• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Luckily, we can choose to reject reality and believe whatever makes us feel better.

      I feel best believing the biosphere is gonna force humanity to “find out” for the last century of fuckin around with a recklessly unplanned terraform.

        • Striker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You can always find these people and make them find out. They are actively committing genocide against the human race.

            • minorsecond@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why does it seem like there are a ton more conservatives here on Lemmy than there were on Reddit?

                • minorsecond@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.

                • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.

                  But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.

                  And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.

                  And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.

                  And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.

                  The current capitalism is the system that works best.

                  Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.

                  The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.

                  And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.

                  Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.

            • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.

              But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development. Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate. So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.

              • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.

                “Infinite need” implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn’t exist.

                I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.

                • very smart Idiot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?

                  Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.

    • angrymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My uber driver said that global warming is actually true but have literally nothing about human influence.

      Some years ago these persons were saying that global warming was a hoax, now that only the human influence is a hoax.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ahhh, yes. The conservative backpedalling.

        It’s not happening. It’s happening but it’s all cyclical. It’s not cyclical this time but it’s not our fault. It’s our fault but global warming is good ackshually. Global warming is bad but there’s nothing we can do about it. We could do something about it but it’s too expensive/late. Maybe it’s not too expensive but THE CHINESE!

        • Juris_LLM@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.

          Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.

          In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.

          Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.

      • Sjatar@sjatar.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Had a argument with a person on YouTube, he thought that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial. It would help plants grow better!

        Also that humans was not behind it.

    • Pisodeuorrior@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What I hear some acquaintances say is like “who cares, I’ll go to the beach, turn the AC on, what’s the big deal” .

      As if the floods we had in Italy this year, or the wild fires, or the storms, or the draughts, or the Alps without snow, the glaciers disappeared, the sea turned green, the invasion of jellyfish weren’t connected.

      Some people, most people, are just too fucking stupid.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Recycling metals is good, especially aluminum. Recycling glass? Not bad. Recycling plastic? That is literally something the oil industry forced by having their resin codes look almost exactly like the recycling symbol. People understandingly confused the resin codes to mean it was recyclable and flooded recycling centers with plastic. So instead of throwing it in the garbage and telling people plastic is not recyclable, they did what they could to recycle it. Sorting and cleaning was a pain in the ass and made it not worth it…in the US. China was happy to accept it for a couple decades until a few years ago. Now most recycling centers only accept plastic with a reason code of 1 or 2. But people do not really check the number on the symbol. A lot of it is 5 which is not recyclable in the vast majority of places but people still toss that into recycling because they think it has the recycling symbol on it. So recycling centers have to sort that shit out and send it to the landfill. It is a massive waste of resources that the oil companies are fine with since people think they are doing their part.

      Recycling in general though was not supposed to be a fix for climate change. While recycling things like aluminum is significantly more energy efficient than mining, the bigger issue there is the mine itself.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In general I feel like no one really takes a holistic view of this and everyone just points fingers. If indeed all the models are correct and human-produced CO2 is causing global warming, it’s not just “corporations” or “the rich” or just individuals, it’s the whole of the machine of humanity hacking away at the tree branch they’re sitting on, and we need to radically shift our energy production to eliminate greenhouse gas externalities, and ideally figure out, what’s it called, CO2 sequestration or whatever, to bring it back to normal.

      And to the degree we can’t shift immediately, we shouldn’t just be burning fossil fuels towards ends we don’t even need, like dumb luxury goods or just driving in circles. It does come down to all of us as individuals - some of us have more power than others (yeah, more or less proportionally to wealth), but the buck has to stop somewhere.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course it is, but consumers generally don’t make the decisions about resource procurement and manufacturing. They only drive the demand. However, demand is also heavily shaped by both the cultural zeitgeist as well as marketing, which is in turn funded by corporations.

        So in effect, it all comes down to corporations.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well - corporations are funded by everyone, under the legal framework of the ostensibly democratic government, to which extent it’s not democratic, it’s at the mercy of the population choosing to continue perpetuating its existence. My point here is that the entire thing is just humanity working in a self-destructive way, and even when there are power imbalances in practice, real power - think of it like potential energy in physics - is truly democratic.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Corporations are certainly NOT democratic. If anything, their corporate hierarchy of management and ownership is… capitalist. It’s a top-down structure that concentrates wealth in the ha ds of a few to the detriment of the workers, always resulting in class conflict.

            Democracies allow them to exist because it’s the only efficient way for civilians to organize profitable industry.

  • HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone at work said “If climate change is real, then why don’t rich people sell their beach properties?”

    And before you ask, yes they are a boomer.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But they actually are… Down in Miami, wealthy people are fleeing the beachfront property and buying up housing where all the poor people live, which also happens to be further from the beach. There have been a number of documentaries and news segments on this trend which you can easily find on YouTube.

      • HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh it doesn’t matter. They’re just repeating the same old tired debunked points from other bigots that also think climate change is a scam. Nothing will ever convince these types of people.

  • Knightfall@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Considering here in Winnipeg, Canada, where it reaches -35C or even colder, it was pretty wild having weeks on end of +30C to even +39C temperatures, and so soon into our summer.

    I never want to complain about the heat when we have snow for 7 months, but that was ridiculous.

    • bloopinator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The upper Midwest really has some of the worst weather in North America. Get schlonged by freezing temps and snow for 6 months followed by heat for another 6 months.

    • Danatious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I genuinely don’t understand, no disrespect intended but why do you remain there? Could you not just move south to a warmer climate? -39c just sounds uninhabitable.

      • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I will gladly, cheerfully, trade any 39c day for a -39c day. Cold is easily manageable with more / better clothes. Even when dressed for the heat, it still saps your energy like crazy and makes you feel like shit in the process.

  • Celivalg@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, sad thing is we are already signed up for the next 20 years, as in even if we stopped emitting everything tomorrow, we would still have +2°C in 20 years…

    And how realistic is stopping everything tomorow?

    +3°C… we would need to have a new coronavirus crisis every years, not just a new one, but stack them on top, in terms of emissions. Ofc you can’t have more then one global confinement at a time (doesn’t make sense to double confine someone) so that wouldn’t even work.

    We. Are. Fucked.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We aren’t locked in for the next twenty years, only the next ten years.

      We could build a thousand RBMK like nuclear reactors in a decade and then suck out 50 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere in another decade.

      Would cost $500B to $1T or so.

      We just don’t really think global warming is serious enough to warrant an action plan at the scale of the Manhattan project, Apollo program or Messmer plan.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a speculative technology at the moment.

        Like, yes, we “can” do it, if you ignore all the materials and energy needed to perform that process. And that’s just in theory, in practice its bound to be far more difficult.

        No matter how you put it, it’s easier to just… Not release the pollution in the first place. If it’s too difficult to stop polluting, it will certainly be too difficult to remove that pollution that has been already released. Entropy and all that.

        Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is something we should only really start thinking about when the world already runs nearly entirely cleanly.

        • alvvayson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You ignore political realities.

          An Apollo scale program to extract carbon emissions from the atmosphere could be financed by the OECD countries without heavily impacting their economies.

          Building a thousand nuclear plants with reduced safety requirements in a remote place would not run into NIMBY problems.

          Stopping emissions globally would require Chinese political will, since they emit more than all of the OECD combined.

  • Magzmak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m ready for companies to do their ad campaigns about how they are saving the earth with their new policies and products.

    Fuck it, please just profit from saving the earth. I dont care if its just doing what we’ve been asking them to do for the past 30yrs.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, they’ll do the ad campaigns and raise the prices in the name of green-ness.

      Don’t expect them to actually contribute in any meaningful way though.

      They know the game over screen is coming as much as we do, they’re just going for the high score first.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, they’ll do the ad campaigns and raise the prices in the name of green-ness.

        A classic example of this is electric utilities charging more and saying “all our electricity comes from renewable sources!” while ignoring the fact that renewable energy is typically cheaper for them to buy on the market.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing wrong with saving money by doing something objectively good, so that’s frankly a lousy example…

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You misunderstand. I’m saying the end user energy company justifies being on the more expensive side by advertising that they use renewables, but actually when they buy electricity renewables is cheaper for them. So they’re paying less but charging the end user more.

            The cost saving of renewables is rarely passed on to the consumer.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah ok, NOW I see what you’re getting at! That IS pretty scummy!

              Still not as scummy as still relying on fossil fuel now that there’s literally no good reason to, though…

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean there is some reason not to, at least until proper alternatives are set up. I work in the HV industry, and in my opinion we’ve rushed to close larger, relatively efficient coal plants and replace them with smaller, far less efficient diesel and gas generators that can be hidden behind tall fences in industrial estates. These pollute far more per MW than coal plants, but they’re out of sight, out of mind.

                We definitely should be going hard into current renewable technology to fill out demand. That’s the fastest way to net zero in many regions. There is something to be said for big rotating generators though, ie large turbines, as these provide voltage and frequency stability - renewables are often inverter driven, even wind turbines, so these are always following the grid and can destabilise if voltage or frequency goes. Meanwhile, a large machine has inertia so it will want to keep spinning and maintain the same output when large loads switch in and out. This sort of thing can be provided by nuclear power. So if we build lots of renewables now to get clean, then build nuclear to fill out, that might be the best solution.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I could go into detail about the many ways in which you’re wrong, but it’s frankly not worth the time and effort, especially with the detailed back and forth that would inevitably follow, so I’ll just cut to the chase and summarise:

                  NO

  • Smacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve essentially given up that our planet, or the human race is gonna survive another few generations. It literally all feels so empty and I have no desire to have kids who will ultimately have to live through the boiling temperatures. Either population collapse, or the planet dying off will result in society falling apart.

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As European where AC are not common: Close all windows and window shutters during the day. And don’t use the oven.

    • jossbo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Thank fuck for that. Now if we can only turn off all the other a.c. as well, we’d have made a start!

      Edit: this was a joke, but wow, you Americans are really defensive about your AC. I live in the UK and the rare times it gets very hot we are miserable because our building almost never have AC, and are built to retain heat. So I do see how much more comfortable it makes you.

      Someone, who was trying to argue in favour of AC, said it uses 10% of all electricity globally. Thats insane! I guess we actually do need to turn it all off.

      • Kittenstix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, you can’t so celebrating one poor guy’s AC going out in a heatwave is kind of a dick move, besides, it’s not AC in it of itself that is causing global warming, i’d bet that if we ran all AC on solar we’d still be fucked.

        Also it’s businesses cooling (empty) offices that are the bulk of the % of AC watt hours used.

        • jossbo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          One guy said it makes up for 1.5% of all the energy we use! That’s huuuuge. I was joking originally but I’m pretty convinced now.

          • Kittenstix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d say 1.5% is a fucking steal for the benefit it provides, if I could only have one modern convenience i’d take AC every fucking time

      • Texas_Hangover@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you live outside? Under a liquid cooled tree? In a temperate zone? Never used electricity in your life?

        • marmo7ade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bro imagine intentionally living in a temperate zone where you don’t need expensive resources to not die. I cannot believe these people. Total morons. Living in a swamp or desert is fucking genius.

  • TheGoldenGod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like we’re watching zombies slowly lurching towards us, but there’s people pretending it’s totally normal and nothing to worry about.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      we’re watching zombies slowly lurching towards us, but there’s people pretending it’s totally normal and nothing to worry about.

      If 2020 Gave Us Zombies Instead Of A Pandemic. It was pretty depressing in realizing how easy we could solve crises, but we can’t, since some politicians prefer talking points, and too many sheep happily follow. And measures against the pandemic were just a temporary inconvenience, while the climate crisis seems to be here to stay, growing stronger every day.

      • TheGoldenGod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sad but true. Politicians in general appear to be a spineless lot, appealing only to their corporate donors.