You must log in or register to comment.
“Climate change” is obsolete, now it’s “climate crisis”. I suppose after that it’s climate collapse and then climate desolation.
Climate apocalypse pretty soon. Maybe climate collapse of society first, briefly
I’d say climate apocalypse and climate societal collapse are the same thing. Apocalypse doesn’t mean extinction, otherwise how would we have a post-apocalyptic world?
I will drive a fat car and scream like an idiot 24/7! 😂
Removed by mod
The problem imo is the “we should do something else instead FIRST” argument. No. We should do everything we can right now. Usually whenever people start arguing to do something else first, what they actually mean and want is to do nothing at all.
Yes big corporations and their emissions are a big part of the problem but that big ass SUV isn’t fine either. Do what you can as soon as you can. No exceptions.
Except in germany noone would ever dare blame/restrict private cars in any way. See eg the ridiculous “discussion” on a potential highway speed limit. For non-germans: Yes, speed on highways is generally unrestricted and for some reason that seems to be more important to us than safety or protecting the climate.
Ya… but you can’t blame the poor volk. Since the war ended we’ve been praised for our Autobahns. Our Autobahns are the best and fastest and most reliablest, we are always on time and don’t get me started on precision. Just how precise are we Germans? Who cares about enviroment, we are the best in something! Fuck nature. Like the boys from Kraftwerk sang:
♬ Autobahn Autobahn ♬ Wir fahr'n, fahr'n, fahr'n, auf der Autobahn Wir fahr'n, fahr'n, fahr'n, auf der Autobahn ♬…it’s a banger tho…
Unless you’re German, in which case this is exactly what happened.
It’s not what happened.
Nuclear power got replaced by renewable energy. Gas was mainly needed for heating (~50 % of households use gas, ~25 % use oil) and the industry (steel, glas…), much less for power. Germany even reduced their gas consumption heavily. The gas used for power is roughly the same amount as before shutting down npp.
Except fossil fuel production went UP when “renewable replaced nuclear”.
While renewable was built out quite a bit and nuclear was decreased at roughly the same time, total demand has risen (as it tends to do) and that delta was filled by more fossil fuel production.
IMO (and many other peoples) the climate-positive approach would have been to keep nuclear, while building out renewables and phasing out fossil. And then try to build more renewables to get rid of nuclear, if that’s still desired.
this is the German power production for the last 30 years. Shutting down nuclear started in early 2000s
brown = brown coal, pink = black coal, grey = nuclear, yellow = gas, blue = oil, green = renewables
What I can read in this graphic is black coal and nuclear got phased out. Brown coal sunk a little bit and renewables multiplied their production.
Yes, I support your opinion, it would’ve been better having 25-30% nuclear power instead of coal. I guess this wasn’t possible as nuclear always had a bad stance in Germany and coal was a big employer. Maybe a bit like Norway and its oil.
But at the point Germany is now or was a year ago it’s way easier, cheaper and faster to invest in renewables instead of building new npp.
How exactly has Germany restricted private cars? And if they are so restricted, why are they still 20% of our emissions? https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/verkehr/emissionen-des-verkehrs (correction: private cars 12, transport lorries 8)
Also here is the current mix of energy sources https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html
Germany has chosen renewable over nuclear. I am glad we did. I am not happy they restored some coal, but if you compare to earlier levels also visible in the article, you will see an overall reduction. Leaving out that we have been phasing out nuclear during the last 15 or so years to build more renewable and then being like ‘look, no nuclear, such a lack of responsibility!’ smh
Your comment seems intended to agitate international readers with false portrayal of facts and glossing over stuff via sarcasm. Shame on that kind of behavior just to push your views.
Nuclear (+ renewables) powering walkable cities ftw.
Not even just for the climate, we’d probably cut asthma and a dozen cancer rates with the clean air.
Build nuclear AND restrict cars
Looks like fuckcars is leaking again. You know that place where every single human being in the world lives in a major city?
It’s a 2 hour round trip in a car for me to get groceries dude, but I’m out here growing trees. What do you do?
Do you not understand what the word “restrict” means?
We’re subsidizing your Internet, power, and most other infrastructure and public services that cost too much at rural densities.
I wish we’d stop doing that at this point.
-
I use starlink - I paid for the hardware on the ground, the rest of it is in space. There is no other internet out here.
-
We have no public services, I have to drive to them or provide them myself. No water, no sewage.
-
The power is generated 36km from my house and the cost of gold plating the grid to get that power is disproportionately reflected in MY power bill so that those in the city 200km away can have electricity.
Can I ask what demographic you fit into that you seem to sincerely believe the world would keep functioning if everyone lived in cities, and that with your obviously limited exposure to how the world works, you believe you have it all figured out?
-
While also having one of the highest energy prices in Europe.
But seriously we should try to cut the percentage of our electricity that is being produced by coal. This should be our first priority, even if it means to temporarily replace it with gas. Then gas emissions are once again on the rise due to the general trend of producing ever bigger cars.
Meat consumption and deforestation, combined with higher risk of wild fires, etc.
I hope in the future we manage to create sustainable nuclear fusion reactor and we ditch all non renewable energy sources.
A high carbon tax would fit perfectly. Introduce it at the start of the system such that it directly affects those that pollute the most, and vice versa.
IIRC there’s already a carbon tax in place on most of the EU via the EU ETS.
Yeah I think you are right. But it should be equal to the environmental cost per co2 amount. So if consuming x amount of co2 costs y amount of environmental damage, then the tax should be y amount per x co2 produced.
I am guessing the current tax is way below anything like this.
I wonder what could help reduce our carbon emissions.
At the moment I’m getting the feeling that only one, drastic, solution has a small chance in succeeding… a lot less humans on the earth (< 50%). The rest of nature is pretty busy trying to establish a new equilibrium until humans realize they are also a part of nature and nature isn’t the one in problems, but humans (as well as a lot of other species) are.
For some strange reason (religion maybe?) humans think they’re not in the pool of biodiversity species.
Only have to get rid of 1% or so to fix it. And it’s not the groups you’re dogwhistling genocide of because they contribute an order of magnitude less than you do.
Oh, the top 1% will help a lot, but either way either ‘the west’ will need to lower their standard of living, or humanity needs to be culed like crazy.
With the standard of living of US and Europe, the world can support about 1B humans. We all can do the math.
We’re fucked.
We are fucking ourselves. Which sounds nice, but not in this context. I guess our grandkids will have to get a taste for cockroach and muck. At least we can eat and drink and enjoy the sun like kings of old…
I’m smart about this one and not having kids!
I was trying to be poetic… I also don’t have nor want kids. Not because of the future, I just don’t like kids. They use social media and are loud… And I’ve met some my friends made, and I said it directly into their eyes how much I despise them and how ugly they are.
So even if climate change isn’t real (which obviously it is.) What’s the down side? We invest in renewable energy, not pollute as much. Oh the horror!
Because the people who made money investing in the old way stop making money. That’s it. That’s the entire problem. The fossil fuels industry wants to keep making money, and the politicians who are bribed by them want to keep getting bribes. So they create a culture war so the facts don’t matter.
I’d add that especially in developed countries, we have gotten used to the high energy-density of fossil fuels, which is the result of millions of years of pressure, temperature or in short: energy. And we are using up this energy within two centuries. This resulted in the unsustainable lifestyle (it’s everywhere we look), that would have to be curbed, if we were to get off this Jurassic Park Experiment completely.
Therefore a number of people see their very (unsustainable) way of life in jeopardy. This source of resistance is what gives that culture war BS its fuel in the first place. At least in my experience of talking with people it is this negative emotional place that leads them to embrace false information in order to keep their lifestyles. Which in turn makes cooperation impossible. To make it even worse, people in developing countries now aspire to the same lifestyle - and who can blame them? But I don’t trust their (or ours for that matter) politics enough to hope for scientifically sound action to get there.
Which is just blatantly straight up evil. They are evil people destroying people’s lives for profit. And everyone is just hunky-dory with it.
I’ve said for years that the deniers and fossil fuel barons will be looked upon by future generations as some of history’s greatest villains. They will be seen in much the same light as a Hitler or Stalin or Mao.
Not everyone. Just far too many
It’s not THAT simple. For a period of time, there is a slight reduction in quality of life as people switch to renewables. Example, in many towns there are mandatory solar requirements on new homes, which inflates the cost of construction for homeowners etc. Same with the no gas hookup requirements now in some cities where you can’ get a gas line to your house… which means higher costs to run your heat etc.
It’s one of those short term problems but it impacts people in a real way and people just don’t wanna go for that.
The world is literally on fire
deleted by creator
“Climate change doesn’t exist because of winter.”
I don’t they intended to dismiss climate change, I think they were just taking exception to the use of the word “literally” with “the world” when it’s technically just far too much of the Northern Hemisphere across multiple continents. Not necessarily helpful, but at least it’s not climate change denial?
It’s wrong anyway because the temperatures are high for the current time of year. Even the winter temps.
So with the northern hemisphere that means that they are higher than they’ve ever been before in the Southern hemisphere it just means they’re higher the winter then they’ve ever been before but they’re still high.
So it’s a confusing and non relevant distinction.
For now. Watching the Northern hemisphere be in flames is just the smoky forewarning of what to expect in the next 4-8 months. I’m not looking forward to it.
Ha exactly, may our sunburn return to our exposed bodies soon.
I think the conservatives don’t disagree that climate change is real, they disagree that humans are responsible. To them it’s things like El Niño or solar activity.
No, there are a lot of conservatives that think it’s entirely made up
Symptoms of climate change are getting harder and harder to ignore. The goalposts are moving slowly, not towards any kind of constructive action mind you. Soon they’ll get to “Of course it’s man-made, but there’s nothing we can do”.
My dad switched from saying it isn’t real to saying he’ll be dead soon so he won’t have to experience it.
Jokes on him: it’s happening faster than he thought. He’s getting to experience it anyway.
My dad switched from saying it isn’t real to saying he’ll be dead soon so he won’t have to experience it.
Ask him if he cares about the world that his kids and grand-kids will have to live in, or is he just a selfish asshole.
I did ask that, and it took the conversation to a bizarre place.
When I asked if he cared what happened to his kids or grandkids, he asked if I believed in God.
I said no, and asked what that had to do with anything. He said, if I believed in God, I’d go to heaven.
So, that’s his suggestion: suffer through a miserable, doomed existence, and then go to heaven when you die.
Things that I found interesting from that:
-
He pretends to be a Christian, but he is filled with hate and just wants to pick fights with everyone. I think he doesn’t actually know anything about what being Christian is, other than if you’re not, you burn in hell for all eternity.
-
My mom, whose beliefs generally align fairly closely with his, does not want to cause trouble, unlike him. So, while he immediately tries to start shit, she’ll avoid topics that will result in argument. She will certainly avoid asking questions if she doesn’t want to hear the answer. So, she visibly cringed when he asked if I believed in God, because she knew what was coming next.
Lots of teenagers dramatically accuse their parents of being fascists, but in my case, he’s the real thing. He’s not quite a Nazi, but if they came to power in the U.S. he’d be goose-stepping along with them. He idolizes Nazi Germany, but pretty much considers modern Nazis to be pathetic losers.
In the strange, twisted world of child/parent relationships, I’m stuck. I know what he is, but he’s also my father. I’m twisted up. I know he loves me, and I love him, but I hate what he is if that makes any sense.
My wife and my kids can’t stand him, but everything I have and most of what they have comes from him. He knows that I disagree with him about almost everything he cares about, but if I go to him for help, he’ll help without question and without strings attached.
He wasn’t always this bad. He had been better for years, but then as he has declined physically and can’t pretend he’s young anymore, he became more miserable, and I think he wants everyone else to be miserable too.
That’s a pretty frightening belief. Earth is just some bus stop your soul sits at waiting for heaven, so why take care of it and why fret about all the suffering that takes place on it.
For all we know, death may be total end of your soul/consciousness/whatever and Earth may be the only place with complex life in the universe. And we’re trashing it.
Not sure how you can idolize Nazi Germany without being a Nazi. As for the rest, any good faith attempt in debate will be met with skepticism at best. The Rights propaganda machine is too strong.
There’s this myth in the modern day that there were somehow “noble Nazis” like Rommel who only cared about making their country great and giving it their all. They take the “Hitler turned Germany from a bankrupt country to a world power in 10 years” perspective, look at all of the fancy gadgets and buildings the Nazis made and their fancy Nazi uniforms, and they think it somewhat excuses the atrocities they committed.
There are too many people out there who think it’s possible to learn from Nazi Germany’s example and make America great again without all of the “bad Nazi stuff” that led to their downfall, without seeing any of the parallels to their stances on LGBTQ+ people, racial and religious minorities, foreign policy, workers rights, etc.
If there had been another significant Islamic terrorist attack in the early part of Trump’s administration, I honestly believe he would have pushed for Muslim concentration camps considering his early campaign promises about banning them from the US. Having a minority scapegoat to blame for America’s problems would have inspired more MAGA sycophants without losing the Jewish vote.
The best thing we can do with parents like that is don’t even bother to out them in a home. Let them work themselves to death or die on the streets. They get what they earn.
-
First person that uses that argument with me, I’m going to tell them, in no uncertain terms, to stop voting since the same argument applies.
I guess they’re smarter than all of NASA! That’s amazing! What’re they doing working in <whatever they do> when they could be straightening out the so-called scientists? /s
They legitimately do think they know more than NASA. At least your average conservative voter. Conservative politicians probably believe at least some of the science but deny it to keep getting voters. Conservative voters think climate change isn’t real because it still snows in winter and people who have studied climate their entire lives are just part of a conspiracy to take away their trucks.
Yep. Personal experience with these types is that they will use the excuse of NASA being funded by the government to discredit it.
“They’re all stupid liberals just spreading (Obama/Pelosi/Clinton/Biden/Soros) propaganda so they don’t lose their funding, just like the schools,” is what I imagine my in-laws would say.
And they’re wrong according to virtually every person who actually studies the climate for a living, so they might as well pretend it’s made up.
And it’s stupid anyway. You might be able to deny human-caused climate change, but you can’t deny smog and pollution. Greener energy sources mean less smog and pollution. Why isn’t that a good thing to them?
It’s a fundamental lack of understanding of math and science.
There’s a video going around conservative circles talking about how CO2 only makes up .04 percent of the atmosphere, and therefore even if it were doubled it would be less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere, so it’s not worth worrying about.
I tried to explain to my father that that’s exactly why we’re able to have such an impact. They don’t understand that we’re able to make a much larger relative impact on CO2 versus Nitrogen and Oxygen and therefore a larger impact on global temperatures.
It’s actually a spectrum of disavowal of responsibility:
- It’s not happening.
- Even if it is happening, it’s not our fault.
- Even if it is our fault, there is nothing we can do.
- Even if there is something we can do, it’s too late to do anything.
It’s just that the first stage (denialism) is starting to become untenable.
- Even if it isn’t too late to do something it’s the others that should do it
- Even if we are the ones that should do something, it’s down to everyone individually so no job for the politicians
- Even if it is down to the state, sorry it’s too expensive.
Ah yes, the standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis. The tactic does not get old.
THANK YOU! I was trying to remember where my brain dug this up from and I couldn’t pinpoint it.
- Bernard Woolley : What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
- Sir Humphrey Appleby : Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
- Bernard Woolley : What’s that?
- Sir Richard Wharton : Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
- Sir Richard Wharton : In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
- Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
- Sir Richard Wharton : In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.
- Sir Humphrey Appleby : Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.
deleted by creator
The major oil companies acknowledged climate change is a major threat and they are primarily responsible for it decades ago
The dead walk. Zombies have arrived. They are us.
Yippie! I love global warming!!! Thank you big corporations you are so cool!
Way beyond warming, it’s global roasting
I’m not fully convinced yet… maybe if it was four weeks with records broken every day, then I’d really consider changing my mind. But probably not because it was all made up by Al Gore.
looking @ the conservatise political programs, they realize people will die due to climate change, but their solution is more babies (ergo, forbid women to stop/prevent pregancy), not stopping climate change…
please keep voting on them /s
Does anyone know the true source of this statistic?
Edit: found it. Source
It’s literally in the image of the graph.
Only the institute. Not the link. Edited my comment with the link.
If I’m not mistaken, before recording temps earth started as a molten volcano ridden planet billions of years ago, no?
Compared to that this is just a slightly warmer ice age. We good.
Checkmate Thunbergers!
See this to visualize time frames on this kind of stuff
Isn’t the heat causing icebergs to break off of antarctica and melt into the ocean?
Nature is balancing things out. The hotter it gets, the more ice it drops into the ocean. We are panicking for nothing 😊
Relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
I honestly can’t tell, as I know there are people who are that stupid.
Just for my own sanity, are you just trolling and I’m too thick to catch it, or do you legitimately believe what you’re saying?
I’m pretty sure they are just cosplaying a moron. And if not I honestly feel sorry that the public schools failed them so badly
Guess what happens when there’s no ice left🙄
Why is the world so much hotter during the Northern Hemisphere summer?
As far as I know that’s mostly because there’s much more land in the Northern Hemisphere and the temperature differences (day/night but also summer/winter) are much more pronounced over the land than over the sea: the land heats and cools faster.
Thanks buddy! Wow on Lemmy people actually answer your questions that come late in the thread. Incredible.
I think also El Niño right?
Interesting that despite it still being summer and roasty toasty in the southern hemisphere in January, the world average temp is still lower than the northern hemisphere summer.
The southern hemisphere has a lot more water surface area, which has a larger heat capacity, is somewhat reflective, and a lower density / conductivity.
This is why Australians and Brazilians are known to be amphibious during summer.
Yeah that was my thought, turns out the land water ratio in the northern hemisphere is 2:3 while it’s 1:4 in the southern hemisphere
Averages mean almost nothing. They can’t really be used to say anything meaningful.
1000 men vs 1000 women: 999 men earn $1 per hour. 1 man earns $1,000,000 per hour. 1,000 women earn $500 per hour. On average, men earn $1000 per hour, but women earn on average half that.
The reality is obviously very different to the average.
This would only be a relevant criticism if our temperatures had a swing like 1-$1,000,000 does.
The reality is obviously very different than you suspected.
No, the point remains the same. The point is averages by design remove peaks and lows by averaging them out. A system as complex as our atmosphere needs to be considered more granularly than just as by averages. Peaks and lows cause massive disasters, like in Europe right now.
No your point is still invalid. Explaining how averages work doesn’t lend credence to your point as they’re intentionally used for this purpose by making temperature changes directly comparable day to day. We don’t have any days where the temperature jumps to 1,000,000 degrees Celsius, so there’s nothing to throw the average off.
You’re correct that our atmosphere and weather are complex, which is why scientists use a multitude of approaches to study them. The fact that you think average temperature is the only method being used for study only shows your lack of knowledge on the topic.
If you still feel I’m wrong then show us the math using actual temperature values to prove it.
The average tells us quite a lot. It shows that overall, year on year temperatures across the entire planet are increasing, whether it’s winter or summer. Like you say the impacts of that are higher spikes in more places every year and those spikes are lost from the data, but the average is valuable aswell. Because of the scale, and the fact that it’s including winter for half the planet, 1 degree change in the average is pretty crazy.
