• FapFlop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    235
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I used to be subbed to /r/collapse. I see world news is covering that for me.

  • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    But I have been recycling like they asked me too. Who’s not doing their part? Oh wait …

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      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.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Recycling does not have any impact on climate change and was never suggested to have any impact on climate change

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If we cure climate change tomorrow and do nothing about garbage/sustainability in packaging, we all still die - its just more disgusting.

          Captain Planet focuses on the entirety of the environment, not just climate. That’s why he whooshes bulldozers into the air in the Amazon.

          • Coreidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            We’re all dead no matter what. Climate change or not, humans don’t have a good ending.

              • Coreidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh ok. What happens when the sun explodes? What happens when the universe collapses?

                Go on keep strong disagreeing.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The universe “collapsing” has fallen largely out of favor as a theory. The sun isn’t going to explode, at all.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      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
        11
        ·
        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
          1
          ·
          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
            1
            ·
            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.

      • null@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “In general I feel like no one really takes a holistic view of this and everyone just points fingers.”

        That’s odd. Why do you think you feel that way?

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

        Which should be our government. But we’re too busy trying to prevent fascism and climate change denial as a whole to affect how much we’re doing about climate change.

        We need bigger changes now. For instance, we need to take aggressive military action against anyone burning bunker fuel on the ocean, and that needs to happen soon.

  • Celivalg@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    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
      52
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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.

      • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re not locked in for the next 20 years. Not for the next 10.

        The carbon in the atmosphere is going to be there for the next millenium and the temperature won’t level out till the 2100s if we stopped all carbon emission right this second.

        Furthermore, if we did stop all emissions right now, the planet would get 0.5-1.5 °C hotter within a year or two due to the end of the aerosol pollution cooling effect that’s been cutting the effects of carbon induced climate change in half this whole time.

        This year is so hot because they put limitations on sulfur emissions from shipping boats in the Pacific. Those emissions were cooling the atmosphere, but the aerosol emissions (which that sulfur is one of) only last in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks before they’re rained out of the air.

        We’re fucked.

          • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was taken out because the pollution was directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. If we need to geoengineer an aerosol to cool the planet, we can do better.

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Deaths from increasing temperatures are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands a year already, how many of those could the aerosols have prevented? Was that more or less than tens of thousands?

              • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying it can’t be done or it shouldn’t necessarily, I’m just trying to express why this decision happened at a political level. Politics only occasionally leads humanity to the logical course of action.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        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.

    • Talaraine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve started telling people to prepare for the Mad Max times. Yeah it’s hyperbole, but it actually makes them pause for half a second.

      What’s disturbing is the gleam in some alt-right people’s eyes.

    • Guster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that there need to be a specific tipping point/trigger when everyone and their mother direct funding towards fixing the problem.until then the majority of people won’t simply care

      • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m genuinely curious at this point if that point even exists. Like, I’ve had legitimate conversations with multiple people and i’ve asked them “what would need to happen for you to believe in human’s causing climate change?” The answer is generally something along the lines of “I’m not sure it’s even possible for humans to have that big of an effect on the earth.”

        I would imagine there are tons of people out there who think the same, people with VERY deep pockets and in equally powerful positions that would never change course on their money making machines. Literally the only way I see substantial change happening is if it becomes incredibly profitable.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The tipping point was going to be “our cheap labor is dying out and profits are going down”… except now with automation it’s going to be “our robots are breaking down and we need a few more experts to fix them”, so no need to care about 99% of the population.

      • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The rich and powerful have to see very direct problems that affect them. Kind of like when social conservative politicians take an anti-LGBT position, then turns out their kid is trans, so then they pivot to being pro-LGBT in rhetoric so they can keep talking to their kid.

  • HeavenAndHell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

  • Knightfall@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    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.

    • MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here in Montreal we have the hottest muggiest summers and the brutalest freezing cold winters. It makes me want to move to the maritimes.

      • Knightfall@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d have to research if your weather is more extreme than ours or not.

        I’ve yet to visit the Maritimes. It’s on my wishlist.

    • bloopinator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      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.

      • hazeebabee@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the link to communities needs to be !c/winnipeg@lemmy.ca

        The way yours is written makes causes my app to search for a user instead of a community.

        Edit: Nevermind, that format also didnt work, sorry :(

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

          My app messes it up too, but it works on the web interface as expected. Flaw in the app, not the format.

          • hazeebabee@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oooo That makes sense, thanks for explaining :) hopefully it gets patched soon, im sad i didnt get to see whats going on in Winnipeg lol

    • Danatious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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.

      • bloopinator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Moving south to a warmer climate usually means either significantly warmer summers or a significantly higher cost of living. Or both.

        Yeah it sucks dealing with extreme cold occasionally and long winters, but it’s a lot better than living in the south where it’s unbearably hot and humid for 8 months of the year. And any place with a temperate climate such as the Pacific coast is prohibitively expensive.

      • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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.

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

          I guess it’s down to the environment you grew up in and a bit of personal preference too. I love the cooler months of spring and autumn but both the heat in the summer and the very cold winter make me sluggish, I prefer the heat though over the cold; get the loungers out, some beers, bbq time

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

      We had one snow storm in Connecticut last year and could skate on the ponds for only a couple of days. I’m surprised that our tick season wasn’t as bad as it was.

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

      You must have a crazy assortment of clothing fit for both of those two extremities :D

    • FollyDolly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can put damp towels in the freezer and wear them around your neck. My AC broke in August once and I lived on the third floor.

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      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.

      • DiagnosedADHD@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s wise to have a small toaster oven if you absolutely need to cook something. They preheat fast and obviously put off less heat than a full oven. I don’t really bother with the oven much these days as it’s getting over 110 here at the moment. Also cook after the sun sets

    • jossbo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      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
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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

        • jossbo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.

      • Troy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        AC uses about 10% of all electricity globally. However, that’s electricity, not energy. If you include fossil fuels burned in engines in the energy equation, it drops to closer to 1.5%. There are bigger fish to fry.

        Numbers: global energy production (all sources): ~650 EJ (exajoules). Total electricity consumption is ~23000 TWh – about 85 EJ.

        • jossbo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          1.5% of all energy used is huge. Actually insane. I was joking, but you’ve convinced me that we do actually need to turn all that off. As well as stop shipping so much, flying so much, burning so much oil, etc. But fucj me 10%of all electricity and 1.5% of all energy. Wow.

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you know how many people literally die every summer because they don’t have AC (let alone simply suffer)? AC is becoming a growing necessity.

        Besides, AC is pretty small game compared to the big polluters.

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

          A lot of people will die because of climate change as well. A lot more, in fact.

          • TauZero@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Death by heatwave while lacking AC is one of the main ways that climate change will be killing people. A Texas grandmother died from heat last week (among a dozen more people in her town) being too afraid to turn on her air conditioner because of the expense.

            When the choice is between running the AC while potentially contributing to the global energy consumption driving the climate change and turning the AC off and literally dying, you don’t need to be a hero.

      • Texas_Hangover@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • elskertesla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My father in law is in complete denial. According to him they moved all the measurement equipment so that it favours “the Agenda” and gives wrong readings. He also claimes CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas. Sigh…

        • Match!!@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          44
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          fear of having lived your life entirely wrong and being too old to accept responsibility in changing it

        • xts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          Living in their own reality and being drip fed propaganda constantly

        • Kanzar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Acknowledging the truth means accepting that we’re fucked, that even if we weren’t individually responsible (maybe) we are still going to have to deal with the ramifications… And that’s scary. It’s far more comforting for there to be a secret cabal controlling everything and that really life is gonna be ok and you don’t have to change anything at all.

          • TauZero@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In their fairy tale, inaction may even be the moral choice, because any reaction would be playing right into the secret cabal’s evil plans.

        • 80085@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve spent years working at a fossil-fuel-adjacent company, and I’ve noticed that even some intelligent people (consciously or unconsciously) avoid any information that that might make them think they may not being living a perfectly moral life, or information where the obvious solution goes against their “values” (pro-business, free market). They also grasp for any information that affirms their values and lifestyle, no matter how easily discredited the source.

          It’s kinda worrying that it always seems to result in Nazi-like conspiracy theories like “the Agenda,” “Elites,” “groomers,” “cultural marxism,” etc.

  • MyDogLovesMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pair this with the Atlantic Ocean temperatures this year and you can anticipate an enormous, global shortage of food.

    How does a city if 1 Million, or more, feed itself when all surrounding regions can’t grow food?

    We’re fucked, so fucked.

    • Rufio@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have the technology for indoor skyscraper style farming.

      • eldavi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        but not the political will nor legal ability to force landlords to allow it to happen.

        • Rufio@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, in the scenario described where we literally can’t grow food in the surrounding land, it’s hard to say what the political landscape or legal institutions even looks like at that point.

          • Cybermass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Once people start going hungry and killing rich people then suddenly the rich will wake up and realize they have to do something, hopefully by then it’s not too late.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Landlords are not the problem there. Zoning regulations are.

      • chico75@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you have any sources? I doubt we would see similar economies of scale compared to current farming.