- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/3153498
The study is this one
You must log in or register to comment.
People don’t usually care to read the same thing over and over again for decades like that
Well they won’t have to read about it for too much longer, they’ll be dying of heat, starvation, and skin cancer
Until then
Because it’s not new(s). badumtiss.jpg
It’s in the news every day. What are you on about?
The same news that is obsessed with Donald Trump 24/7?
I just don’t understand why people aren’t taking climate change seriously?/s
I dunno. But I have vowed to kill everyone I know who denied climate change as being a thing. Looking forward to that.
Not good for profits, so it’s swept under the rug while we deal with the bloated cheeto craziness as a diversion for something else even shittier happening.
Maybe so that people don’t just die of existential despair?
It is very depressing to see our planet go to hell.
because we know
Because news is sales, and this doesn’t sell. In fact, it will likely hurt sales. And almost everyone can’t do anything meaninful about it on an individual, immediate level. So it’s hard to think about and hard to act on.
Bad for business, hard to digest = out of scope for corporate or government media.
Well, there is a really simple, meaningful thing we could do:
We could all go vegan.
If we stop paying for these products we’d solve 25% of the climate catastrophe tomorrow. But you don’t want to. The rich, smart, educated people in the west won’t even give up cheese to save their childrem from collaps.We could all go vegan.
do you have a plan to make that happen?
Just do it, commie! Be the change you want to see in the world. :)
me choosing to do it doesn’t change what the other 8 billion people do. do you have a plan besides telling people on the internet “just do it”?
No no, no plan, they suggested a hypothetical situation which, if it magically became true, would have an impact. As a result, they are absolved of any further effort, justification, or planning. This is the sum total of their contribution to solving global climate change. Think of them as an “ideas person,” or a “visionary leader” who “manages by walking around.”
After receiving this totally sufficient direction from an obviously exceptional thinker, it is entirely up to you to figure out how to make it work. If you don’t, then you are not being a team player. Further criticism, or even just asking clarifying questions, is evidence YOU are the problem and are not taking constructive, solution-focused steps, and your bad attitude will be noted in your next performance review cycle along with being assigned full responsibility for letting the climate go to shit.
You sound so cynical. I didn’t suggest to i.e. stop driving cars by tomorrow, because that would (as you stated) not be possible in the real word. Stop eating animal products is very different, because you choose to do so every single day and you CAN stop it tomorrow. It’s a super simple action we could take. But most people don’t do it because most people don’t do it.
I obviously already broke that habit and I invite you give it a try.
Where are the other bones ? The skeleton?
Define uninhabitable. That’s not what I’ve heard from reputable sources on the topic.
Be cause there is still enough plausibility of denial, for now…
We can’t cost the shareholders.
The problem is we know but we are still making it worse! Capitalism has proven it can’t fix this situation only speed it up!
As usual the mainstream journalists don’t understand what the paper is about and produce hysterical headlines.
If you read the paper it does in no way say the earth is going to be uninhabitable. It does say that they have modelled which bits of the earth will become less habitable and they are areas of high population density, and also that the risk is reduced sognificant of climate change is limited to 2 degrees. That’s starkly different from the headline.
That is also without any critical appraisal of the paper. My first thoughts are how accurate is transfering static lab based measures of habitability to dynamic open environments?
This research is mildly interesting but like most research frankly it is of limited scope and utility, and unfortunately a great deal of research is actually unreproducible dross.
On top of that a lot of journalism is unthinking dross. This makes a good headline to feed the beast that is the internet but it does not reflect the reality of the climate crisis.
I feel like we’re reminded every day on here, it gets tiring to a point we don’t pay attention anymore.
