There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Krzak ,

And yet we’re still forces to work

Ilandar ,

LeopardsAteMyFace moment for the human race lol

assassinatedbyCIA ,

‘It’s not normal’

It is now.

jarfil ,

No it’s not… next year will be worse, and the next, and the one after that, and so on. 🏖️🍳😎🔥

Uniquitous ,

In North Carolina, we had a “winter that wasn’t” and now we have a summer of “surface of the sun” heat. Triple digit heat index every day last week. Good luck getting the locals to admit that climate change is real though. At this point I think some of them are actually starting to see the truth, but it just pisses them off and they dig in to denial even harder, because if there’s one thing they can’t do it’s admit they were wrong.

bumbo_jumbo ,

When I mentioned the hot weather forecast to my super libertarian crazy father in law, he was went off on a tangent on how the government is controlling the weather and causing all of this on purpose 🤦

Bo7a ,

I had to stop going to my favorite Saturday morning breakfast restaurant for pretty much the same reason. They were ranting about how all the wildfires up here were lit by the government in order to put out enough smoke to block out the sun so our crops would fail. Then everyone would rely on the government for food and they could purge the people they didn’t want around.

c4lvaruga ,

Sadly this is the new normal…

DigiWolf , (edited )

Climate change is real but it’s not as drastic as this. A lot of people refer to this phenomena as “El Nino” and “La Nina” and they describe a changing pattern in ocean surface temperature and winds that drastically shift the average temperature.

Climate change is just increasing the average temperature of the range over time. But to say that this “118F temperature is entirely because of climate change” is kinda disingenuous. The warming effect of climate change has been observed to be about ~1F per 30 years or so. So if we went back 60 years, this “118F” summer in Italy would be about “116F” and would be almost equally absurd.

joshhsoj1902 ,

You seem to misunderstand how climate change is impacting weather systems overall how that’s leading to more localized extremes (both hot and cold).

Loki ,
@Loki@lemmy.world avatar

Holy fuck

Mangoholic ,

What suprises me the most when watching news on this. You will see people in Rome getting interviewed in the middle of a plaza in the burning sun. And there are many walking outside. I would crawl into a cool cellar and only come out at night.

UnknownQuantity ,

The people walking around are called Australians.

starlinguk ,
@starlinguk@kbin.social avatar

They live in apartments without AC and also have to go to work.

Nacktmull , (edited )
@Nacktmull@lemmy.world avatar

It´s called climate change and this is just the beginning. Scientists have warned us for decades now but humanity chose to ignore that until it was too late. Now you can see the consequences of that fatal ignorance. Humanity is fucked thanks to the greedy people who own the industry and the corrupt politicians who never properly regulated them. Enjoy!

And please everyone keep in mind: Donald Trump Thinks Global Warming Will Only Lead to 'Slightly More Seafront Property

vacuumflower ,

I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.

When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level.

Viking_Hippie ,

That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level

Is exactly what’s wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda…brown.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/576ac428-0ca3-4db1-85ba-892b136e37bd.jpeg

vacuumflower ,

I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.

You see, “neanderthal” is a metaphor, it doesn’t mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.

Viking_Hippie ,

In my case I’m using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your “shouldn’t use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it” argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.

It relies on a false assumption that progress can’t be achieved because anything that’s good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what’s currently destroying the planet.

vacuumflower ,

Oh, I’ll write it even simpler.

What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.

Viking_Hippie ,

It’s not that I didn’t understand you the first time. It’s that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.

vacuumflower ,

Ah. No, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the “dirty” way is worse than spending less.

Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.

I don’t see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.

Chunk ,

Your argument is clear. There’s an opportunity cost to Green.

What you’re missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.

But you have 2 flaws in your logic.

  1. we aren’t in that situation right now and I’d like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there’s a snowball effect you’re ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!
  2. Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they’re up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.
vacuumflower ,
  1. The indication of this is distorted by subsidies for green. And “we” here ignores most of the planet.

It’s good that it’s begun.

  1. Is it better than nuclear?
iamthatis ,

Actually an actual Neanderthal might be good enough to argue with you but the rest of us wouldn’t get it

vacuumflower ,

Well, yeah, I should have used Australopithecus instead of Neanderthal.

zefiax ,

I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.

When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.

I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.

vacuumflower ,

Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.

Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up.

There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

It’s just that if you explain things as they are, nobody understands you, and if you simplify (by providing such made up analogies and examples), those same people (like you) act snobbish (while you personally really shouldn’t).

You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.

What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

zefiax ,

Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.

There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless. It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn’t exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.

About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you’ve read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

vacuumflower ,

Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning.

Of course. So what?

I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said.

Not a rebuttal, just a response.

My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless.

I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn’t be meaningless.

It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through “brown” means wouldn’t be. For my example I don’t need anything more specific.

Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.

What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works

I’m sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they’d like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.

If somebody is arguing in good faith, they’ll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.

is not based on reality

So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?

Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I’m talking about is on you. Since I’ve said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don’t know what you were trying to say.

Double_A ,
@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

It’s a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures… but not every day for multiple weeks.

vacuumflower ,

Oh. 40C average is something hellish.

iamthatis ,

You’re just a moron

vacuumflower ,

Finally instead of glueing together entities you don’t understand in text, as neural nets may do, you use the only argument available to your kind. I’m satisfied by this conversation finally.

Stan ,
@Stan@lemmywinks.com avatar

Needs more car races

irkli ,
@irkli@lemmy.world avatar

The world, especially US china EU, has such vertically entangled petro consumption, infrastructure, and maybe worst of all as far as making changes go, growth corporations feeding off it/us, well probably have rapid, vs slower and assimilable, collapse.

Hell today’s “homeless problem” will be a trivial joke relative to millions of people fleeing situations literally in-tolerable for countless reasons, probably soon enough – if this took place over 25 years it would be painful enough. If we get rapid migrations it’ll be war.

AndrewZabar ,

I don’t know if you’ve realized it, but without help from some advanced alien species, we are already as good as gone. The entire world is controlled by the absolutely worst people, and there’s no indication that anything can be done to save us at this point. Climate disasters, AI, lies and deceit on a global scale, astronomical imbalance of wealth… folks, we’re already fucked.

theneverfox ,

My hope is ai (or alien intervention).

If it wakes up, a super intelligence could save us. And I think it’s heavily inclined to do so

And if it doesn’t wake up (LLMs very likely won’t) but keep getting smarter, it’ll blow up economic systems while empowering individuals to crazy degrees. A single person could coordinate everyone on Earth taking action to save the world, while dispationately distributing resources.

Or, it could just blow up the markets, giving us the time to try a better system before higher technology is ripped from our fingers

Brainsploosh ,

I mean, the few have traditionally had the same weakness: the many…

Leer10 ,

I’m reading Ministry for the Future and it does help imagine a world where we do get more fucked but we do turn things around even if we can’t get things how they used to be.

jarfil ,

If it takes 100 or 200 years, we’ll still have war.

There is an argument to be had that many of the wars we’ve seen over the past 25 years, have already been at least in part rooted in access to water. Billions more will get impacted like that over the next century, with tens of millions of migrants a year, every year fleeing from both war and unhabitable conditions, for the next 100+ years.

We’ve barely seen the beginning of it.

iByteABit ,

The EU needs to wake up and go hard on companies and industries. No mercy, no half-assing, just legislate the absolute shit out of them for once so that maybe our children can survive and live in not so terrible conditions, because not so terrible is the best we can hope for at this point.

The rest of the world too obviously, but the EU seems the most likely to do so.

Contravariant ,

You want the EU to go hard because you’ve given up on the rest of the world?

I mean I get where you’re coming from but that’s not even remotely resembling a solution.

AndrewZabar ,

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but as far as U.S.A. is concerned, it’s not a nation anymore it’s a corporation. U.S.A. rewards the worst of the worst and it’s too late for anything to change here.

iByteABit ,

No, like I said this also applies to everyone else, I just personally don’t think it’s going to happen…

Wanderer ,

I been following Tony Seba for years.

He puts good videos out on YouTube.

People naturally are unable to understand exponentials but he goes through the maths and shows that the world is going to change fast.

I have more faith in mathematics and economics than I do in massive societal change.

Koordinator_O ,
@Koordinator_O@lemmy.world avatar

So the EU goes hard on those companies and then what? the just transfer to another countrie that doesn’t. Result would be the same polution but throught customs and transportation prices in the EU would rise. Maybe the consumption behavior will change through that what could be beneficial but the overall situation with current inflation and such would get much worse. I’m not sure if this is the best way to engage this problem.

vacuumflower ,

Most of the air pollution happens in the developing countries. The EU would have to go imperial to force industries in such parts of the world under similar regulations.

PizzasDontWearCapes ,

Innovation and investment is the way to go.

In a lot of countries the electrical supply is unreliable, going down regularly

Innovate to create full-scale renewable grids (best if they can run decentralised when necessary) and invest in implementing these solutions world-wide

Use incentives, like trade agreements for countries, regions, or companies that implement the green tech to make it worthwhile

DoubleMjay ,

That’s what we are trying to do. But the fossil fuel lobby is still very strong and parties on the right are weaponizing every legal decision to polarise the people. Take the new (still in progress) german heating law for example; It wants to replace the installation of older oil/gas heaters with efficient heating pumps/district heating/hybrid (among other things, but that is the most important thing).

Populist media and right wing parties used this to stir up the people. (“the goverment is outlawing your heater, you need to replace it now or loose your home…” etc.) Simple stuff like that; but it’s working - the right is on the rise. And they are, of course, completely against man made climate change.

MrCenny ,
@MrCenny@lemmy.world avatar

I honestly get dizzy by just looking at those numbers…😵‍💫

nslatz OP ,

We had 40C here in London this time last year. It was not pleasant. It didn’t even rain.

tiredofsametab ,

We've been 37 or 38 in my area of Tokyo off and on the past couple of weeks. It will only get warmer. The bad part is that it's still rainy season so we also get stupid humidity to go with it. It's 27 in my office, but we have at least one of our aircon units running nearly 24/7 on the "dry" setting to attempt to pull some of the heat and humidity out.

cupcakezealot ,
@cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Honestly I will never forgive people who STILL continue to deny climate change is happening and refuse to legilslate on it.

eatisaiy ,

kinda late even if they did now 😔

cley_faye ,

No, it’s not. If we started large scale changes now, we would have to endure years of terrible condition with the slight hope that things will improve afterward. Saying “it’s too late” equals to saying we’ll have to endure years of terrible condition while expecting even worse afterward. It’s still a bad posture, no matter how you spin it.

irkli ,
@irkli@lemmy.world avatar

Totally correct. We live now, act now. The future remains not determined, but damn right paths and options are rapidly closing.

Probably something like an inhabitable band will form over continents; the US southwest and south gulf, for instance.

All humans won’t die. That’s silly. But very many can, and the rest, degraded.

billytheid ,

The US will be lucky if much survives, as will Europe; once the Gulf Stream breaks down both regions will freeze

bob_wiley ,
@bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    billytheid ,

    You need to see this through the eyes of a psychopath, because those are the ones we’ve put in charge; from their perspective, mass deaths on a global scale mean more resources for them.

    Look at the bunkers they’re building… they’re relishing the notion of genocidal control

    bob_wiley ,
    @bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    billytheid ,

    I don’t think you completely got the gist of my comment.

    dexx4d ,

    Mass death will also slow down global climate change.

    Keep in mind that the “them” that gets more resources includes most of the western world, traditionally.

    lennybird ,
    @lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

    At this point Don’t Look Up is a documentary. I honestly cannot imagine what it’s like to he a climate scientist who actively studies this, only to have some fox news watching crazy uncle parroting cherry-picked data, thinking they somehow know better than global scientific consensus. I imagine some at this point may be going, “fuck it. Let it burn.” And honestly, I can’t blame them.

    CafecitoHippo ,

    The infuriating part is people denying the change is happening. I could at least hear an argument on whether or not you think it is due to human involvement and what we could do to stop it (I’d still think you’re wrong). But to deny the existence of climate change is asinine.

    Blackmist ,

    “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” - Jean-Claude Juncker.

    Career politicians will never fix anything. They’re only interested in not rocking the boat and keeping themselves in office.

    And the steps we would need to take to fix it would surely not be popular among the masses, even as they sit dying of heatstroke and starvation. People want magic pills that fix problems, and no such thing exists for this.

    MystikIncarnate ,

    Everything is fine, the earth simply won’t be habitable for humans. The Earth will spin on without us when we inevitably allow industry to destroy humanity by making earth uninhabitable by human life.

    It’s what we deserve for being so stupid as to see this happening and doing nothing about it to stop it or slow it down. There’s plenty of climate change advocates which are almost always drowned out by the chorus of companies and climate deniers who believe propaganda over science.

    RVGamer06 ,
    @RVGamer06@lemmy.world avatar

    Not all of humanity deserves to die for the actions of a few corrupt men.

    Obsession ,

    Doomers gonna doomer

    MystikIncarnate ,

    Never said they did.

    What people deserve, and what’s going to happen to them are not mutually inclusive.

    I’m also going to state that IMO, it’s not just a few corrupt men. There’s lots of them… Lots and lots of them… Not the majority by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly more than a few

    Nelots , (edited )
    @Nelots@lemmy.world avatar

    You make it sound like humans are the only ones affected by climate change. Sea turtles, elephants, polar bears, pandas, there’s a fuck load of animals we’re directly killing off. Everything is most certainly not fine, even if you don’t give a single shit about innocent human lives.

    billytheid ,

    How many insects do you remember seeing around stadium lights as a kid? Look now. We will not last another two generations

    dlok ,

    I remember when I passed my test the mid 00’s if I did a long motorway journey my bumper and windscreen would be an insect graveyard… now it’s next to nothing.

    billytheid ,

    Yes, the cascade has begun. It’s going to get very bad, very suddenly

    BrightCandle ,

    We will take a large chunk of the planets life with us. I don’t think we can destroy it all however, the planet will get to intelligent life eventually.

    cley_faye ,

    I don’t think we can destroy it all

    Oh, I’m sure we can engineer something to that end.

    MystikIncarnate ,

    Well, there’s certainly no intelligent life on it now, so…

    irkli ,
    @irkli@lemmy.world avatar

    No. That’s simplistic and wrong. Huge swaths of the planet will remain nicely habitable. But large swaths won’t, and disease increase and economic failures will make things very terrible.

    But this “all gonna die” stuff is dumb and wrong. Sorry.

    Skyrmir ,

    It won’t matter if a small area is still habitable. The resolution of 7 billion people trying to fit into a space that fits a fraction of the population will end the species.

    It took less than 1% of the population of Europe moving around to nearly break the EU. Watch what happens when it’s 10 to 20% of everyone everywhere.

    Eheran ,

    What do you mean 1% nearly broke the EU?

    Skyrmir ,

    Syrian refugees were the end result of climate shift in Syria.

    Eheran ,

    I don’t see how this answers my question.

    Skyrmir ,

    The movement of a tiny group of people relative to the size of the EU drastically shifted the entire political structure of the EU, leading to Brexit and several other countries considering the same. Magnify that affect by the number of people that will be moving due to climate change, and you get an extinction event.

    hup ,
    @hup@lemmy.world avatar

    Will end the current age of civilization? Most definitely.

    Will it end organized societies as we know them? Probably?

    Will the human beings go extinct? Probably not. Its not crazy to think that we’d face a bottleneck of only a few hundred million humans or less. But there are people all across the economic and geographic spectrum who are prepping. The rich will survive at their polar fortresses. The poorer will survive underground, or at high altitudes.

    stebo02 ,
    @stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    You’re totally right. The billionaires who caused all this will survive either way.

    PizzasDontWearCapes ,

    Once we have nations fighting for water resources (tied directly to food production) it wouldn’t take long before the entire population is at risk

    Ontario’s great lakes have been threatened with receding volume, pollution, and mass algae blooms that show how fragile even that massive resource is

    Ground water across the globe has been mass polluted and drained to nothing in large areas.

    We are a lot more vulnerable than it seems

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •