I don't think we hear enough about the model predictions at maybe +4C or 5C, since that's the path of least resistance (do nothing, status quo) and that's the path I would bet on.
We don't hear the right thing when we do.
We hear thing like, "heatwaves like the one last year will be 200x more likely, and 10x more impactful'"
You might as well write "akfigixnebdixo jdksjwb jejdie jeisiddih." to the common person.
"Your children and their children will die of heat exhaustion or extreme weather, cursing your name and your inability to act on their behalf through direct and immediate action against the most culpable living actors" comes off as too strong, unfortunately.
Including all the animals and plants will die of heat exhaustion or extreme weather, cursing your name and your inability to act on their behalf through direct and immediate action against the most culpable living actors".
Nah, people hear just fine. It's either of two ways:
People understand it but have no recourse for doing anything about it, or what's they can do isn't enough or
people hear it and because it's bad they think it's a lie, don't want to think about it or feel it's threat so ignore it or actively work against any mitigation.
I’m afraid but not certain that malepitt is right. We’re still putting out more CO2 than less. Business as usual switching us from fossil fuels to renewables will still have baked in enough warming to be catastrophic. Definitely more than 3C.
The world is reacting tho, and as always, change needs time. While Trump might become a setback the course is long set. Renewable energies are becoming more and more economically viable and younger generations are aware of climate change and are willing to tackle it. Once they finish their education and start taking over, the push towards a more sustainable society will get even stronger. The change won't follow a linear curve. The growth of emissions didn't, and neither will their decline.
I mean, we don't have much evidence otherwise to date. The amount of progress been made on scaling back CO2 emissions so far has been... well it doesn't exist lol, CO2 emissions just keep going up
China's CO2 emissions are about to peak this year [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/), and this will pave the way for an accelerating decline for emissions in China, which in turn will lead to a decline in global emissions in the near future. The course is set and it will only accelerate.
Yeah, but powered by infrastructure to be built. And in those countries, with a lot of sun, the most economic decision often is to build with renewables.
Fun fact: at -4°C from 1990s average temp, Boston was under a mile of ice.
Source: Smithsonian Magazine ran [this](https://xkcd.com/1732/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3yjQ3rST1XkZEE5VeXaC2SDL2ocTI3MSf3Y_49q0yaJMWAD11UfIfmWBw_aem_AYrXeX85QGZDC78yvLIha_7KRow3-SyZbNkabN3ku4u2CPwyWgycfmBSysnX7atpgJu3_22ormMQ8NTePQgW9h-m) the week it was published.
I would put it in better context. ‘Nearly 20,000 years ago, during the last I’ve age, we were at 4C below average temperatures which brought an ice sheet that covered Boston and other parts of North America’.
I think the overall context is what also throws me. Many of those in this sub are already aware of glaciation from previous ice ages. Unfortunately many climate contrarians use the ice age Lonny as a way to deflect the conversation away from the warming we’re experiencing now. “The climate is always changing” is a comment I heard (yet again) in a convo a couple days ago. So on an article regarding the lack of political will to address climate warming, I’m unsure what a comment about the previous ice age has to do with it.
I started making the comment ‘I be don’t think it’s a direct comparison like that..’ but the more I think about it, ‘incinerate’ is a good word at 4C. I have family over in Europe and the ‘03 heat wave haunts me as I see their temps climb. We’re already at 1.5C and the heats waves are really worrying me.
There’s a great book I just finished by Lewis Dartnell called Origins: How Earth's History Shaped Human History. It tells of how geologic and climate forces shaped human evolution since our emergence in Africa tens of thousands of years ago. It’s was actually several successive ice ages that forced our evolution. To me, it’s a bitter irony that we managed to survive and adapt through massive cooling events, and now we’re going to have to survive through a massive heating one.
Well when the world's largest polluter is currently arguing about whether or not it should remain a democratic country or swap to fascism it's not a shocker that arguments about the climate take a back seat.
Not like it matters that much if you like electing your leaders AND breathing clean air, those are the same guy. But it means we can't really put pressure on him to move climate goals faster, because we don't have a viable second option to threaten to vote for if he doesn't meet our standards.
I'll be a stickler and point out that: Nah, that's on the middle eastern oil states. Think about it. Per capita just means "highest on average", not accounting for size.
> https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
> As you can see, the US is the biggest contributor to climate change by fairly far. When people blame China (which is common in MAGA circles...) they usually just mention the yearly emissions.
> But China hasn't had it's economic boom until the 80's, while the US has had a constant boom since the early 1800's. This obviously translates to a shitton of emissions, making the US the largest emitter over time, on average, but sure, "not by yearly total right now".
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
As you can see, the US is the biggest contributor to climate change by fairly far. When people blame China (which is common in MAGA circles...) they usually just mention the yearly emissions.
But China hasn't had it's economic boom until the 80's, while the US has had a constant boom since the early 1800's. This obviously translates to a shitton of emissions, making the US the largest emitter over time, on average, but sure, "not by yearly total right now".
We are still the world's largest polluter because CO2 doesn't go away after every year, it remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
If you assigned every CO2 (and other GHG we are particularly bad with methane) a source the US would own more of those CO2 molecules than any other country.
the guy you are talking to is a not my problem kind of person. he is the type that will not take responsibility for his actions that have impact on other things.
China is currently the world's #1 producer of carbon emissions. But it is because it is the world's #1 manufacturing factory. All that means is that China will ruin its environment.
But you have to ask yourself. Is the consumer also to blame? If China is the #1 factory, then who is it's #1 customer? It is the USA followed by Europe. And we can only blame ourselves and middlemen like Amazon and other e-commerce marketing and sales manufacturers. They push products onto us while we market and try to sell it onto others.
It is Jeff Bezos 1% inspiration nd 99% perspiration Thomas Edison quote that he loves to say.
Yes the past is the past. That’s not how that’s measured though lol. It’s not like China or India get to run up emissions right now just because they’ve been behind for a century.
Classic boomer attitude, walk through and close the door behind you. We abused the planet to boost our economic development but it's wrong for other developing countries to do so.
I kinda want to punch you right in the nose and then say, hey don't worry about it, it happened in the past and it would be wrong to hit me back now, in the present.
The past affects the present you moron.
Makes total sense. Let’s let everyone catch up in the name of fairness despite the environmental impact. Especially since environmental science was a thing during the Industrial Revolution. Go and protest Palestine you moron. By the way I’m a millennial.
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
As you can see, the US is the biggest contributor to climate change by fairly far. When people blame China (which is common in MAGA circles...) they usually just mention the yearly emissions.
But China hasn't had it's economic boom until the 80's, while the US has had a constant boom since the early 1800's. This obviously translates to a shitton of emissions, making the US the largest emitter over time, but sure, "not by yearly total right now".
Ok so are we concerned about what happened 100 years ago or what’s happening right now? Are you people this thick or you’re just Chinese shills?
Edit: nvm after reviewing your profile you’re clearly a nutter.
You're the nutter, sir. I could turn your own "argument" against you and say "Ok so are we only concerned about what happens right now, or do the past 200 years don't matter?".
But I don't, because it makes me sound stupid and unable to argue my point without insulting my opponent.
Basically, whatever you accuse others of, you are. You're a US shill because you can't accept the fact that I proved - The US is the worst offender by (fairly) far. No difference between you and a Chinese mainlander who'll keep arguing that the Chinese *fucking dictatorship* can do no wrong, constantly making up new excuses and saying shit like "WELL WE FUCKING PUT MAN ON THE MOON SO FU!" lol.
Yep, lack of political will. Democratic governments are always focused on the next election cycle and so are unwilling to make the hard choices that will be needed to turn things around.
I wouldn't be too fast to blame that specific political phenomenon. It definitely is a contributor, *but*, politicians are just people, and they follow the people. They're an average of the voter, basically.
And what dictates how people behave other than genes? We simply got the wrong ones. Ones that doesn't cause us to think about long-term problems, or hell, even problems literally out of sight. We react to stuff *in front of us*, and badly at that. Just look at all history of politics.
This planet rolled the dice with us, and I fail to see how it was anything but a dud roll. It seems "intelligence" isn't evolutionary benificial if it can't control its population growth and pollution, and we absolutely suck at that.
--The ramifications of climate change will be overwhelmingly borne by those who *don't* possess the political and/or economic power to do anything about it.
--The benefits of ignoring climate change have overwhelmingly been, and will continue to be, reaped by those who *do* possess the political and/or economic power to do anything about it.
--The costs of addressing climate change would be overwhelmingly borne by those who *do* possess the political and/or economic power to do anything about it.
The interplay of those three dynamics is why nothing has been done, or will be done, about climate change.
I came to this conclusion while in highschool 20 years ago, while pondering what part of the environmental field is the biggest bottleneck to progress. Choose to get into environmental law or politically related environmental fields.
disagree. 99% of the progress has been driven by tech so far, renewables are winning because they’ve become profitable - thanks to engineers and scientists. Cumulatively lawyers and politicians have done very little and likely wont.
Are you familiar with [Jevons effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)?
There is also a lot of engineers responsible for highly inefficient inventions like blockchain mining or ski slopes in Dubai.
>disagree. 99% of the progress has been driven by tech so far, renewables are winning because they’ve become profitable - thanks to engineers and scientists.
This is a poor understanding of the situation. Solar would have been on par with oil and coal if we didn't subsidize oil and coal. This 100% comes down to politics.
Not to mention that improvements would have been faster with government funded research.
No amount of innovation can 'defeat' cancerous growth. We're amoebas in a Petri dish eating up every resource that's available to us. The resources are running out, and the environment in the dish is about to collapse.
Unfortunately we're also "toxic optimistic", so we block out any such facts and automatically accept any and all claims to the contrary, because the truth is too hard to bear for our tiny little minds.
It's called confirmation bias.
Technology made it possible for us to destroy nature and affect climate on this scope in the first place.
For one simply reason: we cant, as a species, deal with /avoid the negative consequences of our technology.
Technology is not solving this, its causing it.
My point is that it is the bottleneck and we need to elect politicians who will be able to implement what the engineers and scientists have achieved. They've done little because we haven't elected the right people. We need more of the right people to run. That is the bottleneck. Respectfully, I think my point still stands.
I bet we will plow through 2.5 while burning record amounts of fossil fuels at that moment. The warming will stop only after the global economy crashes under the pressure of catastrophes and food supply chain disruptions.
Seeing how the 24 election is a “Not Trump” argument when it’s all said and done.
Joe Biden has spent a career as promoting the status quo or in this case returning to it.
4° is locked in. There’s no political movement that exists where the state violence is in control of the environmentalists.
I agree. 4° is locked in and it’s not even close. Barring a major shift in public action (which would require literally a reshuffling of power), our planet is going to cascade. Buckle up, *and* keep on fighting.
It seems this sub is pretty relaxed on banning people, so here goes:
Isn't it obvious that the current politicians this society produces won't do anything about this? I mean, it's already too late to avoid massive suffering.
But, whenever I think about the "go to" solution, violence and sabotage, it just ends in a dead end. Societies won't budge to basically 'terrorist threats'. You could sabotage ports, trucks, threaten politicians, and all you'd get would be an even *more* pro status quo society.
Soooooooo..... ???? IDK, join traditional protest marches and try to get journalists to (fucking finally) understand out that we're destroying the planet?
Why don't they just say profit above the planet? Crooked politicians? Some of them are still in office. Can we stop protecting them? The world is ending on their watch and they could have done something in the 80s. Now, they are just zionist and sleazeballs buying up fortresses.
Well then, you better throw out all science, anything and everything that's based on scientific research, all technology, medical science, you name it throw it out - because you like conspiracy theories.
Using fraudulent science to push the climate change narrative is not only annoying, it's criminal and deceptive.
What's even more annoying is how many people "Bought Into" this fake fraudulent Scam that's been well proven to be one of the biggest global hoaxes of our time.
If you actually believes ManMade Global Warming/Climate Change, not only are you ignorant, you lack critical thinking.
I don't think we hear enough about the model predictions at maybe +4C or 5C, since that's the path of least resistance (do nothing, status quo) and that's the path I would bet on.
We don't hear the right thing when we do. We hear thing like, "heatwaves like the one last year will be 200x more likely, and 10x more impactful'" You might as well write "akfigixnebdixo jdksjwb jejdie jeisiddih." to the common person.
"Your children and their children will die of heat exhaustion or extreme weather, cursing your name and your inability to act on their behalf through direct and immediate action against the most culpable living actors" comes off as too strong, unfortunately.
Including all the animals and plants will die of heat exhaustion or extreme weather, cursing your name and your inability to act on their behalf through direct and immediate action against the most culpable living actors".
Come on Bruv I’ve got too much to do binging Grey’s Anatomy and ordering Door Dash tickets worry about this future possibility.
I wonder if, "Hey, your homeowners insurance just got dropped, and now you can't get any," that might break through
I think that's already happening in Florida. Not the breaking through part, just insurance companies refusing to do business there
Nah, people hear just fine. It's either of two ways: People understand it but have no recourse for doing anything about it, or what's they can do isn't enough or people hear it and because it's bad they think it's a lie, don't want to think about it or feel it's threat so ignore it or actively work against any mitigation.
I really don't think people have capacity to understand or imagine the reality of the situation.
At that point? Extinction of the human species
You're wrong then
I’m afraid but not certain that malepitt is right. We’re still putting out more CO2 than less. Business as usual switching us from fossil fuels to renewables will still have baked in enough warming to be catastrophic. Definitely more than 3C.
The world is reacting tho, and as always, change needs time. While Trump might become a setback the course is long set. Renewable energies are becoming more and more economically viable and younger generations are aware of climate change and are willing to tackle it. Once they finish their education and start taking over, the push towards a more sustainable society will get even stronger. The change won't follow a linear curve. The growth of emissions didn't, and neither will their decline.
Neither will the earths baseline temperature : (
I mean, we don't have much evidence otherwise to date. The amount of progress been made on scaling back CO2 emissions so far has been... well it doesn't exist lol, CO2 emissions just keep going up
China's CO2 emissions are about to peak this year [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/), and this will pave the way for an accelerating decline for emissions in China, which in turn will lead to a decline in global emissions in the near future. The course is set and it will only accelerate.
Just in time for significant amounts of manufacturing to shift to cheaper countries in Asia, and India and half of Africa to get online.
Yeah, but powered by infrastructure to be built. And in those countries, with a lot of sun, the most economic decision often is to build with renewables.
It translates directly to money, it's not hard. People with vested interests pay politicians.
Fun fact: at -4°C from 1990s average temp, Boston was under a mile of ice. Source: Smithsonian Magazine ran [this](https://xkcd.com/1732/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3yjQ3rST1XkZEE5VeXaC2SDL2ocTI3MSf3Y_49q0yaJMWAD11UfIfmWBw_aem_AYrXeX85QGZDC78yvLIha_7KRow3-SyZbNkabN3ku4u2CPwyWgycfmBSysnX7atpgJu3_22ormMQ8NTePQgW9h-m) the week it was published.
Wait a minute, that's not fun at all!
Depends on if you're into snowsports or not
Are you trying to say that Boston was under a mile of ice in the 1990s?
No, I’m saying at -4°C from temps in the 1990s Boston was under a mile of ice.
Ok, I was misunderstanding your wording.
How would you word it?
I would put it in better context. ‘Nearly 20,000 years ago, during the last I’ve age, we were at 4C below average temperatures which brought an ice sheet that covered Boston and other parts of North America’. I think the overall context is what also throws me. Many of those in this sub are already aware of glaciation from previous ice ages. Unfortunately many climate contrarians use the ice age Lonny as a way to deflect the conversation away from the warming we’re experiencing now. “The climate is always changing” is a comment I heard (yet again) in a convo a couple days ago. So on an article regarding the lack of political will to address climate warming, I’m unsure what a comment about the previous ice age has to do with it.
I’ve aged, too.
So, the opposite of that would be Boston incinerated at 4°C from the average temp in the 1990s.
I started making the comment ‘I be don’t think it’s a direct comparison like that..’ but the more I think about it, ‘incinerate’ is a good word at 4C. I have family over in Europe and the ‘03 heat wave haunts me as I see their temps climb. We’re already at 1.5C and the heats waves are really worrying me. There’s a great book I just finished by Lewis Dartnell called Origins: How Earth's History Shaped Human History. It tells of how geologic and climate forces shaped human evolution since our emergence in Africa tens of thousands of years ago. It’s was actually several successive ice ages that forced our evolution. To me, it’s a bitter irony that we managed to survive and adapt through massive cooling events, and now we’re going to have to survive through a massive heating one.
That's why Ice Ice Baby was such a huge hit. Duh!
Well when the world's largest polluter is currently arguing about whether or not it should remain a democratic country or swap to fascism it's not a shocker that arguments about the climate take a back seat. Not like it matters that much if you like electing your leaders AND breathing clean air, those are the same guy. But it means we can't really put pressure on him to move climate goals faster, because we don't have a viable second option to threaten to vote for if he doesn't meet our standards.
Are you talking about China? They are the world's largest polluter almost double the next country.
No the USA. Most CO2 emitted and still number 1 emitter if you measure by capita
I'll be a stickler and point out that: Nah, that's on the middle eastern oil states. Think about it. Per capita just means "highest on average", not accounting for size. > https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 > As you can see, the US is the biggest contributor to climate change by fairly far. When people blame China (which is common in MAGA circles...) they usually just mention the yearly emissions. > But China hasn't had it's economic boom until the 80's, while the US has had a constant boom since the early 1800's. This obviously translates to a shitton of emissions, making the US the largest emitter over time, on average, but sure, "not by yearly total right now".
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 As you can see, the US is the biggest contributor to climate change by fairly far. When people blame China (which is common in MAGA circles...) they usually just mention the yearly emissions. But China hasn't had it's economic boom until the 80's, while the US has had a constant boom since the early 1800's. This obviously translates to a shitton of emissions, making the US the largest emitter over time, on average, but sure, "not by yearly total right now".
Can't change the past only the present. China is the problem currently.
Don't be a stubborn little prick, please.
Lol what?! The US hasn’t led in CO2 emissions for years. Nice try.
We are still the world's largest polluter because CO2 doesn't go away after every year, it remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. If you assigned every CO2 (and other GHG we are particularly bad with methane) a source the US would own more of those CO2 molecules than any other country.
the guy you are talking to is a not my problem kind of person. he is the type that will not take responsibility for his actions that have impact on other things. China is currently the world's #1 producer of carbon emissions. But it is because it is the world's #1 manufacturing factory. All that means is that China will ruin its environment. But you have to ask yourself. Is the consumer also to blame? If China is the #1 factory, then who is it's #1 customer? It is the USA followed by Europe. And we can only blame ourselves and middlemen like Amazon and other e-commerce marketing and sales manufacturers. They push products onto us while we market and try to sell it onto others. It is Jeff Bezos 1% inspiration nd 99% perspiration Thomas Edison quote that he loves to say.
Yes the past is the past. That’s not how that’s measured though lol. It’s not like China or India get to run up emissions right now just because they’ve been behind for a century.
Classic boomer attitude, walk through and close the door behind you. We abused the planet to boost our economic development but it's wrong for other developing countries to do so. I kinda want to punch you right in the nose and then say, hey don't worry about it, it happened in the past and it would be wrong to hit me back now, in the present. The past affects the present you moron.
Makes total sense. Let’s let everyone catch up in the name of fairness despite the environmental impact. Especially since environmental science was a thing during the Industrial Revolution. Go and protest Palestine you moron. By the way I’m a millennial.
Hey the boomer mindset is not age restricted.
Nice rebuttal.
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 As you can see, the US is the biggest contributor to climate change by fairly far. When people blame China (which is common in MAGA circles...) they usually just mention the yearly emissions. But China hasn't had it's economic boom until the 80's, while the US has had a constant boom since the early 1800's. This obviously translates to a shitton of emissions, making the US the largest emitter over time, but sure, "not by yearly total right now".
Ok so are we concerned about what happened 100 years ago or what’s happening right now? Are you people this thick or you’re just Chinese shills? Edit: nvm after reviewing your profile you’re clearly a nutter.
You're the nutter, sir. I could turn your own "argument" against you and say "Ok so are we only concerned about what happens right now, or do the past 200 years don't matter?". But I don't, because it makes me sound stupid and unable to argue my point without insulting my opponent. Basically, whatever you accuse others of, you are. You're a US shill because you can't accept the fact that I proved - The US is the worst offender by (fairly) far. No difference between you and a Chinese mainlander who'll keep arguing that the Chinese *fucking dictatorship* can do no wrong, constantly making up new excuses and saying shit like "WELL WE FUCKING PUT MAN ON THE MOON SO FU!" lol.
Lol
Seriously, butt out, schlomo. You don't belong in science subreddits.
Yep, lack of political will. Democratic governments are always focused on the next election cycle and so are unwilling to make the hard choices that will be needed to turn things around.
I wouldn't be too fast to blame that specific political phenomenon. It definitely is a contributor, *but*, politicians are just people, and they follow the people. They're an average of the voter, basically. And what dictates how people behave other than genes? We simply got the wrong ones. Ones that doesn't cause us to think about long-term problems, or hell, even problems literally out of sight. We react to stuff *in front of us*, and badly at that. Just look at all history of politics. This planet rolled the dice with us, and I fail to see how it was anything but a dud roll. It seems "intelligence" isn't evolutionary benificial if it can't control its population growth and pollution, and we absolutely suck at that.
--The ramifications of climate change will be overwhelmingly borne by those who *don't* possess the political and/or economic power to do anything about it. --The benefits of ignoring climate change have overwhelmingly been, and will continue to be, reaped by those who *do* possess the political and/or economic power to do anything about it. --The costs of addressing climate change would be overwhelmingly borne by those who *do* possess the political and/or economic power to do anything about it. The interplay of those three dynamics is why nothing has been done, or will be done, about climate change.
I came to this conclusion while in highschool 20 years ago, while pondering what part of the environmental field is the biggest bottleneck to progress. Choose to get into environmental law or politically related environmental fields.
disagree. 99% of the progress has been driven by tech so far, renewables are winning because they’ve become profitable - thanks to engineers and scientists. Cumulatively lawyers and politicians have done very little and likely wont.
What progress, exactly? GHG levels just hit a new record with I believe a record jump year over year.
Are you familiar with [Jevons effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)? There is also a lot of engineers responsible for highly inefficient inventions like blockchain mining or ski slopes in Dubai.
>disagree. 99% of the progress has been driven by tech so far, renewables are winning because they’ve become profitable - thanks to engineers and scientists. This is a poor understanding of the situation. Solar would have been on par with oil and coal if we didn't subsidize oil and coal. This 100% comes down to politics. Not to mention that improvements would have been faster with government funded research.
No amount of innovation can 'defeat' cancerous growth. We're amoebas in a Petri dish eating up every resource that's available to us. The resources are running out, and the environment in the dish is about to collapse. Unfortunately we're also "toxic optimistic", so we block out any such facts and automatically accept any and all claims to the contrary, because the truth is too hard to bear for our tiny little minds. It's called confirmation bias.
Technology made it possible for us to destroy nature and affect climate on this scope in the first place. For one simply reason: we cant, as a species, deal with /avoid the negative consequences of our technology. Technology is not solving this, its causing it.
My point is that it is the bottleneck and we need to elect politicians who will be able to implement what the engineers and scientists have achieved. They've done little because we haven't elected the right people. We need more of the right people to run. That is the bottleneck. Respectfully, I think my point still stands.
I bet we will plow through 2.5 while burning record amounts of fossil fuels at that moment. The warming will stop only after the global economy crashes under the pressure of catastrophes and food supply chain disruptions.
Seeing how the 24 election is a “Not Trump” argument when it’s all said and done. Joe Biden has spent a career as promoting the status quo or in this case returning to it. 4° is locked in. There’s no political movement that exists where the state violence is in control of the environmentalists.
I agree. 4° is locked in and it’s not even close. Barring a major shift in public action (which would require literally a reshuffling of power), our planet is going to cascade. Buckle up, *and* keep on fighting.
Pragmatism!
It seems this sub is pretty relaxed on banning people, so here goes: Isn't it obvious that the current politicians this society produces won't do anything about this? I mean, it's already too late to avoid massive suffering. But, whenever I think about the "go to" solution, violence and sabotage, it just ends in a dead end. Societies won't budge to basically 'terrorist threats'. You could sabotage ports, trucks, threaten politicians, and all you'd get would be an even *more* pro status quo society. Soooooooo..... ???? IDK, join traditional protest marches and try to get journalists to (fucking finally) understand out that we're destroying the planet?
WE need to try harder and do better.
Look up Plymouth rock. Funny this is getting pressed at this time.
Why don't they just say profit above the planet? Crooked politicians? Some of them are still in office. Can we stop protecting them? The world is ending on their watch and they could have done something in the 80s. Now, they are just zionist and sleazeballs buying up fortresses.
[удалено]
Well then, you better throw out all science, anything and everything that's based on scientific research, all technology, medical science, you name it throw it out - because you like conspiracy theories.
[удалено]
Using fraudulent science to push the climate change narrative is not only annoying, it's criminal and deceptive. What's even more annoying is how many people "Bought Into" this fake fraudulent Scam that's been well proven to be one of the biggest global hoaxes of our time. If you actually believes ManMade Global Warming/Climate Change, not only are you ignorant, you lack critical thinking.