this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
755 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2674 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the Global South," one expert said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But the truth is, most people don’t want to lose their comfortable lifestyle.

The real truth is, the notion that a lower-carbon lifestyle is somehow inferior to our current car-dependent bullshit is 100000% fallacious bullshit brainwashed into us by the automobile industry. Walkability is just better in every way (environmentally, economically, sociologically) and people whose lifestyle doesn't depend on cars are, statistically, happier and healthier than people who do.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Now try to explain that people have to give up their job that's in the neighboring city, or having to get up 1-2 hours earlier due to bad train or bus connections, or that they now cannot get groceries anymore because they live in suburbia and have to drive an hour out to some massive parking lot desert to shop in their IKEA sized grocery halls. And that's just relating to the personal transport sector.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why do you persist in assuming that all those shitty circumstances would continue to exist when they are exactly the things I'm saying we should be fixing? The whole idea is to have lots of nearby employers, good train and bus connections, grocery stores within walking distance (and with little to no parking), etc.

The #1 priority for reducing climate change (and fixing almost all our problems, from housing affordability to obesity) is zoning reform.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Because no one is willing to change those things. No politician who would be willing to go this far would be voted in because of the intermediate issues this would cause for people. And doing a super slow transition would be too late at this point, especially since we're way past schedule already in regards to our emission models. It even starts with the simple fact that people are simply not willing to get rid of their cars, even if public transport was good and completely free. So you'd be left with enforcing people not to drive, which is obviously also not going to happen for the same reasons.

The #1 priority for reducing climate change (and fixing almost all our problems, from housing affordability to obesity) is zoning reform.

Only in countries like the US, who have a disproportional large portion of transport emissions. But a lot of our emissions in the West simply come from the production of our goods that we buy and give us our comfy lives.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It even starts with the simple fact that people are simply not willing to get rid of their cars, even if public transport was good and completely free. So you’d be left with enforcing people not to drive, which is obviously also not going to happen for the same reasons.

Induced demand can work in reverse. Stop expanding roads. Redesignate some lanes to public transport only. Why take the car and sit in a queue for 2 hours when a bus can get you to work in 30 minutes without any queues?

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's a decades long process. We need proper action done within this decade.

Why take the car and sit in a queue for 2 hours when a bus can get you to work in 30 minutes without any queues?

You'd be surprised how many people would take that over a ride with other people.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s a decades long process. We need proper action done within this decade.

We don't know that. If it turns out that the actual ECS value is higher than predicted we're already fucked because whatever faction we might take today should've already been taken decades ago. If a global humanitarian crisis is mere decades away, no changes we'll feasibly make today or in the near future will stave it off.

You’d be surprised how many people would take that over a ride with other people.

An alternative is also that those who can, do their job remotely. Covid proved the feasibility of that. You couldn't pay me enough to start commuting or doing my own grocery runs again. I only go outside for enjoyment and none of it involves vehicles. Unless said vehicle is a bicycle, because my dog really enjoys cycling.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We don't know that.

We do, because the opposite effect took that long. It's likely even worse for the reasons mentioned.

we're already fucked because whatever faction we might take today should've already been taken decades ago.

That's true either way with where we're at. That's why we call for drastic actions to be taken, especially since governments can't even agree to implement what's asked for by scientific advisors, who are already very conservative in their predictions in order to not push those politicians too extremely.

If a global humanitarian crisis is mere decades away, no changes we'll feasibly make today or in the near future will stave it off.

That's not correct, because it can always get even worse. The more and sooner we get rid of our emissions, the better are our chances. That's also why, on a fixed time scale, it is important to do the bulk of the work as early as possible, instead of doing it towards the end. The longer those greenhouse gasses are in the air, the more damage it will cause for us in the long run. But right now literally all of our measurements taken are still causing us to shoot far beyond our set targets (which turns out, were already too conservatively set too).

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s true either way with where we’re at. That’s why we call for drastic actions to be taken

So what exactly is the end goal for these drastic actions?

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 6 months ago

To purge our emissions...