• WindyRebel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Hold the fuck up. We’ve shifted the axis?!

      I am not downplaying climate change here, but how much of tilting the earth’s axis affects the weather (fronts, storms, etc) and what we’re seeing with climates? Could this be a bigger deal then human consumption and CO2?

      Once again, not saying give up on other efforts. We know things change with the moon and rotating around the sun, so what are the repercussions here compared to CO2 and other man made factors? Is one a bigger impact than the other and is one easier to solve for?

      The article doesn’t give these specifics, but it does say how much we’re shifting yearly which seems significant.

      • OpenStars@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Why would you think the answers would be known? Especially when the GOP outright bans reports containing such trigger words as “global warming” and “climate change” (oh right, but it’s the other side that cancels things, got it!:-P). Donald Trump even banned Yellowstone National Park from releasing raw data in the form of numeric measured temperature data from thermometers set up to do just that.

        Global warming doesn’t exist, and you won’t say otherwise if you know what’s good for you, capiche!? Or your family, who goes to school at… \ every day at \AM.

        Guess we’ll have to turn to a billionaire to save us, I reckon? Fortunately, they say they have our absolute best interests at heart, yup yup!:-D

        • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m not really sure what your answer was trying to get at here. Did you think I’m some MAGA nut trying to downplay climate change? I’m not.

          I was honestly trying to see if analysis has been done and whether one of these issues was the better to go after solving first, or not, due to overall positive impact of reversal.

          • OpenStars@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Why so serious? It’s not like the entire fate of humanity is at sta… oh wait, right…:-(

            No, I was just joking around (gallows humor, a desperate act to deal with the apocryphal events unfolding in our lifetimes) - but to be clear, I meant it be like alongside with you rather than at your expense. No worries, I do not think ill of you at all:-). (whereas if I thought you were a MAGA nut, I assure you I would not have responded at all:-) - there just would be no point to that) Sorry that I did not make that more clear.

            • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Hahaha. All good, friend!

              As someone that has a kid, I do hate what we’re doing to this planet and worry so much about what he and others in the future will have to put up with.

              • OpenStars@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                You would have to be an insane MAGA nutjob to not worry about that these days! There is more reason for hope than it seems though, as explained in this Kurzesagt video. We need to not get complacent… but there is still some hope.:-)

      • TheLurker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I can’t say exactly how big an impact, but it would be minimal compared to the dumping of huge volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

  • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    10 months ago

    We knew this, the Greatest Generation told us about this and taught us to conserve water and try to stop wasting stuff like this.

    Then boomers came along and said all this didn’t matter, details weren’t worth their time.

    • bquintb@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      They said its all a conspiracy from the left so that we couldn’t enjoy life as much.

      Or some dumb shit like that

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Everything is a conspiracy by the government to restrict their fun.

        We need to cancel Medicare and social security for a few years, free them from big government so they can truly live.

  • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    The government should ration water supplies to the people in the form of credits for so many gallons per year. If anyone, especially ranchers, farmers, water bottlers, or fracking companies, needs some extra water, they can buy the credits for it on the market from whomever didn’t use all of theirs.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I’m talking about government controlled rationing. A committee of geologists and engineers and whatnot determine what could be sustainably drawn from each water source, add it up, and divide it among the population. The market mechanism essentially serves a means to redistribute wealth from the rich who use too much water on their lawns to the poor who often don’t even have lawns as well as force industry to really account and pay for this common resource. Just because a market is involved doesn’t mean that it’s capitalism. I don’t think carbon offsets work like what I suggested at all.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Make sure that all credits aren’t equal and they increase with use. i.e. if I use “1 credit” and it costs $1, 1000 credit’s needs to cost more then $1000. You can play with the math but the idea is that a house hold should be way cheaper per unit of water then trying to grow corn in the desert.

          • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The credits aren’t dollars of water. They’re kilograms of water. Every individual gets an equal allocation (per month or year) at no charge. If you get more than you need then you sell it at market rate, maybe to that corporation trying to grow corn in the desert. Chances are that as a result, their water costs will be infinitely more than a given household. At the end of the day, no more water will have been taken from the reservoirs and aquifers than is sustainable because only so many kilograms of water were rationed.