empiricism

@uphillbothways @climate

Well, in that case, we can only assume that some people think the election cycle is more important than people's lives.

@theendismeh @silence7 @climate

The "business as usual" approach reminds me of the saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

@nottelling @CleverNameAndNumbers

"rich people keep getting everything they want"

Even (most) rich people don't *want* death and destruction. They want money!

@VikingHippie @silence7 @climate

The silver lining of ecological degradation is that no amount of political posturing or businesses (ignorance) greenwashing will prevent the climate from deteriorating.

The planet's biosphere is the ultimate "authority", the ultimate power. As such, it's the ultimate "judgement" regarding how human cultures can, & can not, survive.

The planet is, what it objectively is. Ecological limiting factors are the ultimate long-term regulators.

Nature finds a way

@leafn4give @silence7

The potential is certainly there. As well as liberating land for wildlife, there can be zones used for growing food using agroecological farming methods, which can also provide habitat for a variety of wildlife & locations for housing.

FYI, when you write "research has shown" please provide a weblink too that research, so that people that haven't read the relevant research & or science-based report can read it.

Fundamentally, mono-industrial farming is unsustainable.

@bioemerl @silence7

The question is, are you not aware that you have been greenwashed? or are you trying to greenwash readers?

Humans started agriculture about 12,000 years ago. Especially since the industrial revolution (fossil-fueled machines), animal farming has destroyed vast areas of wildlife habitats (e.g., species extinction) & ruminants such as cows & sheep emit methane.

Most of our #food emissions come from processes on the farm, or from land use change. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

@raginghummus @AceFuzzLord @climate

Good job that being popular isn't their primary goal because they won't be fairly treated by the popular press (where many folk get their opinions from)

@cerement

Of course "farmers" covers a broad demographic (a spectrum). But yes, overall:

heard of, yes
acknowledge, no
comprehend, no

Is a fair assessment.

Though, l'd add "heard of yes, but, excuses" (some justifiable, many, simply excuses to not change their mono-industrial farming as usual methods)

@silence7

"Confounds Farmers"?

Hadn't they heard of climate change?

@InverseParallax @deus

So we have the politicians such as Rishi Sunak that are promoting policies that increase the probability of an ecological collapse, & then on the other extreme the preppers that are, well, at least preparing for a climate crisis.

It's a stretch to think how things turned out so friggin crazy? 🤔 🤑 🤥

@silence7

It's actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the "trick")

One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.

It's as "easy" as informed cooperation & will. But

@silence7 @Codilingus

4. Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they're)

5. Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.

6. Doom!