this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
649 points (93.6% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2356 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In short, we aren't on track to an apocalyptic extinction, and the new head is concerned that rhetoric that we are is making people apathetic and paralyzes them from making beneficial actions.

He makes it clear too that this doesn't mean things are perfectly fine. The world is becoming and will be more dangerous with respect to climate. We're going to still have serious problems to deal with. The problems just aren't insurmountable and extinction level.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CMLVI@kbin.social 65 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The exact same thinking can be applied to the other side though. Guy says it's not an imminent threat, so we don't have to do anything right now. Worry about it next year. Which is arguably what's been happening for a long time now

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

His whole point is that we should try not to think that way. Not "this side" versus "the other side". There's an endless space between "we're already fucked no matter what" and "everything is perfectly fine no need to act". And that's the point.

And you can very much notice what he worries about already. People are already utterly numb to news about climate disasters. We need a better way to show issues and showcase solutions that makes people motivated and hopeful to keep everyone pulling in the same direction.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah exactly, you can already see a "welp we're fucked, no point in anything" opinion that's becoming more pervasive.

A good question is if not wanting kids because of climate change falls into this nihilistic thinking or if it's reasonable. Certainly, life will get more difficult. We have more stake in changing the future however if there's young people we care about.

I'm just rambling now. I think regardless of all else, the point is that things are not irreversibly fucked, and we should do what we can to unfuck it.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

not wanting kids because of climate change

Dr Nihilism here, my older teen questioned whether it’s really a good idea to bring kids into tho world, so I hit him with the population implosion coming right after climate catastrophe, population going beyond sustainability before plateauing, mass die-offs …. Don’t test me before coffee

[–] CMLVI@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I can agree with that

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What we need is politicians to fucking listen to their citizens who want them take real action on climate change.

What we personally think means jack shit if the capitalists in charge don’t want to hear it.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Politicians absolutely listen. They mirror the desires of their constituents.

You won't see a situation where politicians take action on climate change if their constituents do not support such action, full stop.

[–] Athena5898@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah gerrymandering and attacks on voting would like to have a word with you.

you want politicians to listen, you make them listen. Power corrupts absolutely, if you want people in power to listen, you make them listen. It's time politicians become afraid of the workers again, from either loss of revenue or other things.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I am a literal climate lobbyist. Politicians listen to their constituents, full stop.

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe liberal democracy isn't so democratic.

[–] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need something like the doomsday clock but with the degrees C change forecast based on current emissions and efforts.

We have this:

https://climateclock.world/

But I think it would be useful to have the current trajectory (in degrees C) along with a table showing the consequences of each 0.5 to 1C

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The thing is the Doomsday Clock is for something that may happen any time, and in only minutes

The climate crisis is longer term than people seem to grasp. There is no instant fix, nor instant apocalypse: it’s slow moving and long term. I just looked this up to fact check myself: CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 300-1,000 years. That’s right, we already locked in at least 300 years of climate change, and we continue to make it worse.

Even with the anomalous weather we’ve been having around the globe this year, I think people don’t grasp how long term an issue this is, and how that’s the core of the problem. How do we get people who expect next years weather to be different to understand enough of the problem to help?

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, do you want companies to spin "Eh not a big threat right?" or "Look at these crazy guys"

I think it's harder to win attention if people think you're wearing tinfoil.

[–] CMLVI@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd prefer to stop trying to win over unwinnable people. Whether they join or not, the problem exists. Climate change doesn't care that we may want to placate the more dense-skulled in society. The problem marches on whether they have changed sides or not.

The science is in, has been in, and continues to be in.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

However the science is not in on what would sway those unwinnable people and where we hit the tradeoff of hitting the alarm enough to win over a few more vs overwhelming and numbing the very people we need.

I find it interesting (in a dark way) that he thinks we’ve reached this point. I have to admit I’ve mostly dismissed a lot of the complaints as mere internet kvetching. Nope, that’s real too

[–] Cubes@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Where did he say it's not an imminent threat? All he's saying is that it's not extinction level and the worst outcomes are not yet inevitable, which are both true statements. I do actually see a lot of climate apathy around and focusing on solutions and policy rather than doomerism seems like a good thing to me.

Also shout out Climate Town on YouTube for good solutions-focused and entertaining climate videos!

[–] CMLVI@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong, I think I had some misconstruing of the point of his statements.

I think the apathy has started popping up because the onus is being placed on the individual at multiple levels. It's on me to change my habits to the level of environmental conscientiousness which I'm trying to reach; LEDs, efficient appliances, electric vehicle (arguable at this point), recycling efforts across many spectrums, supporting public policy that encourages green practices, etc. But even as a population, that doesn't effect much change when considering corporate practices. Surface level changes to some operations to take advantage of rebates or subsidies, but only so far as it's deemed profitable. Manufacturing and material acquisition still being "dirty", use of international labor to sidestep stricter policies, general obfuscation tactics, lobbyists and generally vast amounts of money actively seeking to stop or reverse policies.

I as an individual can enact much change in my life and those around me. But it falls well short of what a single company could do if they really wanted to take the leap.

I could also just have a narrow-sighted perspective on the situation, but that's largely where I fall currently. The focus on individual efforts vs societal (largely meaning the tools at my disposal beyond what I can provide myself) leaves much to be desired.