international agreement to help modernize these countries with renewable energies? Who’s going to pay for it?

                https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement

      • casmael@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Well when even the smaller cards require pallet delivery and a 4 man team to bring on site you know you fucked up

    • burgersc12@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Next year is the year of lower emissions, maybe in two years. Who really knows? And time is such a funny thing… Oh look over there, solar panels! We’re fine! Buy more things, and make the line go up!

      • nictophilia@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        14 hours ago

        What the fuck are you even trying to say here? More solar panels increases greenhouse gasses??? Loony Tunes

        • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          14 hours ago

          I read it as criticizing consumerism culture and the idea that technology alone can save us without changing that system

          • nictophilia@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Still dumb. Technology is actively saving us right now, as the link I posted shows.

              • nictophilia@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Greenpeace spreads propaganda? Are you referring to nuclear? Because I don’t think nuclear alone would have prevented this, there’s still transportation, industry, and developing nations that wouldn’t be able to use nuclear.

                • dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 hours ago

                  Yes greenpeace, the Exxon funded anti-green terrorist organization, spread massive amounts of propaganda written by oil companies, including anti nuclear propaganda.

                  To your second point, nickel-iron batteries by the 1950s had developed to a point where they could compete with ice vehicles (not that they couldn’t earlier as well) and would have made great electric cars and trucks given they were already the primary power source for trains (just in diesel electric form). EVs as we know them today would have been ubiquitous had Edison not been terrible with technology and science.

                  With that the primary use for petroleum oil would have been eliminated, and we’d need large amounts of cheap electricity by the 1950s, resulting in nuclear being the cheapest option per kWh.

                  You might ask why bring up green peace if I’m going a half century earlier to start this alternative history timeline… Because there was a revival of interest in EVs and alternatives to oil in the 1960s and 1970s when greenpeace was active. We could have made the switch then to EVs and nuclear plants to power them. 1970s cars were so inefficient that even the nearly century old at the time nickel iron batteries would have still been able to compete with ice engines.

                  But if we don’t have nuclear to power them, they’re not the environmentally friendly option in a time before efficient solar and wind power, so oils execs just needed to attack nuclear plants and hey, there just happens to be a group of confused hippies arguing against nuclear arms… If you could tie nuclear power to nuclear weapons and get the peace hippies convinced nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons proliferation and also convince them nuclear disasters are somehow worse than oil disasters (which even at the time was not true, it just felt that way due to biased, sponsored, media coverage) then you can convince the core audience of EVs that it’s not worth investing in that tech or nuclear.

                  To your point in developing nations, yes they can. Foreign owned and operated nuclear plants are incredibly popular at this time, Germany’s nuclear plants in Brazil being an example of nuclear being deployed to a particularly unstable developing country with minimal issues.

                  Minimizing uses for oil helps carve a path to eliminate it and other carbon based energy sources. Even if nuclear cannot eliminate all use in its own, it’s a cornerstone technology that enables others to land the killing blow.