this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
505 points (97.6% liked)

World News

39332 readers
3029 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Don't think I need to summarize this one. This is bad news for everyone.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] El_guapazo@lemmy.world 121 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Basically it's too late to stop the process. Even if we switched to renewables entirely, there will be a lag. That lag is now in a positive feedback loop.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 132 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah like the science community was saying 10-15 years ago.

[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 76 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I remember some of the early research showing this when I was in college in the late 90s/early 00s. It's mostly following the worst-case scenario models from the time, except 50 - 80 years ahead of schedule.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Whether you can risk it or can't. Its time to disobey our leaders. They dont care. They've built protections for themselves. They plan on feeding us to the storms.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There will be no protection or escape from the environmental changes we'll be facing, this is not something you can just wait out in a bunker.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yep, they'll let the climate kill all of us. Because they won't truly be living either down there. I'm sure all the training courses for guard loyalty in the world won't actually do shit when you're physically down in a bunker without hopes of coming out.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] omgarm@feddit.nl 10 points 3 weeks ago

I started watching The Nanny a few days ago (have seen a lot on tv, but never everything) and in one of the first episodes they make a joke about being worried about Global Warming. It was lighthearted, not very serious. That was 1993.

[–] themadcodger@kbin.earth 50 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If only we knew about this 50 years ago, surely we would have done something!

Big Oil: side eye Muppet meme

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 28 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Fun fact: They knew since the 1950s and have been lying about it for over 70 YEARS!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 89 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Earth will survive and the humans will get what they deserve.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Millions of species will go down with us, some already have been relagated to extinction by our actions.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

The dinosaurs got wiped out and new life flourished. The same will happen again.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh then in that case nbd that we take millions of species who were living in harmony with nature with us. Serves them right for . . . existing in the same 20,000 year period we did.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

Life is hard and unfair

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 55 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (13 children)

earlier than initially projected

There's that phrase again. If only someone had warned us loudly and repeatedly.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Humanity will be just another dead branch on the tree of life

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Humans are pretty resilient. Adaptable to any climate, even the mess of a climate we created.

Now, I'm not saying that all 8 billion of us will survive.

What I'm saying is, the minimum viable genetic population for humans is about 2000 individuals.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

When food runs out for even a portion of those 8 billion, results are gonna be nasty.

It's hard to talk about climate initiatives when 1/3 of the planet is shooting eatch other. In worst case with nukes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Yep, there will always be humans as long as there is literally anything we can hunt/forage and eat.

If that will resemble what we perceive as civilisation is another question entirely.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 48 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

So, what does this all mean for us? It means we have even less time to get our act together. Reducing emissions isn’t just a good idea — it’s crucial.

I don't think this will motivate countries to dramatically increase emissions reduction efforts, but I think it will motivate countries to begin geoengineering. Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction, and the results are more immediate. Yes, it doesn't solve the core problem, which is the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, but it treats the symptom, albeit temporarily. Why put a lot of time, money, and effort into fixing the core problem when you can spend comparatively less time, money, and effort just treating the symptom? Then you can just pretend the core problem doesn't exist and go about business as usual.

Edit: sorry, I should have added the /s.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 36 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I don't think you realize what a collapsed ocean current means for us. This is existential, not business as usual. Anything we do from here on out that isn't in service of stopping this is signing our species death warrant.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Haha fricking euros enjoying their moderate climate - wait until they find out what’s real Midwest winter is like. And they want to take my truck and my gas stove? Eff them.

/too many conservatives probably

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah don't worry, Texas will get Saharan weather in exchange.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mannimarco@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure that's already signed, let's be real, nothing is going to happen, we're fucked

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ignirtoq@fedia.io 17 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction

I don't know if your whole comment is sarcasm, but every part of this statement is wrong. We are in the very, very early stages of developing the technologies needed for the level of geoengineering required to mitigate what we have already done to the environment. To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables, which should really say how hard and expensive it would be given how utterly daunting of a task full conversion to renewables is.

Now, putting in token investment and paying lip service to geoengineering, that's cheaper and easier than switching to renewables. But that's not even treating the symptoms. That's just your standard con game against the broader population to try to manipulate the conversation.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables

The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be less than $5b/yr, which includes R&D. In other words, this is something that the government of New York City (annual budget: >$100b) could easily do alone without any international support, even in the face of significant opposition.

In contrast, ending fossil fuel use requires significant international cooperation and is regularly stymied by opposing interests. NYC obviously cannot do it by itself.

So from a pragmatic perspective, geoengineering is definitely the easiest solution. In fact IMO the lack of progress on emission reduction makes it inevitable, at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bacano@lemmy.world 37 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (9 children)

I gotta stop using chrome on my phone 😔

[–] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Firefox mobile supports ublock origin

[–] ghost_towels@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Only on android unfortunately.

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] styxem@sh.itjust.works 33 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Mildly fitting though. "Ecological collapse is imminent; please buy more products."

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Ecological collapse is imminent; please buy more products

If there is a better epitaph for Humanity, I have not heard it.

Can we Laser etch this quote onto the moon's surface before the last human dies please?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Gointhefridge@lemm.ee 30 points 3 weeks ago

Summer homes in Europe go up in value. A new market for winter apparel opens too. Just think to the potential market growth. This is going to make a few shrewd entrepreneurs very wealthy. The planet will suffer, but man think of the money.

[–] Icalasari@fedia.io 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Huh. That's oddly freeing

"Oh we're all fucked guaranteed. The stress is gone"

I mean, still gonna be for eco measures and such, but it's like a weight is off my shoulders in terms of worry

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s not freeing. We may have locked in some really bad changes but it can always get worse. It more critical than ever to get a handle on our green house emissions

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago

B-but the oil lobbyists at COP told me amoc won't be affected

[–] ouch@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As a finn, I can live with -40 °C winters, let them come. At least the invading russians will drop dead like flies in the winter. Again.

[–] AJ1@lemmy.ca 24 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

as a Canadian, I agree totally. -40 is wayyyy more tolerable than +40. I'll take Hoth over Tatooine any fucking day of the week

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

We need to be coordinating human effort across the globe on this above all else. China’s the only one taking it seriously right now.

The people defending the US tariffs on imports of Chinese solar panels are engaging in straight up climate change denial. We don’t have time for industry protectionism. Once the currents collapse, food chain collapse will follow shortly.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›