this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
657 points (93.4% liked)

World News

39373 readers
2984 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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 2 years 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HWK_290 282 points 1 year ago (24 children)

Well by all means, let's make it seem less serious than it is! That'll get people moving

Signed, an actual fucking climate scientist

[–] foggy 52 points 1 year ago

Literally "This is fine."

Ignore the triple digit temps in the ocean, that's not apocalyptic! Relax!

So what if a few people died of heat exhaustion just by... Walking outside for a few minutes. Normal. Not apocalyptic.

So what if regular rains are delivering hurricane levels of flooding. That's just nature doing it's thing, dude. Quit overreacting.

Malaria is in NJ, but like, mosquitos fly so that was probably bound to happen.

And really, like, 110 isnt that hot, especially if it's not humid.

Relax.

[–] MostlyBirds 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (44 children)

He's technically right, though; climate change isn't going to drive us to extinction. Yes, it's going to cause the total collapse of modern society in our lifetimes and more death and sufferring than any other event in recorded history, but there will almost certainly be tens or hundreds of millions of survivors. Maybe even billions.

[–] fluxion 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Give it to me straight Doc, how much money do I need to survive the apocalypse?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] IndiBrony 10 points 1 year ago

God damn Loch Ness monster creating global warming so he can get my tree fiddy!!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)
[–] SasquatchBanana 30 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I think he is just saying people shouldn't doom post. I think there is a fine line because a lot of zoomers i interact with are hopeless and have given up. This is a generation who never experienced a functional (American) government who worked for the people. So they just don't care and you can see it reflected in their memes.

I don't know the rhetorical path we should take. We need to get people motivated and fired up but not apathetic and despairing. I mostly want to see politicians crumble and the rich eaten and i think that's messaging many will get behind.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (46 children)

Did you even read the article, Mr/Ms climate scientist?

He’s asking people not to talk like the world is going to catastrophically end once we hit that 1.5 degrees milestone, because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.

And he’s totally right. If the government told people a meteor the size of Texas was going to impact earth in 12 hours, there would be effectively zero effort to stop it. If you tune in to a lot of the conversation around climate change from people who are not climate scientists, but who want to leave a better world for their kids and believe climate scientists, they feel hopeless. It feels like a foregone conclusion that we are going to go over the 1.5 degree goal (probably because it is), and if we think the biosphere is going to collapse when it does, it is really, really hard to take action.

It’s not saying to undersell the risks, he’s saying to be truthful about the risks. We can definitely still salvage complex life on earth with optimistic, consistent effort, but recent media coverage has been giving the impression that it’s too late. This is bad and counterproductive.

Keep on fighting the good fight brother/sister.

load more comments (46 replies)
[–] SirStumps 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

I understand his sentiment. I have an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness because most CO2 emissions aren't even made by normal every day people but the entities that do create a majority of it don't care. This means anything we attempt to do is as a whole is only a drop in the bucket compared to what these entities are producing. I purchased a hybrid vehicle to curve my driving emissions and I recycle. I planted grass and a tree in my yard to prevent run off and produce oxygen. I am looking into getting solar power for my home but I am not a rich man so the price is a little beyond me right now. Things I can do I try to do but in the end regardless of what I do entities are polluting our water and air, producing plastics, and are trying to place the blame on normal people. It can be a little heavy on the soul.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Chocrates 11 points 1 year ago

I already feel helpless. I try to use my vehicle less and use public transport. I just moved somewhere walkable so there are days that I don't use my vehicle (will be weeks eventually when I get used to it). I try to buy local and reduce my waste.

I live in a southern state though so my vote doesn't do shit. Even if I did, this feels like a political issue at this point and neither the right or the left of the country has the will to "do what needs to be done".

Capitalism is exploitative by its nature and the market will never solve the problem until we have extracted all the fossil fuels in the earth.

I know it is not your problem, but how can we NOT feel helpless?

[–] assassin_aragorn 10 points 1 year ago

I think the issue here is who you're looking at for the audience. At this point, we can agree that anyone who doesn't think there's a problem is delusional, and it's a waste to time to convince them otherwise.

If we assume the audience is all people who believe this is an issue, then this message makes sense. It's trying to convince people that they should still care and not be nihilistic about it.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

While I understand the intention here is to reassure people that not all is lost and there's still time for action, a take like this is going to be paraphrased into "climate change is overblown and isn't something to worry about" by Big Oil and other major polluters.

[–] jumpinjesus 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have not seen a single piece of evidence that we're going to do anything about climate change unless we come up with some magical solution that somehow: doesn't upset the status quo and also makes existing rich people even more rich.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The status quo is the problem, so it would have to be some basic logic defying magic.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly but talk to anyone, even the enlightened internet people who share climate change articles on here, and they seem convinced that the only way to fight climate change is to literally do nothing and wait for corporations to have their hearts grow like the grinch. They will aggressively atrack any suggestion that we are going to have to actually do something and also change out lifestyle.

It is going to take massive change, collective effort, and organizing. As well as individual changes to our daily lives. Even if those corporations and politicians all had a magic change of heart. The policies and economic changes would still result in a massive upheaval of our daily lives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] flossdaily 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Wow, what a ridiculous straw man.

I haven't heard anyone referring to 1.5 C as apocalyptic. I HAVE heard it described in terms of being a threshold at which climate scientists predicted a certain set of consequences.

What's apocalyptic about the situation is our acceleration towards even greater climate change, and world governments' unwillingness to take the situation seriously.

In the US, for example, Biden passed the greatest climate mitigation law of all time ... and it's grossly inadequate. They're treating it much the same way that the Obama administration treated health care. They patted themselves on the back for passing the ACA, which still left the country in a health care CRISIS, because it was a half measure.

In many ways the absolute worst way you can respond to a crisis is with these types of half measures. Why? Because it acts as a pressure valve, removing all the momentum for real, meaningful change.

Much like the ACA, Democrats will pretend that this is a stepping stone for the next set of reforms... But we only need to look at the ACA to see how flawed that reasoning is. We have not built on the ACA. We have spent a decade watching Republicans chip away at it.

Now we're playing the same game with climate change mitigation. And the price will be hundreds of millions of climate change refugees, war, and famine.

To be 100 percent clear: while the Democrats are incompetent here, the real villains are the Republicans, who are WILLFULLY ignorant of the science, and are the ones forcing either impotent compromise or no mitigation at all.

[–] Ultraviolet 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

4° C is apocalyptic. 1.5° C is still catastrophic and will result in massive floods and global famines.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] themeatbridge 50 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Hey jackass, people aren't apathetic because they believe it's too late to do anything. People are apathetic because people like you haven't done anything and now it's too late. The "beneficial actions" you are calling for are half measures that won't help at all, and the people who care are already doing what they can while the real polluters, the real destroyers of humanity, are building bunkers and hoarding gold to survive the coming storm.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People aren't apathetic because "it's too late", it's because right now is the time humanity needs to act, yet all that's really happened is governments making promises to act in 10, 15, 20 years time if at all.

Oh, but there are pollution targets... that are routinely unmet, or are met through dodgy use of carbon credits, all with no punishment.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (6 children)

oh look people in the comments who are missing the fucking point. I'm honestly so sick of this shit. You either have rainbows and unicorns and "we'll just figure it out"/climate deniers to "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH" apathetic fucks who won't do shit* because "what's the point we are all doomed anyway" which...causes the same problem as denying does.

honestly i've delt with more people who refuse to change anything because "what's the point" than I deal with outright deniers anymore.

*not sure if anyone in the comments is an apathetic "do nothing though tbf and honest. So there is my disclaimer don't @ me.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I see this all the time on social media, and it's frustrating. I don't want to dampen anyone's passion for combating climate change (because I agree!), but it's like a feedback loop for rhetoric that gets more and more extreme.

Something that starts out as:

"There was a wildfire in _____. This could be part of a larger trend related to climate change."

Turns into:

"This fire was caused directly by climate change."

Turns into:

"The world is on fire! Take shelter!"

Turns into:

"Don't plan for the future. Don't have children. Move somewhere cold and start prepping for the apocalypse."

You can literally watch this same process happen with every issue that gets traction on social media or cable news. Then one side looks at the most extreme comments from the other side and easily dismisses the whole thing.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SuddenDownpour 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Speaking to weekly magazine Der Spiegel, in an interview first published on Saturday, Skea warned against laying too much value on the international community's current nominal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared the pre-industrial era.

"We should not despair and fall into a state of shock" if global temperatures were to increase by this amount, he said.

In a separate discussion with German news agency DPA, Skea expanded on why.

"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said.

"The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world."

Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity.

(...)

Skea predicted that one difficult area might prove to be changing people's lifestyles. He said that no scientist could tell people how to live or what to eat.

"Individual abstinence is good, but it alone will not bring about the change to the extent it will be necessary," Skea said. "If we are to live more climate consciously, we need entirely new infrastructure. People will not get on bikes if there are no cycle paths."

Skea said he also wanted to adapt the IPCC so that it could provide better and more targeted advice to specific groups of people on how they could act to combat climate change.

He named groups like town planners, landowners and businesses: "With all these things it's about real people and their real lives, not scientific abstractions. We need to come down a level," he told DPA.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 12 points 1 year ago

The headline is actual ragebait considering the more reasonable context of his message

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago
  • That didn't happen.
  • And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
  • And if it was, that's not a big deal. <- WE ARE HERE
  • And if it is, that's not my fault.
  • And if it was, I didn't mean it.
  • And if I did, you deserved it.
[–] firlefans 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

1.5C was never a threat, it was a target. The IPCC produces simplified "stakeholder" report, it would be a superior use of one's time to just give it a skim than spend time reading clickbaity website titles. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

Policymaker summary report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

If I may indulge myself one more edit (and then get back to work), why 1.5C is a natural question. As far as I recall it was the middle scenario for the end of the 21st century as calculated much earlier (easy to check if you go back to the early 2000s reports). We've since reached ~1C of warming. In the above summary, they state that the most realistic scenarios: (C7= 4 degrees by 2100), and C6 = 3 degrees by 2100), do not have peak warming by 2100. The reports never seem to stretch beyond 2100, and I wish they would to illustrate this point properly. My biggest fear (though not one I want my kids to have nightmares about) would be that warming continues towards 5C, which apart from everything else, brings the climate close to conditions experienced during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Increase_in_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide

[–] Lenins2ndCat 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think the peak 4 degrees this century is extremely possible. A lot of the community studying this now thinks we have underestimated feedback loops, much of what is currently happening was not supposed to happen as quickly as it has.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

well. 1.5C° maybe not an existential threat, but I don't see a single sign it would stop there, and not going further into 4.0C° ya know

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

His statement isn't really about the severity of the issue, he just says that people are prone to give up

[–] cyberpunk007 19 points 1 year ago (17 children)

The news;

  • we are fucked
  • just kidding no we are not
  • yes we are
  • no we are not

Don't even know what to believe anymore. All I know for fact is what I can see and trend myself. I know about 7 years ago or so I definitely noticed more wildfires than I ever have. Never had I had memories of every summer being smoked out. This summer I've felt autumn chill in some mornings when I normally would not have. Heat domes... Didn't even know why that was until last year or the year before.

I think shits fucked.

[–] mojofrododojo 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

pretty sure we're fucked.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/30/world/antarctic-sea-ice-winter-record-low-climate-intl/index.html

when the AMOC goes, we're gonna see ecosystems collapse. When the ice shelf breaks off into the sea, we're gonna see sea levels climb rapidly.

can human civilization survive? perhaps if we can get everyone to work together. ww2 levels of mobilization and federalization of resources.

I think this would require the UN to have a no-bullshit-session with the worlds top climate and systems folks, then each and every country declaring a national emergency to address the climate crisis. Which means we're going to finally have to get the assholes rolling coal in their giant pickup trucks festooned with trump flags to give up their bullshit. And everyone will have to cut their energy consumption and face changes to their lives and diets that will help us prepare for the really hard times ahead and feed the starving that are already resulting from mass drought & the war in Ukraine.

I doubt we'll ever get the rolling coal big truck assholes to give up their bullshit, so... No, we're fucked, we're going to die badly in most cases, and it's almost entirely our own fault. I let the last few generations off because they didn't enjoy the excess, they're simply going to get stuck with the bill.

Cheers, hope I'm very very wrong.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] teft 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nuance, the world is filled with it. Who'd have thought?

load more comments
view more: next ›