this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
390 points (98.8% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3892 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The one boundary that is not threatened is atmospheric ozone, after action to phase out destructive chemicals in recent decades led to the ozone hole shrinking

So we can do it when we need to.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I remember when the hole in the ozone was something we were all worried about. I remember the news segments and the magazine covers and the protests.

I don’t remember the massive coordinated media campaigns running into the tens of billions of dollars. I don’t remember an entire political party simultaneously saying there’s no ozone hole and that the ozone hole is actually good for us. I don’t remember rednecks standing in rows on Texas highways shooting AquaNet into the air to own the libs.

We used to be able to do it. Nixon founded the EPA. There was a general consensus that had a role in reducing pollution and disease. The republicans fought against establishing social security, saying that old people should support themselves and anything else would turn the US literally communist.

We’ve lost even that much.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nixon may have been the guy in charge when we realized we needed the EPA, but let's not pretend he was some champion for the environment.

He vetoed the Clean Water Act for fuck sake.

And from what I understand, the only reason we were able to shift away from CFCs (main pollutant destroying the ozone) was because the alternative was comparable in price, if not cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like I still see people complain about modern refrigerants being less good because environmentalists banning the old ones on rare occasions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Having replaced an air conditioner recently, the complaint seems to be "We can't get the old refrigerant so once our current supply is gone a lot of old units that still work fine are going to have to be replaced."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I've just seen complaints about the new stuff period, even in things that were made after the new stuff was the norm.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

We can do it when billionaires aren't profiting from not doing it. The switch away from CFCs didn't hurt anyone's profits too badly.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I'm going to be a dad in a few weeks. 🥲 (Feel free to dunk on me with the inevitable 'why?'s, and 'did you live under a rock?' I can't feel any worse anymore anyway 🤗)

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I chose not to have kids. You can have my carbon offset.

Individual guilt for systemic problems plays well to the elites (ultra-wealthy). Unless you’re a billionaire. Then I want my offset back.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I also don't have kids so have my carbon offset as well

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also don't have kids but I'm keeping my carbon offset to my damn self.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I'll take that axe if it improves my carbon offset

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mine is 7 months old now. I felt the same. Just wait, you'll likely feel that it was the best thing you ever did. Your kid may be the one to drive some positive change. Just do the best you can and give yourself some grace.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes everyone should use this logic. Your kid might be the one, have 10 to increase your odds!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Realistically, 10 probably would spread your resources too thin, if you want each to excel enough to be part of the solution.

3-5 though, that's a good range.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Your sarcasm detector needs a tune up.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Human problems have human solutions.

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, it just takes time for the economics to shake out.

Plenty of jobs in a clean economy as well.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

...it just takes time...

Yeah, that's the thing the scientists are saying we're running out of though.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good luck to you and yours. I sincerely hope we’re wrong about how bad we think it’s going to get in the next 50 years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You wrote hope but that message can go either way

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I thought you said you are going to be dead in a few weeks. Then I reread it, and still pretty much think the same.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Meh, humanity is getting what it deserves. We literally did this to ourselves.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

We deserve it.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago

Enjoy the next 10 or so years everyone, they'll likely be the last normal years of your lives.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The broken boundaries mean the systems have been driven far from the safe and stable state that existed from the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, to the start of the industrial revolution.

Prof Johan Rockström, the then director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre who led the team that developed the boundaries framework, said: “Science and the world at large are really concerned over all the extreme climate events hitting societies across the planet.

The boundary for biosphere integrity, which includes the healthy functioning of ecosystems, was broken in the late 19th century, the researchers said, as destruction of the natural world decimated wildlife.

These are vital for life but excessive use of fertilisers mean many waters are heavily polluted by these nutrients, which can lead to algal blooms and ocean dead zones.

Prof Simon Lewis, at University College London and not part of the study team, said: “This is a strikingly gloomy update on an already alarming picture.

A separate initiative to define the end of the Holocene and the start of a new age dominated by human activities moved forward in July, when scientists chose a Canadian lake as the site to represent the beginning of the Anthropocene.


The original article contains 1,201 words, the summary contains 203 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The planetary boundaries are not irreversible tipping points beyond which sudden and serious deterioration occurs, the scientists said. Instead, they are points after which the risks of fundamental changes in the Earth’s physical, biological and chemical life support systems rise significantly.

...

Phasing out fossil fuel burning and ending destructive farming are the key actions required.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In other words, we're all gonna die.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Nonono, spontaneously in the near future all humanity will reject greed and gluttony to begin working together, optimizing resource use, and minimizing global impact to levels the geological and biological systems can cope with.

/exhalepowerfuldrugs

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Is there a way to stop it, like which are the most poluting factories, where are they and how do we turn them of and how do we make sure they are never turned on again?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

pretty sure we're past the point of no return (or points), but i'd be up for some heavy vandalism

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So... where?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The source of the most greenhouse gas emissions by far is power and heating. Switching to renewables is the answer. Like, yesterday. For ecological diversity, agriculture has to become sustainable and deforestation has to stop.
For air pollution, we need to ditch our cars.
For ground and water pollution, we need to ditch plastics. These are all just the biggest factors, starting points really. And they all intermingle and affect each other.

load more comments
view more: next ›