this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025

117 points (100.0% liked)

doomer

901 readers

7 users here now

What is Doomer? :(

It is a nebulous thing that may include but is not limited to Climate Change posts or Collapse posts.

Include sources when applicable for doomer posts, consider checking out !bloomer@www.hexbear.net once in awhile.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Infamousblt@hexbear.net

MiraculousMM@hexbear.net

117

"We now expect a 3°C world" Morgan Stanley analysts write (www.scientificamerican.com)

submitted 2 days ago by BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net to c/doomer@hexbear.net

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

GOOD NEWS THOUGH EVERYONE!

A 3 degree warming scenario, the analysts determined, could more than double the growth rate of the $235 billion cooling market every year, from 3 percent to 7 percent until 2030.

stonks-up ON A/C

"The world is not on track to limit temperature rise below 2°C — and limiting warming [to] 1.5°C is almost certainly unachievable," the Institute of International Finance writes

The banking industry can support the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy but capital will only move "at scale when the economics make sense," Mary Kate Binecki, a spokesperson for the Institute of International Finance, said in an email.

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

"Well you see of course the big banks will say that, because they are WOKE and COMMUNIST and controlled by CHYNA frothingfash "

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 58 points 2 days ago (4 children)

How the fuck can liberals keep stanning capitalism when it's literally boiling the planet

[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 42 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The vast majority are climate deniers. Not in the "its not happening" sense, in the sense that it won't be that bad and can be adapted to. People fail to recognize how bad climate change is.

I have no idea why libs think capitalism can be reformed though.

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

Adapt, cause fuck wildlife and the less fortunate or less privileged. I hate these people.

[–] Frogmanfromlake@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

Explains why so many of them keep moving to the most vulnerable states for climate change.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"No matter how bad capitalism is, every other thing we could do is worse" The Mantra of the Liberal

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Probably something like “thank god it’s not Socialism/communism”….whilst not understand either.

[–] Self_Sealing_Stem_Bolt@hexbear.net 26 points 2 days ago

Because they've been conditioned from birth to be antisocial. Its a death cult. Cooking the planet is a good thing to a death cult.

[–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 12 points 2 days ago

learning about the necessity of degrowth is a platos cave situation, people will fight extremely hard against internalising it even if they know its true deep down

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 54 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The banking industry can support the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy but capital will only move "at scale when the economics make sense," Mary Kate Binecki, a spokesperson for the Institute of International Finance, said in an email.

The economics will never make sense without China pushing the boundaries of technology and asspulling some new energy tech that saves us.

Literally everything is on China now. They are the only thing that can possibly save the world from this path we're on.

[–] Kuori@hexbear.net 41 points 2 days ago (1 children)

honestly i think this is still too optimistic. barring the invention of magic we're just fucked

[–] miz@hexbear.net 32 points 2 days ago (2 children)

fusion at scale would be pretty magical

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

fusion at scale would be pretty magical

It would, but we're at the irreversible stage anyway. If we were to invent it soon, it still won't change that fact. As a species we should've invented it 50 years ago if we were to avoid this catastrophe.

[–] Hatandwatch@hexbear.net 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The real magic would be America accepting dirty Chinese fusion over clean patriotic coal.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 14 points 2 days ago

The entire NATO bloc is more likely to run their grids off of imported American coal than to use fusion.

[–] Mardoniush@hexbear.net 14 points 2 days ago

China has already made great strides, they just made more solar panels in 2 months than Australia has in its entire history. They manufacture 80% of output. Also they're planning to launch space solar power soon.

It's not enough but it's a hell of a lot more than any other country, yet they keep getting flack for constructing transitional coal and gas plants to replace ones built in the Great leap forward because of course its the Chinese population that should suffer for the environment.

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The bad guys won the cold war.

In a sane world, oil executives would have been tried at the Hague and then sent to life in prison decades ago and their ill-gotten wealth would have been liquidated to work on solutions.

Call me crazy, but I don’t want those disgusting pigs to be the sole judges on if we all live or die.

[–] Xenomorph@hexbear.net 40 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you're not against capitalism by this point then you're giving some tacit support to climate change. It boggles my mind how anyone poor can still be invested in this system when it's fully shown it's face and you're not going to win the lottery to be lifted out of poverty before the shit hits the fan.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 27 points 2 days ago

[–] WizardOfLoneliness@hexbear.net 37 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The banking industry can support the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy but capital will only move "at scale when the economics make sense," Mary Kate Binecki, a spokesperson for the Institute of International Finance, said in an email.

how the fuck does the long term math of "the planet will be irreparably fucked forever otherwise" not make "economic sense" except to a moron incapable of understanding opportunity costs

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 15 points 1 day ago

the economics make sense

Fuck the economy. How about climate change gets fixed and any death cultist running an oil company, the military industrial complex, and every other money-grubbing pig has to eat the losses.

I hope the economy gets destroyed, because this “good economy” threw me to the wayside to rot.

[–] Alisu@hexbear.net 16 points 2 days ago

But what about the profit of the oil industry?

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago

Because they believe they'll be dead by then and in the meantime there's money to be made. I dunno, I'm working on honours by research in conservation biology but I just ... Wonder why the fuck I bother some days. Three degrees is a fucking apocalyptic scenario.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 39 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The banking industry can support the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy but capital will only move "at scale when the economics make sense," Mary Kate Binecki, a spokesperson for the Institute of International Finance, said in an email.

"We expect a 3 degree world because we're helping to get it there"

[–] MemesAreTheory@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

"Look, we hear you and we see you. Yes, there will be mass death and a refugee crisis like never before seen, but that's where the point of diminishing marginal returns lie! Those excesses humans simply aren't important enough to the bottom line for us to transition any faster. In the grand scheme of things, it's a small price to pay so that I can afford a second luxury bunker in New Zealand. You'd understand too if you had big important problems like rich people. Now go wait patiently for your death, stupid poor."

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

Just a bunch of modern Ebeneezer Scrooges waiting for the surplus population to decrease.

[–] MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net 32 points 2 days ago

Why do you think the USA wants Greenland and maybe Canada? Global warming is coming, and it's not avoidable or reversible. Best to plan strategically for the future.

[–] culpritus@hexbear.net 41 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Science News telling us about the Banks telling us about climate forecasts.

illegal-to-say ecoterrorism

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 30 points 2 days ago

The banking industry can support the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy

jokerfication

but capital will only move "at scale when the economics make sense,"

jokerfied

[–] AntifaSuperWombat@hexbear.net 26 points 2 days ago

3°C so far. so-far

[–] HelluvaBottomCarter@hexbear.net 25 points 2 days ago

"It'll be awful for most but really good for some"

[–] laziestflagellant@hexbear.net 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah no shit we're headed for 3 degree warming. What I want to know is how fast they think we'll get there

hypersus

[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They (the banks) think by the end of the century. Personally I think that's optimistic. 2c within a decade though.

[–] KuroXppi@hexbear.net 24 points 2 days ago

I'm so glad that scientists have predicted that heating is linear and there aren't any irreversible tipping points after which feedback loops intensify and system collapse becomes inevitable clueless

[–] Frogmanfromlake@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I personally think around 4.5 degrees but this century will end on 3 degrees with the next century taking on the remaining 1.5 degrees.

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

But where do you think it will stop?

[–] CeliacMcCarthy@hexbear.net 20 points 2 days ago

invest in jellyfish

[–] Uranus_Hz@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Not to side track into the political, but that’s why Trump is bloviating about Greenland - the future potential of shipping via the “northern route” when the arctic ice melts in a few decades.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 18 points 1 day ago

Not to side track into the political

I don't think politics are a "side track" when talking global warning. They're the whole reason it's happening and the only way to find a solution.

[+] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not a man

You're free to repost stuff from this comm over there though, if you want to.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used the term "man" not to call you specifically a man, but as a turn of phrase as would be used in normal speech irl.

As in, "maaaaaaaaaan when can I get a day off" or "man, I can stand this wait time!".

I was not making any claim towards your gender, nor casting any judgement. I think all genders are equally valid.

I'd appreciate if you would undelete my command to serve as a learning opportunity, unless hexbear as an instance doesn't value that.

[–] Cadende@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The OP didn't delete your post and has no power to undelete it, it was the mods. They're a bit overzealous sometimes, but for good reason, there are a lot of shitlords out there who love to inch a toe over the line.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks for the context. We'll see if the comment gets reinstated. It's probably a good policy since I'm guessing moderation tools on Lemmy aren't the best, and you have to start trimming away bigoted comments, perceived or real, at some point.

[–] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We've also, on Hexbear, had the conversation already about whether the colloquial use of "man" or "dude" is really gender-neutral and therefore acceptable. It isn't. If you're going to comment here (please do, feel free), do not use "man" or "dude" in comments unless you know the person you're talking to is actually a man. It's an easy change in the way you write comments, and it makes the whole experience of browsing and interacting better for all the non-men on the internet.

In real life, I use "man" and "dude" and "you guys" when talking to women all the damn time, but only when I'm specifically talking to women I know are ok with it (because I've asked them). It's an easy courtesy to not use gendered language when talking to people who may not want to have such language applied to them.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Thanks for the context! I should disclose that I didn't read the rules of the sub before engaging, but I should have. I'll keep this in mind for the next hexbear post I comment on, if hexbear will have me