The world has experienced its hottest day on record, according to meteorologists.

The average global temperature reached 17.01C (62.62F) on Monday, according to the US National Centres for Environmental Prediction.

The figure surpasses the previous record of 16.92C (62.46F) - set back in August 2016.

  • Arayvenn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    186
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I used to think the more apparent and devastating outcomes of climate change were bound to hit long after I passed away, but now I’m not so sure. Local storms are becoming more and more serious with every passing year, each summer is less bearable than the last and the nearby forests are burning down for the 2nd summer in a row. We are definitely speedrunning this shit.

  • Kekzkrieger@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    At least companies created incredible profits for a small number of shareholders for a short period of time. Totally worth it

  • traveler01@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    We thank people who disregarded nuclear energy. We could’ve sliced global emissions by a lot if were not for you, but burning coal is far safer.

    • AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I thank the oligarchs and their willing consumption enthusiasts. This apocalypse is brought to you by unchecked, insatiably greedy capitalists and capitalism.

      • traveler01@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        48
        ·
        1 year ago

        This apocalypse is brough to you by unchecked, insatiably greedy capitalists and capitalism.

        Most environmental solutions are also being created in capitalist societies, and the richest countries (which by coincidence are capitalist) are the ones that are decreasing their emissions by a considerable amount.

        Connecting capitalism to environmental changes is just communist propaganda, dunno if you did it willingly or not but that’s about it.

        • Sparlock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Way to minimise the last 40-50 years of capitalists actively working to stop any real progress on climate change. Sure progress is being made now after they figured out it was getting bad and there was money to be made in green tech. That doesn’t excuse the decades of lobbying and and actual propaganda put out by capital interests that we are all paying for now.

          That you are spouting off about “communist propaganda” tells me you either grew up in the 80’s and really bought the red scare line or you bought the far right propaganda telling you to be scared of ‘CHI-NAH’ (to quote the orange traitor).

            • Sparlock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “You couldn’t far wronger in this question lol”

              Sure. I couldn’t “far wronger”.
              What a thoughtful and fact filled reply that furthers conversation.

              Try making a point or defending your position if you want to be taken at all seriously.
              As it stands why should anyone think you might be correct in your statements and not just dismiss you out of hand as a moron who is far wronger?

              • traveler01@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                30
                ·
                1 year ago

                First, in the 80s I wasn’t even born and if the fact I don’t fall for every bull**** communist propaganda that I read in the internet makes you upset, boho I’m so sorry.

                Blaming the environmental changes on capitalism it’s like calling “The Radium Girls” dumb. During the latest decades they didn’t know very well about the damages they were causing but if you check history, as soon as there was scientific evidence that something was causing harm, laws were passed in capitalist countries to remove it promptly. Look at the lead in petrol debacle, CBDs, the CFCs.

                Also, even today there’s really not a good way of replacing “dirty” technologies like jet engines. Of course, the communist countries aren’t doing sh*t to solve the issue either, they’re even making it worse.

                • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  laws were passed in capitalist countries to remove it promptly

                  Promptly on what timescale? Geological?

                  It’s always too little too late. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Reality speaks for itself.

                • zysarus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Exxon has known the damage they were causing since at least the 80s and have spent absurd amounts of money alongside their competitors lobbying governments and paying scientists to keep the status quo. We had at least some evidence that burning fossil fuels was going to cause global warming at the turn of the 20th century.

                  What you’re saying isn’t entirely false, but it sure is bending over backwards to be nice to the capitalist societies that caused this problem. Also there aren’t any communist countries causing this problem, China is every bit as capitalist as the US in how their economy functions these days, they’re communist in name only. You’ve been influenced by capitalist propaganda friend.

                • SaltySalamander@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  During the latest decades they didn’t know very well about the damages they were causing

                  Yea, they (the capitalists) have known full well for at least two decades the damage they were causing.

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

                  Holy shit you are delusional if you believe any of that. A simple google search on climate science coverup by fossil fuel companies (like Exxon, Shell, and BP) in the 70’s is just a single example and it would take you almost no effort to learn. That you haven’t even done the very LEAST you could to not be embarrassingly wrong, should serve to let anyone reading anything you comment on to simply dismiss your ramblings as misleading at best.

                  You need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if maybe you got this wrong since myself and MANY others have pointed out the various things you are just factually incorrect on.

                  I’m not holding out hope though, I am willing to bet you will just double down in your fantasy instead of facing reality. Feel free to prove me wrong, little would please me more.

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

                  There’s actually a news article from the March 1912 edition of Popular Mechanics warning about how ‘the furnaces of the world’ are ‘burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year’, and how ‘when this is burned, united with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly.’ They conclude that adding 7 billion tons of CO2 per year ‘make(s) the air a more effective blanket for the earth and raise its temperature’ and that ‘the effect may be considerable in a few centuries’. Their only mistake was underestimating how much CO2 future generations would put in the atmosphere. They estimated a few centuries for 7 billion tons of CO2. I’m wondering what they’d make of 43 billion tons.

                  Capitalists ignored the clear warnings from scientists about pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for over a century because it wasn’t economical for them to do something about it. It was always somebody else’s problem. Until it wasn’t. Where do you live? New York, that has recently had some of the worst air quality in history thanks to Canadian wildfires? Or Denver, where it was our turn in April and May? Or when we got the horrible DECEMBER wildfire that burned into Boulder? Man, wildfires in fucking December. NOW it’s fashionable for Capitalists to at least pretend to care about the environment, but shit, if there could be a dollar made burning down the last forest, you fucking better believe that capitalists will gleefully play a Captain Planet villain while they do just that.

                  Edit: A fun link: https://bigthink.com/the-present/1912-climate-change-prediction/

        • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most environmental solutions are also being created in capitalist societies, and the richest countries (which by coincidence are capitalist) are the ones that are decreasing their emissions by a considerable amount.

          Only because those capitalists societies are offloading the work that generates those emissions on to poorer countries because it’s cheaper to do it there.

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

            Yes, the German method. We lower our emissions not by using nuclear power, but by moving our coal outside of EEA and buying it back at 5x the price!

          • traveler01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We will be able to decrease emissions, never get them to 0. Hence maybe some CO2 extraction will be needed.

          • traveler01@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Only because those capitalists societies are offloading the work that generates those emissions on to poorer countries because it’s cheaper to do it there.

            It’s cheaper and most importantly they allow it. These countries want growth, they want to attract investment, have work for the people. It’s a win-win relationship otherwise these countries wouldn’t allow it.

        • AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I take no offense to being called a communist, even though I’m a socialist. I have a great deal of pity for the sycophants of capitalism, though, cheering their own exploitation and oppression as their masters terraform the planet to be hostile towards human life in the name of quarterly profit expectations.

          Your family will be burning from the global oligarch’s fine work, and you’ll be blaming the invisible communists and socialists that countries like the US used military means to decimate through global destabilization the world over to further capitalist interests. The capitalists won, are fully in charge, and have captured their own regulatory bodies in most of the world. This is the world of capitalists own making. They run the show, we are living in what the capitalists would consider their utopia, where they live like modern Pharoahs as most of the species subsists to further enrich them.

          We crossed that threshold years ago, man made climate alteration is a runaway train of multigenerational suffering at best, and possibly the end of human civilization for ages at worst. Have fun cursing the dirty commies when you’re thirsty with no recourse 🤣

    • geissi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a false dichotomy. There are more power sources than coal and nuclear.
      Also electricity generation is not the only source of emissions. Car traffic, cruise ships, aiplanes, all need to be reduced and can’t just be replaced by nuclear power.

      • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In theory, yes. In practice, nuclear plants that are shut off are almost always replaced with fossils, with the specific fossil fuel of choice often being coal.

        Energy is not something where you can just pick one solution and run with it (at least, non-fossils, anyway). Nuclear is slow to ramp, so it usually takes care of baseline load. Renewables like wind and solar are situational, they mostly work throughout the day (yes, wind too, differential heating of earth’s surface by the sun is what causes surface-level winds) and depend greatly on weather. Hydro is quite reliable but it’s rarely available in the quantities needed. The cleanest grids on the planet use all of these, and throw in some fossils for load balancing, phasing them out with energy storage solutions as they become available.

        You can’t just shoot one of the pillars of this system of clean energy and then say you never tried to topple the system, just wanted to prop up the other pillars. Discussing shutting off nuclear plants without considering the alternative is pure lunacy, driven by fearmongering, and propped up by no small amounts of oil money for a reason.

        Replacing nuclear with renewables is simply not the reality of the situation. Nuclear and renewables work together to replace fossils, and fill different roles. It’s not one or the other, it’s both and even together they’re not yet enough.

        So when you do consider the alternatives, moving from nuclear to the inevitable replacement, fossils, is still lunacy, just for other reasons: even if you care about nothing more than atmospheric radiation, coal puts more of it out per kWh generated, solely because of C-14 isotopes. Nuclear is shockingly clean, mostly due to its energy density, but also because it’s not producing barrels of green goo, just small pills of spicy ceramics. And if your point is accidents, just how many oil spills have we had to endure? How many times was the frickin ocean set on fire? How many bloody and brutal wars were motivated by oil? Is that really what a safer energy source sounds like to you, just because there are two nuclear accidents the world knows about, and a thousand fossil accidents, of which the world lost count already?

        And deflecting to other industries is also quite disingenuous. Especially if your scapegoat is transportation, since that’s an industry that’s increasingly getting electrified in an effort to make it cleaner at the same logistical capacity, and therefore will depend more and more on the very same electrical grid which you’re trying to detract from.

        • geissi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          nuclear plants that are shut off are almost always replaced with fossils, with the specific fossil fuel of choice often being coal.

          Being from Germany, I have often read such arguments and at least here that is simply not true.
          The decrease in nuclear power was accompanied by a decrease in fossil fuel.
          Could that decrease have been larger if nuclear had been kept around longer? Possibly.
          But if we are talking about building new power plants, the money is typically better invested in renewables. They’re faster to build and produce cheaper energy.

            • geissi@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure what the point is.
              German Electricity is dirtier than France’s therefor no other sources of electricity exist beyond coal and nuclear?
              That would be a weird conclusion seeing as both countries also use other power sources.

              • Azrael@fosstodon.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                @geissi
                except from countries lucky enought to get a lot of electric damn, there is no example of countries having a stable network mainly reliying on renewable energy production, because they are not stable. Doing so requires a lot of new powerlines, storage solutions, … and at the end may still be unreliable during winter / summer peaks. Its is much easier to have a mix with the fundamental ensured by a drivable power plant and there are two ““clean”” choices: water and nuclear.

                • geissi@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Its is much easier to have a mix

                  A mix of more than just coal and nuclear, right?
                  So other power sources do exits and we should use them?

          • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Germany, specifically, was one of the worst offenders in this category. They do renewables at maximum capacity (like everyone else) but there’s still a massive gap to fill, and with issues of strategic dependence around hydrocarbons, the obvious answer to fill in the missing capacity was coal. Most of the time you get a mix of coal and natural gas, whichever is easier, but in Germany’s case that mix was almost entirely on the side of coal.

            And without abundant hydro power, or an energy storage solution that could store a full night’s worth of energy even if the current deployment of renewables was able to generate that (which it’s pretty far from), there aren’t a lot more options. Germany’s strategy to shut off its nuclear plants out of fearmongering has been a heinous crime against the environment.

            When oil companies love your green party you know you fucked up.

            • geissi@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              there’s still a massive gap to fill

              in Germany’s case that mix was almost entirely on the side of coal

              I’m assuming the ‘gap’ refers to the reduced nuclear capacity.
              So you’re saying that Germany replaced the power previously generated by nuclear power almost entirely with coal power?

              Do you have ANY statistics to support that?

              The only actual increase in coal energy I know of was an unplanned short time rise due to the war in Ukraine and the loss of gas imports.

              Edit: Also the original argument was that coal and nuclear is a false dichotomy. Your own comment mentions a mix of coal and gas, mentions renewables, so clearly there are more than those two options, right?

              • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There was a link in this very same thread (right here) that compares France to Germany. It’s a very simple case study: a country that does use nuclear pollutes 10x less per kWh than a country that actively destroyed its nuclear capability. It doesn’t get any more simple than that.

                Unless your argument is that if Germany didn’t shut down nuclear it wouldn’t have deployed renewables, which I hope it isn’t because it would be a completely lunatic point to make, the situation is the same no matter how you twist the mental gymnastics. Germany’s grid is one of the dirtiest in Europe largely because of the lack of nuclear baseline, which, if it was kept, would make it one of the cleanest.

                If your argument is that the renewables deployed in Germany should be counted towards replacing nuclear, then you must also accept that Germany failed to significantly cut into its fossil plants with renewables, which other countries managed to do in the same timeframe, because its entire renewable capacity had to go towards filling a gap the shutdown of nuclear left. It’s the same difference either way, and it suffers from the same fallacy that you’re pretty clearly intentionally making at this point: that you are unwilling to consider nuclear in the context of its alternatives, and are only willing to talk about it either in a vacuum, or in an idealistic situation where renewable capacity and energy storage are high enough that shutting off nuclear will not lead to an increased demand for fossils.

                I’ve addressed that idealistic future in this very same comment section by the way: as soon as we reach a point where we can eliminate fossils and any renewables deployed cuts into nuclear’s share, as opposed to that of fossil plants, I’m against nuclear. But that’s not the reality of the situation yet. The decommissioning of nuclear plants in Germany was extremely premature, and harmed the environment, both with increased radiation and with gargantuan amounts of CO2 output.

                Renewables > Nuclear > Fossils. It’s literally that simple. As long as we have fossils, replacing them with nuclear would be beneficial, and any decrease to nuclear capacity is a negative. If you can offset something with renewables, it should be fossils, not nuclear.

                • geissi@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m saying that coal or nuclear is a false dichotomy, meaning there are other possible choices.
                  Comparing the carbon intensity of France to Germany does nothing to address this argument.

                  Your last comment then stated that Germany has replaced coal with nuclear.
                  Comparing the carbon intensity of France to Germany does not address this argument either.

                  If you want to show that Germany replaced nuclear with coal then you need to show the development of the energy mix in Germany and show where nuclear capacity decreases and coal increases.

                  Comparing Germany to France does not show the development in Germany.
                  And since both countries have a power mix with more than two energy sources, it certainly disproves that there are only two options.

                  Here is a map of carbon intensity of electricity generation:
                  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity

                  France has 85g/kWh, Iceland has 29g without nuclear.
                  Does every country have the same potential as Iceland? No.
                  Is nuclear the only alternative to coal? No.

        • Shikadi@wirebase.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is massive work being done to improve large scale energy storage (big batteries) so the renewables become less and less situational. Large scale energy storage is significantly less constrained than car batteries, because weight is a one time cost. Even gravity based batteries could become viable.

          Also, in response to the previous commenter, electricity generation is by far and large the main source of emissions accounting for more than half, with more than a quarter being agriculture. Transportation is 14%, and given the future transition to electric vehicles, one might argue that half of that can be tack’d on to electricity generation’s share. (Half because electric cars are more than twice as efficient at energy conversion than petrol cars. Toss in some power line losses and that’s a reasonable estimate)

          • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All of that is great, and I’m all for it. Can’t wait for the first grids with no fossils whatsoever, once energy storage improves enough that it can take all the balancing load. When we reach that, it will mark the start of the era where nuclear is actually being replaced by renewables rather than fossils.

            My point here is that switching off nuclear is premature for now. It’s a very clean source of energy once you look at the per kWh numbers and nuclear waste management solutions are actually extremely safe. (The videos where they test the containers by smashing actual trains into them are kinda fun – and those tests are done with liquid water, which is far more susceptible to leaking than solid ceramics.) Of course, if we reach a point where wind, solar, and hydro can fully replace fossils and start eating into nuclear’s share then that’s gonna be a very different conversation, and I’m fully with renewables in that situation, but we should always keep the alternatives in mind when we shut something off.

            That’s why we’re not just shutting down coal plants altogether, because there’s just nothing to replace them. Although an energy policy where you just flat out ban renewables fossils and tell the market that that’s the supply, now go figure it out would certainly be interesting. Very expensive and terrible for the economy, but interesting nonetheless. (Definitely the based kind of chaos if you ask me.)

            edit: okay, that was a weird word to accidentally replace, lol

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

              There are more problems with nuclear energy, though. The biggest being that we burden future generations for literally thousands of years with a growing amount of waste. I am not sure why this is always missing from the discussions of people who are pro nuclear power.

              It is making the same mistake again as we did before: creating a problem for future generations to solve. And in this case the problem is dire and, because of the immensely long timespan, we have no way to reliably plan ahead for so long.

              • sauerkraus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Spent fuel can be reprocessed in a modern reactor. Even if that wasn’t possible the storage is extremely safe.

              • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because the actual amount of waste that has to be stored for that long is minimal and can be shoved kilometers down into the earth’s crust with the same tech that’s used to extract oil. Nuclear waste storage is a great headline topic but there have been a lot of innovations in the past ~50 years.

                As for lower tiers of waste (as in, less dangerous, more numerous, mostly consisting of stuff like tools used to work on the power plants, which is what actually goes in the yellow barrels usually depicted with grey goo), several reactor projects existed that actively used that radioactive waste for even more energy generation, usually targeted extremely hard by anti-nuclear activists because it would take away their talking points. The science exists, the opposition is usually political and driven by fear tactics. But this is why we store those lower tiers of nuclear waste on the surface, not because it’s the best place to put it but because it’s where we can retrieve it once we find a use for it.

                And again, consider the alternative. Fossils also fuck up the environment and it’s not a good thing that they do it faster. The only way their effect would go away that fast is mass genocide of the ecoterrorist flavor, and exactly what future generations are we talking about in that case?

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

            Many Navy ships are nuclear powered. Aircraft carriers have multiple nuclear reactors, submarines are nuclear powered, and many cruisers are nuclear. There’s also a lot of nuclear powered icebreakers.

      • traveler01@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can technically power EVs with nuclear energy. But yeah airplanes and cruise ships are harder.

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

          I’m all for getting rid of the cruise ships. Floating land-whale-buffet reef-destroying pollution devices is what they are. I’ve seen firsthand the effect they have on Caribbean islands they make their destination, and it’s never good.

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

        It’s not a false dichotomy when it’s a zero sum game. Our consumption is essentially inelastic, because we are all complete assholes, so all we have control over is what kind of production we build.

        • geissi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          it’s a zero sum game. Our consumption is essentially inelastic, because we are all complete assholes

          Even if that’s the premise there are still other power sources -> more than two choices -> false dichtonomy.
          But then, blaming “people who disregarded nuclear energy” - instead of people who don’t want to change anything in the face of a historically unprecedented worldwide disaster - seems a bit short sighted.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      We thank people who disregarded nuclear energy.

      Do you really think governments actually gave a shit about some deluded hippies? Nah, they were just the scapegoats the politicians used to pretend they weren’t in bed with the fossil fuel lobbyists.

  • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Every person living in a democracy can make a difference with their VOTE. Only vote for people who have plans and intentions of bringing change. Vote at all levels, and vote whenever you get an opportunity. Ask what candidates in municipal elections think about the climate emergency. Organize. Talk to doubters. We can do this.

    • gthutbwdy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      105
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If voting worked, we would have solved this issue decades ago. You can vote for whomever you want, but at the end, no matter what they promise, they always end up doing nothing at all, because they are elected by using big oil donations.

      Only a self-organized revolution can stop this madness, people in some nations are already blocking oil tankers and oil rigs. We can’t win by only voting, you can vote for a day every few years, but we need to fight this everyday. Take turns blocking streets so no oil driven trucks and cars pass, only this will make an effect.

        • ericbomb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          65
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean nonviolent protests DO work.

          Non-disruptive DOES NOT work though.

          MLK Jr didn’t peacefully sit in a park. They ran boycotts, sit ins, shut down streets, trespassed into white only areas, and drove businesses insane.

          If MLK Jr was your enemy you were going to have a miserable time when he rolled into town.

          Ghandi had people illegally burn documents and basically smuggled salt against all regulations.

          • TassieTosser@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            35
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            MLK had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as looming threats. Gandhi is also the one who said “pacifism without violence is not pacifism, it is helplessness.” A violent counterpart to a non-violent movement helps by being the stick to the non-violent carrot.

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

              That’s fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense.

              Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn’t do anything and why it’s encouraged.

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

                  Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There’s a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it’s because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man.

          • ilir@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are aware that besides Gandhi there was a lot of violent protest?

            Only violent protest makes the demands of the nonviolent acceptable to the ruling class. Without a violent part of a movement, the demands of the nonviolent are always ignored. Which is perfectly logical, because why accept the demands of someone you can ignore without consequences.

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

              Thanks for those insights even if they’re not really relevant to what was being discussed

          • acargitz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            Violence is a sometimes (even often) unavoidable byproduct of revolution, not an essential characteristic. Don’t confuse the two.

          • Zoot@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            You know, now that a good portion of people are on Lemmy, it just might be the perfect place to start organizing, whatever you feel that may be…

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

              Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option.

              But I don’t think we have that much time

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

                  In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as “normal”

                  Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it’ll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years

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

            And how the heck do we know that it have any reasonable chance of working out well and that it won’t be brutally suppressed or co-opted by reactionaries? And how would anyone even organize such a thing? ~Strawberry

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

              We don’t have any idea if it will work out or if it’ll be snuffed out.

              However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world’s people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities.

              The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action.

              As for organizing one, that’s way too long of a conversation to occur here.

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

                So we have no idea if it’s even remotely a good idea or if it’s likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both. We need both. Voting matters. Grassroots organization matters. Now is absolutely not the time to give up on democracy. It is also absolutely not the time to give up on mass organizing at the grassroots. Both, we need both.

        • ilir@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Now is absolutely not the time to give up on democracy.

          No one wants to give up democracy, we just recognize that liberal bourgeois democracy only serves to create an illusion of democratic voice. The only interests taken into account in the so-called modern “democracies” are those of capital, and that is no democracy at all.> Now is absolutely not the time to give up on democracy.

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

          We need direct democracy. What we live in is no democracy at all, they choose for us and then we just pick the worst of two evils.

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

        How the heck do you organize that as quickly and at as large of a scale as is needed for it to have a good chance of working out? ~Strawberry

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

          I don’t mean to be a doomer but we can’t. We’re passed the point of no return. The best we can do is organize so that we can reduce the amount of death from here on out.

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

            I mean working out as in making sure it doesn’t get a significant degree worse than it already is? I know we’ve already passed the point where we can avoid any damage. ~Strawberry

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

              I think it would require some extreme changes to the oil, industry amongst other things. We’d also have to be vigilant that those changes don’t disproportionately affect the global south.

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

                  I don’t know everything we need to do, and/or by what means. I would like to think it can be all done peacefully but we have seen how oil executives will fight tooth and nail to keep their quarterly profit report line going up; so that may not be a viable way. We could all practice consuming less and reevaluating our lifestyles. Putting more thought into whether we really need to consume as much as we do is a good example.

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

          By starting early enough and being persistent. It will take time, but we had this issues for decades and we will have it for decades more. Best time to start a revolution is yesterday, second best is today.

    • spread@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly voting now is to little too late. The Overton window isn’t anywhere near the point of allowing actually meaningful change and the 4-5 year cycle of voting is too slow. If we really want to solve anything, the change should be systemic. Still, voting is important.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        1 year ago

        We need some harsh mandates. Look at what Work From Home did for wildlife and emmisions in a short amount of time.

        We need that style of change. Big, bold, and life altering.

            • Sparlock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So many logical jumps here.

              “WW3” ? wtf…

              “narrative” that wasn’t mentioned.

              The “whole economy” that also was not mentioned.

              Try responding to the comment as written, not the voices in your head and it might appear more coherent to others.

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

                  Your echo chamber is showing in how much you read into things. Wow.

                  Life Pro Tip for ya: Try engaging with the words on the screen as written not the voices in your head and your feed.

      • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course voting alone won’t do it. We need a lot more. Holding billionaires to account will go a long way as well.

    • zombuey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think its a statistical loss if we rely on denocracy. The stupid far outnumber the rational.

    • SlowNoPoPo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sadly no, show me a political party that the us, china or India could realistically vote for that would substantially reduce emissions in the next 10 years

    • nomadic@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolute rubbish. People believing that their vote will bring change ensures climate disaster. The system is rigged and if you agree to participate in the system you are part of the problem. Thinking voting can have any meaningful impact highlights that you are unaware of how serious the situation is.

      • Tsoi_Zhiv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just want to join your downvotes by backing you up and saying you are right. Belief in the system and that voting is the answer is downright absurd at this point.

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately, voting doesn’t help. Besides there being basically no parties with any real strong climate policies, when you vote a decent sounding one in, they just go back on their promises anyway.

      And even IF we vote in a party that truly brings about radical and positive climate change policies, that’s just our one country, a drop in the ocean. The rest of the planet would still drag us down with them, even in that wildly positive scenario.

      I don’t mean to be a doomsayer, I just don’t see a way out, I wish I did. Voting certainly doesn’t solve our problems, climate change or otherwise. The rich ruling class will do whatever they want, regardless.

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    1 year ago

    in other news my ultra conservative parents installed solar panels on their house, and for over a month now, they’ve been generating more electricity than they can use, feeding back into the system their surplus. when real world results are such, we can start using these incidents as examples of why it’s not only the morally correct thing to do (combat climate change and save our species), but also the economically savvy thing to do.

    who knows what will be the final straw that breaks their stubbornness.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shit my ultra conservative parents literally left Arizona because it just kept getting hotter every season. Yet they continue to deny climate change is manmade and a real threat to the global ecology.

      Gotta love the pentecostals “it’s all just the end times!” Oh yeah, like it was when Paul wrote his letters, and like it was in the 1840’s when the millerites did their “math,” and like in the other dozen predictions since then that have all not come to pass.

      I don’t know how many thousands of years can be the “last days” but something tells me it’s just whenever an individual who believes in it is currently living.

    • Kinglink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You mean they had a financial incentive to partake?

      Your example just shows how economics incentives are designed to work, but that money does come from somewhere.

      I’d love to get solar but it’s not economically viable to encur 20k expenses that will need over twenty years to pay off when that money can be used elsewhere

      If someone gave me a Tesla I’d love it but I really don’t have the cash to get a car right now and even if I did the price of teslas and most electrics are so high it’s just not an option.

      People think he solution here is to remove cheaper options but that won’t work it will just keep people holding on to beaters far longer.

      If the economics make sense to change people will change but trying to shake people or force people to make economically disadvantage choices will never work long term

      My wife got a used Prius for 13K or 17k a couple years ago, it’ll be more expensive now I believe, but the thing is most people don’t have 13k or 17k to spend on a car. If people can’t scrape together 500 dollars from their savings in an emergency, they aren’t going to be able to get a hybrid or electric car for a very long time, and all legislation that tries to push people in that direction benefits the rich, and penalizes the poor when they remove options the poor can afford.

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

        Just a heads up, most home solar installations are designed to pay for themselves in 7 to 9 years. But it does depend on net metering in your area, and whether you install a battery pack.

        • n33rg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Figured I’d ask here since this thread seems to be getting informative. The number of door to door sales people for solar that come by my area really make solar feel like a scam. How should one go about finding a proper deal on getting solar without having to work with sleazy sales practices?

          Why I say it feels scammy: the area I’m in has a lot of older middle class (not upper middle class or anything) residents. From talking to some solar reps, this is their target. There are much wealthier neighborhoods a town or so over but the salespeople I’ve spoken to say the business would rather sell financed installations to collect incentives and that it’s easy to convince people they’ll save money in the long run. But in this community, we’re generally fine financially as long as nothing big hits. When they gave me the numbers, it fell into the category of a big upfront payment due to down payments and high annual costs that would only slightly be offset by electricity savings. I don’t recall the term, but it was not something we could budget for. The paperwork is all showing the future savings and the savings on electricity, until you look into the details. There are two houses that I’ve seem go for it nearby.

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

            A lot of those door-to-door guys are indeed scams. Or if not outright scams, just incompetent.

            It’s hard to find good installers that aren’t completely booked for a year or more.

            Depending on your needs and skill level, a decent-sized solar setup isn’t hard to DIY. You don’t necessarily need to start with a huge system, you can set up a smaller system to run an AC system or some load like that. Then if you want scale up as you learn more.

            Also, solar doesn’t have to be photovoltaic, solar thermal is great for hot water.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they live in the Midwest you could even point to the drop in solar production from the smoke as an immediate negative economic effect

    • cyberpunk007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For me it was a 20 year ROI and I would have had to ask my neighbors to take trees down. I don’t think I’ll be here for that long. And when the average joe is getting poorer and poorer it’s harder to afford. This is the problem.

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

          That’s only one relatively minor factor among many. Anyone who points to it without also mentioning the much more significant impacts of things like global supply chain disruptions and the war in Ukraine is either ignorant, or is trying to spin a particular narrative while being intellectually dishonest about their priors.

    • DaveFuckinMorgan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t have to argue with your parents. It seems like the advancement of technology is naturally taking care of the issue.

    • Silviecat44@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      “When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!”

    • MrZigZag@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The future could be a Mad Max-esque hellscape so while the people of the future may not look back on us fondly, they will look back on us enviously.

  • AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Im just glad it’s shaping up to be so apocalyptic that there’ll be no safe haven for the owner class that caused it. Let them burn with the peasants they decimated for profit.

    • Im_old@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And that’s why the billionaires are investing in spaceships… Seriously though, they are really buying “doomsday” properties to ride it out.

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

        It seems pathetic to me that people are so obsessed with self-centered “survival” at any cost. I don’t want to live in a bunker or a ruined world, and I couldn’t possibly care less about “my lineage” or genetic material or whatever.

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

            well, that’s not precisely what I meant, but sure. I would much rather not see humanity reduced to apocalyptic conditions at all. But if that was to happen, I’d not want to live in a bunker or in space and I’d feel bad for people who did. I also mean that I’m not concerned with “I and my offspring must survive into the future” the way some people are. I don’t have any kids… that might change things.

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

        Love that they are spending billions on bunkers to “ride it out”, when the moment they need to use the bunker, there is nothing to ride out, we are not coming back to the surface in the next few lifetimes if ever.

        • reksas@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          those who go to those bunkers might have a chance to survive and essentially be what will be left of humans if it gets so bad surface becomes completely hostile for life. If its those fucking shits that are partly responsible for all this, they will make humanity into mockery of what its now. But its also likely they just made “luxury bunkers” that are nice to live in but that cant actually support people as long as its needed.

          • VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yup, I’m sure their grandchildren will get all the warm fuzzies growing up in a confined bunker with picture book after picture book of the blue skies, green landscapes, and animals that their grandparents helped destroy.

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

      The COVID pandemic makes me their plan is to turn New Zealand into a bunker nation and leave us all to die.

      • MrTulip@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like, just the billionaires on an island? Who will do all the labor required to maintain their lifestyle? Because they sure as he’ll aren’t. To paraphrase Pratchett, it takes a hundred people standing in the mud to keep one person with their head in the clouds.

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

          There’s an island full of laborers already in New Zealand. The COVID response showed that they were willing to protect people already living there, so their response to climate change will be the same.

      • seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that if they manage to fuck over the whole world, there is no amount of money and bunkers that can save them from the angry mob

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

          This exactly. One of the reasons I left NZ was a fear of earthquakes. My dozen Christchurch rellies all living in the least damaged house, with a bucket in the garage as their toilet, just confirmed for me that I’d made the right choice.

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

        Too bad the security they will hire to keep their bunkers safe will quickly figure out that the money they are being paid isn’t worth anything any more… they will probably point us over to the air vents when we show up with the cement trucks.

      • AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not the descendants that accepted and kept their family’s blood money without a second thought. The moment you, as an autonomous adult, choose to accept the power and wealth reaped through human misery, you accept the legacy of blood that came with it.

        Anyone can walk away from blood money, or use ALL that blood money solely to provide restitution to the populations exploitated to obtain it. It doesn’t happen though, because human beings as a rule are the fucking worst. Most people, the fuckees, fantasize about becoming the oligarch fuckers, instead of dreaming of ending their oppression and restructuring society to prohibit amoral levels of wealth/power accumulation. Most humans, given power/wealth, would use their own suffering as an excuse to propagate more suffering.

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

          Very true. I have an example in my family: my father-in-law owns a lot of land. That land, not so long ago, belonged to some native tribes that were all killed to have said land stolen. My wife said that, when her father dies and she inherits the land/money, she’s gonna donate most of it (maybe all, depending on our financial situation), because she doesn’t want the blood money.

          Every time I (proudly) tell this to someone, they look at me like I’m crazy.

          • AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The US, not proud of it at all though, and would leave if I had an in pretty much anywhere in Europe or Canada.

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

        Honestly one of the reasons that longevity treatments could actually turn out to be a good thing.

        All of a sudden a bunch of rich fucks who were sooo sure that climate change wouldn’t effect them but rather their great great grandkids have a good reason to pour a lot of money into the problem so they don’t die of heat or starvation at the young age of 150 when they could have lived 200? 300? Who knows, at a certain point you get a longevity tech run away effect.

  • Skanky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    What the heck? I thought this was supposed to be fixed by all of us using paper straws and driving hybrids?

  • pureness@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah I think it is fine haha it is just summer really hot out don’t worry about it /s

  • Chadsmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Whenever someone mentions the future a few decades from now as a time frame for doing things I usually just say ‘well in 2050 we’ll be killing each other for water and air conditioning so I don’t think it’s ( whatever they’re talking about ) going to matter so much’.

  • LapGoat@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just try to enjoy each year as the coldest year I’ll get for the rest of my life.