You must log in or register to comment.
People of every generation were told it doesn’t matter and that it won’t be a problem. With the advent of social media and associated algorithms, the village idiots are loud, organised and getting others to bark at the moon with them.
Younger generations are ignoring it as well. They’re busy blaming past generations, while they themselves are some of the biggest contributors to our current climate crisis.
So bezos and his guests flying dozens of individual private jets to Venice are the “younger generations”? It doesn’t have a lot to do with age but seems to correlate with wealth. The wealthier you are (as a nation and an individual) the more you typically (on average) contribute to climate change.
They are not ignoring it, you silly Billy. They are treating it like everyone else is.
My parents believe we’re in the end times and god will return any day now. They were mentally ill from the get go. They are pure evil and don’t see the evil they are.
Go figure they’re also extremely obese and mostly immobile. They are sloths and glutens. They never took care of themselves and believe bullshit snake oil salesmen over their own children’s advice.
You can’t reason with the evil that is these fundamental cultists.
We might very well be in the end times and maybe AI will wipe us from the planet to prevent earth from becoming Venus.
This is my boomer dad whenever he complains about it being extremely hot in the summer, cold in the winter, too much rain, etc. Always responds well it won’t last too long and that’s just nature, nothing we can do about it because it has a mind of its own.
Phew, looks like the industrial revolution just saved us from falling below the safe climate zone! /s
And people think I’m crazy for starting an algae farm… There is no quick fix. “Science will figure something out”
I am part of that science, and I can barely afford to scale beyond what I consider my carbon footprint.
narcimalgae on YouTube, although the algorithm killed it (500 to 6 views on my last video)so I may move to peertube soon.
Can you give a quick elevator pitch for algae farms?
Water holds 8 times the gasous CO2 as the atmosphere it is exposed to at a given pressure(altitude). The algae, being carbon-based, pulls the carbon from the water to grow, and releases the oxygen as a biproduct. The algae biomass can then be condensed and stored, or used as a raw agriculture material. Water, sunlight, and a small amount of fertilizer all fed by an air pump.
Share a link here
You dont understand. The poor billionairs need their money nowwww!
I was just thinking about the poor air quality today and yesterday here in the Midwest, and then I see this. I want to be hopeful we can change this in my lifetime, but I am also not optimistic.
Depends how old you are. I’m 47. It’s gonna far worse. The question is will my kids be the ones to say it’s bad enough? I don’t know. Maybe theirs.
Also it’s hilariously optimistic that this chart only thinks a 4 degree rise by 2100. Seems very conservative.
Personally speaking I’m investigating moving my family further north here in Canada to get ahead of the madness to come.
I am optimistic. I will get downvoted to oblivion, but I want to share what I honestly observe:
1. AI demand is driving huge investment in production of carbon-free energy at scale.
Yes, AI is sucking up all the immediate term cheap fossil-fuel energy while it can. But it needs more, so it’s driving carbon-free investment.
Immediate term with Small Modular fission Reactors (SMRs)
… and immediate term, multiple commercial fusion energy plants are being built.
2. Commercially viable carbon-free energy at scale is coming online in < 10 years
SMR is real, exists today, and just needs economies of scale … and stable regulation. AI datacenters are driving the orders now and even if MAGA cultists keep USA out a few more years, science-accepting countries will be investing in clusters of those, rather than coal plants, when they see working examples and so less risk.
The Fusion plants this decade will not be just prototypes, but plants that produce more energy as a whole than they take in, multiple times over, and ofc don’t produce nuclear waste. This is largely made possible by high temperature superconductors (which didn’t exist commercially when ITER was built) and a demo plant fully online in 2027
EDIT: ofc we should reduce excess CO2 emissions immediate term, don’t misconstrue long term optimism for polyannish denial of imemdiate term emergency
Yes, AI is sucking up all the immediate term cheap fossil-fuel energy while it can. But it needs more, so it’s driving carbon-free investment.
Nah, this is the same nonsense lie cryptobros tried to peddle. Any energy used by AI is energy which could have been used for something more worthwhile, carbon-free or not. And most of it is far from carbon-free.
AI as it now stands gives me quite the opposite of hope. It’s only intended to enslave the working class and further transfer wealth to the top 0.01%, as is fusion.
Solarpunk gives me hope.
Well, maybe you aren’t aware of how it’s being used to design proteins to create therapies for pretty much… everything, from cancer to Crohn’s. Another 2-3 years before you see products in human trials.
Or how it’s revolutionized climate science and weather forecasting.
If all you see is the hype Grok images and SEO slop, it’s reasonable to reject the technology. But that would be deeply misguided.
I’m aware of the promises of AI, yes. LLMs are trash. Folding proteins is awesome. Nonetheless, it’s all controlled by the ultrawealthy, and that is THE problem today, which AI ain’t solving for us.
AI demand is driving huge investment in production of carbon-free energy at scale
I feel like AI companies are creating a large demand for energy no matter where it comes from, and feel like having some minor investments in potential carbon free energy is mainly a marketing ploy or something to point at if they ever get sued.
Immediate term with Small Modular fission Reactors (SMRs)
Tbh, the big problem with nuclear in america is that we don’t really have the federal power needed to actually coordinate and mandate the needed infrastructure for it. The US is so obsessed with state rights that we’re susceptible to nimby attacks and disputes at the local and State level governments.
To actually cut through the red tape, we’d have to empower federal agencies for a good reason for once, and I’m not very optimistic about our current political climate.
and immediate term, multiple commercial fusion energy plants are being built.
Yeah… I think it would be more accurate to say that fusion experimental sites are being built. Most nuclear engineers I’ve heard talk about fusion are still skeptical about fusion being viable in the next 20 years.
And what were they supposed to do other than go out and vote in their own best interest?
In retrospect they’ll probably feel violence was justified. How many time machine scenarios will amount to ecoterrorism in the same way that we imagine we’d kill Hitler today
Considering they failed at that too not much.
Fortunately for them, I flushed my kids.
Love this one. It’s one of the best illustrations of the “hockey stick effect” and a perfect way to explain why the excuse that “were just coming out of an ice age” is dead wrong.
The scary thing is, this graph is probably far too conservative.
Evidence is now emerging that indicates that warming has accelerated dramatically in the last 2-3 years. As in, we may see more warming in the next 10 years than we have seen in the last 50, with +3℃ happening just after 2035, and +4℃ happening by some time around 2040 to 2050.
You know what happens around +4℃? The extinction of all megafauna - animals larger than 45kg. Like humans. The entire ⅓ of the planet between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn will experience lethally high wet bulb temperatures across all regions for at least several weeks out of every year, rendering it permanently uninhabitable for the 4+ Billion people that currently live there. India is currently flirting with that reality.
And with that heating inertia, 2100 may see +8℃ temps, which essentially means ice-free poles year round (once things calm down), with palm trees and alligators at the North Pole. Of course, by that time chaotic weather and resource exhaustion will have killed off all remaining humans.
And the lovely thing about “moving parts” is that they all have this little thing called inertia… the faster they move, the further they go. And +8℃ is very close to the +12-15℃ that a Venus Scenario would be triggered by.
Past warming events have been “similar” in that they have gotten just as warm, but they took hundreds of thousands of years to get to the same place, allowing entire continent-wide ecosystems to quite literally migrate across thousands of kilometers to adapt. Our changes are happening in less than 0.01% of that time scale, giving ecosystems no time at all in which to react. So our biosphere will get slaughtered along with us, and will be unable to compensate in time.
And with the biosphere becoming overwhelmed by rapid changes, there goes the “friction” that could do something about that “inertia”.
And the worst part is, we still haven’t moved off of the worst-case-possible “business as usual” path. We are swan-diving into the worst possible future. Thanks to billionaires addicted to fat profit margins and who control all of the processes, we are utterly failing to generate the change needed to save ourselves, with CO2e production - purely human sources, excluding the feedback loops in nature!! - CONTINUING TO ACCELERATE.
Fun times. I just might live long enough to see humanity go extinct.
Not that renaming problems ever helps, but this is why I’m trying to push “anthropogenic runaway global heating” as a replacement for the weak formulation of “global warming” and the even weaker “climate change”. It has the handy acronym of ARGH.
It has the handy acronym of ARGH.
Okay, that is hilarious.
I’m just going to call it “the climate shitshow” at this point, with how cooked we seem to be.
Love it.
The planet is fine it’s the people who are fucked
We don’t exactly know where the tipping point towards a Venus Scenario is. We just know it’s somewhere past +12℃, and before +16℃.
And the problem isn’t so much that we will reach that temp - we will go extinct long before that point - but rather the warming process - with all of the feedback loops that it kicks off - will push the planet into a Venus Scenario.
So no. The planet is not fine. The “friction” of prior warming events that would slow its “inertia” - the slowly-migrating, slowly-adapting biospheres that continue to draw down CO2e - won’t have that capability this time around. It’s just all happening far too fast for them to migrate or adapt.
We have literally “cut the brakes” with the speed and inertia of the current warming we have created. And one very real consequence may be a dead planet with a superheated atmosphere.
Maybe we kick off a nuclear winter before we go out
Honestly, if we’re talking about mostly or completely surface blasts, and not atmospheric detonations, that might be what saves the planet.
Nuclear winter is very much a thing by how the thrown-up dust reflects most incoming light, and with most detonations being in cities, the kicked-up dust would contain plenty of iron… which is the major limiting factor of phytoplankton, the largest single converter of CO2 to O2. All it has to do is fall out of the atmosphere and into the oceans during the spring to summer. So we need a late winter or early spring nuclear war.
Can you back up these claims? Not doubting, just curious/terrified to learn more.
Here, feel free to simultaneously urinate and defecate into your pants:
All of this is evidence-based. All of this relies on facts.
Yeah, we’re f**king hosed as a species. Our legacy at this point should be in preventing a Venus Scenario, so at least life can continue to go on in some fashion
Fucking sucks. Thanks.
I just finished reading The Deluge by Stephen Markley and I’m at the acceptance phase of greif.
Tardigrades will probably survive, and at least plastic pollution will be halted.
Yet “you have to have a car to work” like ok no for one fuck you for two we have several modes of transport AND energy sources now you actually do choose actively to diarrhea out carbon on purpose and I fucking see you
Depends a lot on where you are from. Not everyone has the means to uproot and move to a walkable city or a city with public transport.
Our governments have fundamentally failed us
So I suppose I just have 15 more years to live huh?
I would say 10 of relative comfort, another 5-10 of increasing disasters (political, social, environmental, etc.) that tear apart civilization, and a final 5-10 of complete collapse where only small isolated communities still exist, and every day is a real struggle for survival against exceptionally hostile conditions.
Honestly, most scientific projections of resource exhaustion and environmental degradation point to 2050 as the point beyond which “civilization” really ceases to exist.
And honestly, I would be shocked if humanity still existed as any kind of a high-tech going concern much past that.
Yes there are some upsides
deleted by creator
Just like with debt, we can just raise the ceiling and the problem is fixed
AI is going to fix this by increasing the scale of the Y axis.
Just hallucinate better data
Not to be that person, but my parents are completely incapable of comprehending this.
Not intellectually, but pragmatically and philosophically. They’re like 60 years old, and even if it affects them in their lifetime, they’ll be “dead in 20 years”.
And on a low level, they’re kind of right because most ordinary people aren’t to blame for this, so shaming “parents” makes no sense.
Shame the international petroleum conglomerates, plastic producers, shipping, etc. You know, the actual emitters in the billions of gigatons.
A lot of ordinary people voted for politicians that promised them cheap gas and cost of living, instead of the ones wanting to build a sustainable future.
A lot of ordinary people also say they want to do everything they can against climate change but then fail to make their own simple sacrafices like reusable cups, walking instead of driving, keeping the heat lower in winter etc. Everyone wants to end climate change but without sacraficing any modern conveniences
I would gladly sacrifice modern conveniences as part of a societal shift towards degrowth, but it’s psychologically and socially taxing not to choose convenience when it is available. I want these conveniences taken away from me, or taxed into inconvenience.
And perhaps most importantly, when these conveniences are taken away at scale we can replace them at scale with other good things, the way we can’t when making individual choices.
I do not want to drive but I can’t buy a place in a walkable neighborhood when capitalism refuses to build them. I want to save on heating by living in an intentional community but society is so atomized and group housing so rare that I can’t find one to call home.
The solution to a tragedy of the commons is not to have a few people still pay into the commons, it’s to rebuild the system around the commons that makes it the best choice for you personally to support the commons and take sustainably.
Paper straws are not winning this battle, it’s a massive problem which must be solved at an institutional scale. This requires governments to participate, not individuals.
Gouvernements in man places dont exist separate from the individuals. Individuals voted for these governments. It’s one of the many small contributions our parents could have made but didn’t.
You live in one of those places where the people you vote for do things you want, huh? Must be nice.
We can point fingers at governments and companies all day long, but unless something motivates them to change they’re not going to. Right now the only real mechanisms we have at our disposal are our votes and our wallets. If people throw up their hands and can’t even be arsed to leverage either of those things, nothing will change. Telling ourselves it’s someone else’s fault and doing nothing is the pinnacle of being part of the problem.
People are using their votes and their wallets though. Not everyone, but more and more people all the time. Basic ecological awareness in the general population is higher than it ever was for our parents and grandparents, and there will always be more an individual could do.
Blaming individuals just creates an unreachable vague goal. What level of buy in in the general population will be enough? How many people have to live up to some arbitrary goal line until we can start holding companies fucking accountable? Or even just holding rich individuals doing shit like work commute by private fucking plane accountable?
Always just a little bit more. No, hybrids aren’t enough, you need to go full EV. EVs aren’t enough, how is the electricity being generated? No, you aren’t doing enough until you have no car and walk everywhere. Just keep chasing that moving target. Oh, you might be doing it all right, but too many of your neighbors aren’t, so now you have to drag them kicking and screaming into it too. The companies and the rich will definitely start caring with just a little more work from the middle class and the poor. Just a little more now. They definitely won’t use every dirty trick in the book to avoid losing profits.
If someone keeps getting papercuts on their fingers, and also a bullet wound in the corresponding shoulder, you focus on the bullet wound first. Doesn’t mean that you ignore the fingers, you just have to prioritize, and not claim that slapping bandaids on the fingers will somehow close up the shoulder.
Well, no, but they could have at least voted for people that claimed that they would do something.
But I’d do anything* to stop climate change!
Tap for spoiler
*I can still eat meat daily, have a house with a paved front yard, 2 SUVs in the garage, go on vacation via plane 3 times a year and buy cheap disposable stuff on Amazon, right?
Are you going to pay for the upfront cost of me getting a new car? What about moving somewhere where I can walk to my job? Pay for the difference between the things that I would prefer to buy because they’ll last longer or the cheap ones that I can afford and work ok for now.
I’ve given up meat, I moved closer to my work so I could commute by bicycle and when I water my plants I do it with gray water I get from my dehumidifier.
So when my friend had a new house built an hour from his work and bought a new car because of the commute, well that person is no longer my friend and I know that seems extreme but I just can’t reconcile it.
In their defense, the house was built 50 years ago. Ripping up the drive and disposing of the concrete releases more CO2, SUVs are practically the only vehicles offered on the market anymore (and you got tired of almost getting killed by dodge-ram drivers while driving your tiny hybrid hatchback), hah, you think we get vacations, and when the stuff you need only comes in a disposable form, what choice do you really have?
If every single household did all that stuff but corporations continued as usual, it would barely make a dent. We should still do it because something is better than nothing, but blaming the average consumer is definitely choosing the wrong target.
I’m not blaming the consumer, but if consumers take more responsibility it does give us more power. We have more political and legal arguments to say we’ve tried what is reasonable for us to do, now its time to hold corporations to do the same. Its also good for activism morale. Even if its just a small dent the effort proves change can happen and we can push for more change, support greener options, and inspire new innovations/solutions. This is better than an attitude of “well the world is fucked anyway so why should I care?”
A lot of people can’t avoid car travel because of car centric infrastructure. Of course, most of these people would also scream if you tried to fix car centric infrastructure.
The responsibility of the individual to curb climate change and resource management is a con. Yes, it should be part of the shared burden; however, until the primary drivers of resource overconsumption and climate change (I. E. Corporations and mega-rich) are held to the fire, there’s no point.
Like, why do people think the answers to systemic problems are through individual actions and responsibility? Like what. The most impactful change we can take as individuals is to vote, protest, and push for changes to the system.
Who the fuck cares if someone’s got their heater set to 85 in the winter if the energy is coming from geothermal, solar, wind, and heat pumps?
It’s not a con, people can and should still make choices and sacrifices to stop climate change while recognizing that the real problem is corporate greed.
You can recognize that litter is caused by corporations use of single use plastics for everything, while at the same time recognizing that it’s your responsibility to at least dispose of them properly instead of throwing it on the street.
It is a con from the perspective that it will have a meaningful impact at this time.
Time and focus are finite resources. Yeah, people can make green sacrifices AND protest to lobby for big changes. But if they only could do one because of time, which would you say would have the largest impact?
All the stuff you said or blocking ports to grind economies to a halt?
It would make a meaningful impact, if everyone in America just drove 10% less that would result in a reduction of 110 million metric tons of co2, close to the total emissions of Bangladesh 122 million tons ( population around half the US). The same is true about meat consumption, which is even more feasible to completely stop today for most people.
Sure those two things aren’t going to stop climate change, systemic change is needed. But the methods for everyday people to create that systemic change are either illegal ( blocking ports, destroying oil infrastructure), and thus most people aren’t going to risk there livelihoods for, or they’re ineffectual (peaceful protest, electoral politics) so doing the above choices would make more of a difference.
Yes attention and effort are finite resources, but the choice for most people is not block a port or become vegetarian, it’s gonna be go to a peaceful protest / vote for the dems or become a vegetarian. In that choice, becoming a vegetarian is the better use of effort.
You’ve definitely given me something to think about - evaluate if even 110 million would have prevented or given us another decade before we hit +1.5c.
However, your Bangladesh stat is absolutely meaningless and misleading. It seems impressive at first glance, but it’s not. The proper context is global CO2 production. In 2014, 35,000 million (or 35 billion) tons of CO2 were produced. And that’s just fossil fuels. And that’s more than a decade ago. I don’t have the numbers, but I suspect it’s even more.
110 million / 35,000 million = 0.3% reduction
I gladly vote for politicians who will pass climate laws and regulations, but individual actions by me will not change anything.
Not all your actions are equally meaningless. If you take short showers the lower demand for water and gas/electricity won’t do much but for certain alternatives a critical mass is needed and adding your weight to that mass can matter. Take diary for example, soy milk has existed for ages but the increased demand the last 20 years result in increased supply. Same goes for alternative meats. More people biking increases the need for infrastructure, if enough people make that decision that will change road design which will in turn result in it being less attractive to drive. Same with public transport.
Climate laws and regulations will have a much more traceable impact, but the untraceable results of your individual action also has an impact.
If you care about having a large impact without large sacrifices there are articles online that go deeper into this.
Please explain to me how personal (urban) use could ever produce substantive changes in resource management and climate change. I’d love to see it.
Let’s use California water as a case study. In a dry year, urban use is 11 % and agriculture use is 61%. Explain to me how collective action by all the urbanites to reduce water consumption by 90% would meaningfully move the needle on water management.
If everyone thinks their changes don’t matter then i guess they don’t, if everyone thought their changes did matter then we could see meaningful progress. Just because other sources are still producing doesn’t make your efforts meaningless. There is also something to be said about secondary effects of minor changes, like inspiring others to commit to changes or inspiring new innovations or ideas to improve things.
Edit: id also like to add that new law and policy often comes with minor efforts on the consumer. Take recycling and organics bins for example. The consumer now has to sort their trash instead of throwing it all in 1 bin and I’ve met many people who think this is some big scam or conspiracy to control people or something.
The problem is that companies are only responsible for producing their product… And that is only half the lifecycle.
Start taxing/charging companies for the complete lifecycle of their products. If the ocean is full of plastic bags, then the cost of cleanup for those bags should be baked into the price.
Honestly, the majority of what you listed isn’t going to make any difference in the slightest even if literally everyone did it tomorrow.
Here’s a completely random non-comprehensive list of stuff that would actually be pretty impactful though.
Upgrade your dryer to a heat pump dryer , they use 1/4 the amount of electricity to do the same job if literally everyone traded their electric dryer for the heat pump dryer it would dramatically reduce energy usage and thus also result in a dramatic drop in CO2 generation from various energy generation sources. You don’t have to worry about your old dryer it is made of 90% material that actually gets recycled for real just drop it off at a scrap yard.
Use your compost bin actually start separating stuff for it properly . Most people don’t make use of it, if you are particular waste Company does not offer composting then simply make a compost box somewhere on your property if you can and start composting there’s a lot of things that just end up in the trash that could be compostable which would be better for it the environment and reduce the burden on the waste system.
Curb the demand for forever chemicals. Replace everything in your kitchen with stainless steel or wood or glass. No plastic or Teflon just learn to preheat your pans properly and use a little bit of oil the sticking of your eggs is nothing more than a skill issue I use stainless steel and I can make fried eggs that slide around like they’re on ice. And not just the pots and pans replace all of your utensils plates bowls. It creates a small surge in waste initially as you get rid of the old stuff but as long as it’s going forward you never purchase the plastics again it means demand will go down.
Those are just a couple completely random things that would be fairly simple and easy to do that would actually make a pretty drastic difference if even just 40% of the population would follow through but I speak from experience when I say if you attempt to get people on board with any of these they just can’t be bothered because it’s a slight minor inconvenience compared to what they already do
The beauty of composting is you don’t even need to use it. It’ll just turn into a dirt pile.
Upgrade your dryer to a heat pump dryer , they use 1/4 the amount of electricity to do the same job if literally everyone traded their electric dryer for the heat pump dryer it would dramatically reduce energy usage and thus also result in a dramatic drop in CO2 generation from various energy generation sources.
Dryers are such an American thing. Heat pump dryer sounds extra expensive. My European ass just hangs clothes to dry. Guess what, they’re dry by the next day. I compensate by having multiple days worth of clothes. Heat pump dryers are like 700 EUR, a good quality clothes rack is 15 EUR.
Use your compost bin actually start separating stuff for it properly . Most people don’t make use of it, if you are particular waste Company does not offer composting then simply make a compost box somewhere on your property if you can and start composting there’s a lot of things that just end up in the trash that could be compostable which would be better for it the environment and reduce the burden on the waste system.
So as of 2024, in my country, it’s actually mandatory to either have a compost bin, or alternatively a compost enclosure in your garden if you have a garden. You get fined if you have neither (so apartments will always have the bin). Reason was, a lot of people threw meats and stuff in their compost piles and that attracted animals. So now it has to be enclosed to keep them away.
But does composting actually affect that much, as far as CO2 is concerned? I just do it because compost is great for fertilizing crops and soil deteriorates if you keep growing mostly the same shit every damn year (even when rotating where exactly which thing is). The soil apocalypse is another one we’re going to have to face soon.
Curb the demand for forever chemicals. Replace everything in your kitchen with stainless steel or wood or glass. No plastic or Teflon
IKEA over here gives a 15 year warranty for certain models of their stainless steel pots and pans, but not the ones that have teflon coating. Get yourself a 2.8 liter pot with a 15 year warranty for 5 fucking euros (discount price not regular I think). Lid included in the price. 15 EUR 28 CM stainless steel pan, 15 year warranty. Carbon steel pan of same size, 30 EUR. Also 15 year warranty. I already bought one pot and one stainless pan. No idea if I’ll ever need a warranty on these goods (except maybe the pot for the plastic handles if they get loose and can’t be tightened anymore), but the prices themselves are already better than teflon shit in a regular grocery store and those often don’t last too long. Next up I’m buying a carbon steel pan so I can compare that to the stainless steel one. Previously all I’ve owned has all been teflon or ceramic. I’ve personally contributed to the teflon industry by about 3 pans over 10 years.
I live in an area where it is raining more often than not so unfortunately clothes lines are not really an option for me, though i compensated by going entirely off grid. I have enough solar and battery storage that I am completely self-sufficient. I have a heat pump dryer, heat pump hot water heater, and I still use things like a dishwasher as they do use dramatically less water than doing it by hand
I guess that’s one I also forgot to put on the list heat pump hot water heater yes they are more expensive than the standard electric but they will pay for themselves pretty quickly unless you just almost never use hot water. Same for the dryer, it is indeed more expensive than a standard electric one but it will pay for itself pretty quickly with the 1/4th power used
Oh I didn’t even mean the outdoors clothes lines (which I also have, but am too lazy to use), I meant an indoor rack like this:
I have 2 of those so I can do like 3 loads of laundry and just set it and forget it.
Won’t work with high humidity, but chances are if you have high humidity indoors, you’d want a heat pump to use as AC in the summer and for extra heating in the winter, anyway (game changer IMO)
Heat pump hot water heater - don’t think that’s even a thing here. Reason being, if you’re getting a heat pump to heat your water, you might as well just go full blast and install an air-to-water or even geothermal pump that heats up both your radiators (or floors) AND the boiler. It’s a goal of mine for next summer. But in the absence of such an option, I will admit that a straight heat pump water heater is probably good too. Right now I have an electric heater for summertime usage and I’m not the biggest fan.
A lot of ordinary people, both young and old, bought, and are still buying into the lies of corporate America because our media is controlled by corporations.
deleted by creator
I keep hearing this argument and its such a cop out. People are intelligent enough to understand they can make a difference by dropping their financial contribution to the key players in climate change.
they just don’t want to because they’re selfish
Denial, indeed!
My usual PSA:
Stop making things a generational conflict when it’s a class conflict in reality.
Exactly right.
It seems that the top 5% globally are above the limit. If you live in Western Europe or the US, that’s significantly more than half of the population.
If you’re a European/American/Oceanian with a bank account in the black, you’re probably in the global 1% who use six times your share.
Look, I’m not an ecofascist, but if I was, I’d be saying kill all white people. Instead, because I’m generally a nonviolent person, I’m saying slash the tires on white people’s cars. And anyone else who lives in a majority white country. These are places where most of the population are the global 1%.
No that is still not class war, you are talking about race war now
Jesus titty-fucking christ, what a racist take.
I think you’re forgetting how much 100 billion is. The top 1% globally starts at about 1 mil USD in savings, which if a recall, even the whitest Americans are far enough from. And here a handful of multibillionaires escape to let your reductive worldview ultimately contribute nothing to any semblance of progress and further their torching of our lives.
Not only are you wrong, but you sound like a psycho with a very limited understanding of the world, no different than the uberwealthy perpetuating this.
but pragmatically and philosophically. They’re like 60 years old, and even if it affects them in their lifetime, they’ll be “dead in 20 years”.
Imagine saying this as if human prosperity wasn’t built on people building places for their children and grandchildren.
Capitalism is one of very few philosophies that pretends that selfishness is good, and it would be silly not to blame people that believe in it for the consequences of that philosophy when implemented.
Ordinary western citizens are to blame, because ordinary western citizens could have changed this merely by being morally offended and voting for something else. Most of them personally chose to support capitalism over any alternative. To not even explore the space of possibilities, but to get paid off by corporate-government partnerships that were robbing both the future and the rest of the world.
Parents naturally have children. Children that will very much be alive to experience the “find out” part. I am incapable of comprehending how shortsighted and self centered someone has to be to be like: Well, at least I had a nice life, good luck everybody!
And on a low level, they’re kind of right because most ordinary people aren’t to blame for this, so shaming “parents” makes no sense.
Shame the international petroleum conglomerates, plastic producers, shipping, etc. You know, the actual emitters in the billions of gigatons.
I agree that ordinary people are only partly to blame and that we need to focus on the worst offenders. However, the indifference of large parts of previous generations surely enabled much of the current situation. Most of our parents could vote, most had a chance to drive a tiny bit of change in some kind of way. Some even held positions of power or still do. Putting some blame on them surely isn’t wrong, especially if they still don’t care.
Aaaaaaaaah i hate that this is what we say to that argument!! Why does it end there? Like “its the megacorporations.” Oh ok then nobody is to blame.
No. Actually The megacorporations are to blame. Attack. The megacorps are run by people (so far) but if you kill one lackey, the corp replaces them (without mourning I might add), so how can anyone attack the corp and not the people? The law? No it stops there?
Huh, so these mega evil entities are destroying the planet? Huh. Well doesn’t look like anything to me? Yet they can lobby and decide laws? Is that how good we are at fighting then?
They are pure demonic world eaters and have lobbyed to become legal persons. To be the only entities without soul that can be considered a legal person in our legal system. If that system is broken to that degree… well, if they are persons, then they can bleed. And die. I am not this weak at fighting for my planet
It’s very simple: they don’t love their children.
And to anyone who’s going to disagree, no. True love is wise. True love is curious. True love wants to seek out the truth. Love without knowledge, love without empathy? That’s not true love. That’s toxic infatuation. Possessiveness.
true love
Lmao
Can’t their precious AI fix it? You know, the one taking all of the fresh water for people to do simple queries?
our handsome investors had a free market solution but then the government said no
Some libertarian
I think in the long term there could be a libertarian solution - the Coase Theorem says that externalities can be resolved with very low transaction costs (that don’t currently exist).
But that’s something libertarians should’ve pitched 40 years ago. Now the only solution we know will help are time-tested Pigouvian taxes.
