this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
351 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3463 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Medialens.org

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 61 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm surprised they didn't mention a key tipping point I've been following: melting permafrost.

It's dangerous because once all the permafrost in Alaska, Canada, and Russia starts melting, the gasses it releases are a self fulfilling prophecy. The warming caused by permafrost melt is enough to keep melting permafrost.

Good report on the dangers here:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1110722

Current estimates are that an increase of just 1.5°C in global temperatures over average would be enough to hit this tipping point and we're already at +0.8.

https://worldbusiness.org/permafrost-the-climates-tipping-time-bomb/

Continuing to increase at a rate of 0.08°C per decade means we'll hit this in approximately 80 or 90 years? Except that, since 1980, we've been warming at a rate of +0.18°C per decade, so we should hit the tipping point by 2062, tops.

Eh, what do I care, I'll be 93 years old, assuming I'm not already dead by then. :)

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

[–] Polydextrous@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I mean…this is the same thing they’ve been saying for years. That’s the “point of no return,” because the warming is exponential. Decades, they’ve been saying this.

But, here comes the new fucking DIRECTOR OF THE U.N.’S CLIMATE EXPERTS saying, “1.5c warming is not the end of the world.”

He said that shit, like, last week. We really do need to put the workforce into building guillotines. The world needs some guillotin’ing.

He added: “Nevertheless, we should not despair and fall into a state of shock when the world exceeds 1.5 degrees.

“Every action we take to mitigate climate change helps. Climate protection is always cheaper and protects people from the dramatic consequences of global warming. This is all the more true if we have exceeded the Paris climate target.

“The world won’t end if it gets more than 1.5 degrees warmer. However, it will be a more dangerous world. Countries will struggle with many problems, there will be social tensions.

“And yet this is not an existential threat to humanity. Even with 1.5 degrees of warming, we will not die out.”

The context for this is that he thinks the “doom” coming from climate alarmists will paralyze people.

[–] shastaxc@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Not an existential threat to humanity" is a pretty low bar. I'd prefer no increase at all to mortality rates.

[–] Polydextrous@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But even the lowest bar he could set isn’t true. We need the air, the water, the plants, the animals, the not-forest fires, the not-monumental hurricanes and tornadoes, the lack of drought and the lack of torrential flooding…all of this is already ramping up, literal centuries before they predicted. THAT is how much we seem to have misjudged how desperate this situation is.

Like, ten years ago, he story was, “if we don’t stop, our children’s children will start to see some extreme weather events.” And then it was, “when this generation grows up, we will have a much harder time.” And now it’s, “holy shit, it’s already happening.”

And this fuckin turd comes out with some bullshit platitudes. Gross.

[–] thedrivingcrooner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Did he watch the movie Don't Look Up and go with the script word for word?

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, if you want to pee your pants, watch the Arctic Sinkhole episode of Nova that's available on the PBS Nova YouTube right now. Terrifying examination of the current state of permafrost.

[–] salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is this the one? Thank you for the recommendation!

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 7 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=HvKpnaXYUPU

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yep! They rotate full episodes of Nova in and out so I'm happy it's still up.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Thanks for sharing the knowledge

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No Republican I've talked to will admit this.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They generally don’t know. It’s difficult to pierce that bubble

It's not that they don't know. It's that they choose to believe oil barons over scientists.

These people believe whoever has the most money is the smartest, or at least they act like that is what they believe.

[–] happilybitchycowboy@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Good night. I started talking about this in like 2002 after facing the terrible heat in the middle east during my time in service. I came back and moved to New York and it was just like Chicago, you could see the haze of pollution above the city from miles away. I moved back down south and in bigger cities there, you can see it too. People didn't want to hear it, some still don't. I've had a personal moto for many years, "One person, one piston." Everywhere I look, cars, trucks, and SUVs have gotten more ginormous. Why the hell does one man need to drive a v8 2500 to an office job? Why the hell does one girl without a family need to drive an Escalade to get coffee and donuts? We, the people, are going to have to be the ones to make the changes. Electric cars are really no better as so much fuel is used mining minerals for the batteries, and so many of the power grids run off coal fired power plants. You might not have a tailpipe, but it's all coming from somewhere. I wish we could go back to the days a man had a good horse, but it seems too far gone now.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If everybody had a horse it wouldn't be much different, though. There are way more people on earth now than when horses were still the main mode of transportation. Horses would cause similar problems as our other livestock for climate change.

People powered vehicles (bicycles, skateboards, etc.) are the only thing that we have that are truly zero impact forms of transportation. I guess we could count solar and wind powered vehicles, but those don't really get the job done for our transportation needs.

We need to focus on public transportation, but so many people would refuse to ever vote for that stuff.

[–] havokdj@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Well, I wouldn't say TRULY zero impact. There are some things that would still contribute such as the need for more calories and also the work we would exert making pollution from ourselves, but it is still 10,000x more beneficial than what we have with cars or horses.

Honestly, horses may even be worse because you don't really turn them off like cars. Depending on how often you drive, horses may wind up causing even more pollution than if you just drove.

Also, horses are really, REALLY expensive, not just in initial cost either, and their legs are like glass.

Not defending cars at all BTW, just supporting what you said on horses.

The 'one person, one piston', rule is amazing.

The car industry, and regulations around cars need to rewritten. Small 1 cylinder cars need to be sold legally.

Many families I know would be happy using a golf cart for 90% of their needs. Leaving the big car in the garage for the 1 time a month they drive somewhere far, or in very bad weather.

[–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

In horse times the streets of cities were littered with dead horses and piles of shit everywhere. You can read about it in old newspapers. They were heading into a crisis right before cars because of it.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’m never getting a flying car. /s

[–] happilybitchycowboy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good gracious, I saw this flying bathtub on Reddit years ago lol

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGDH8GG8A0

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 4 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=XrGDH8GG8A0

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] stephan262@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well fuck... I guess one way or another our lifestyles will have to change. Either by severe action to mitigate climate change, or by the impending climate catastrophes things are going to be unpleasant.

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're too stubborn. We're gonna throw shit into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight.

[–] PaulDevonUK@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

~~We're~~ Corporations are too stubborn. ~~We're~~ They are gonna throw shit into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight.

FTFY

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean I think it's cool as shit if it works. It'd be pretty lit if we managed to fuck up so badly and avoid murdering a bunch of poors to fix it.

[–] Polydextrous@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Just wait: they’ll declare it an emergency and then authorize space slaves, working ‘round the clock to build it. Yes, they’ll be the poors, and their bodies will probably be deemed “too dangerous to remove” from the dome, so we’ll basically end up shielding the earth with the bodies of those poor people.

Mark my words. I honestly don’t believe this is at all far from being possible, if such technology ended up existing.

And that’s when the farm workers will suddenly be paid well and protected somewhat, because it’ll turn into a bunch of private university educated white kids taking “gap years.”

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

"We engineered the space suits our workers will use out of a UV-reflective material, so we don't even need to recovery the bodies!"

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's too expensive and it works really be cheaper just to automate it

[–] Chreutz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been saying for two years now that you cannot convince me that there isn't a ready made contingency plan somewhere in the White House that involves using modified nuclear weapons to facilitate a mini nuclear winter, to counteract greenhouse gas emissions.

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm saving my bottlecaps.

Really we just need a relatively cheap (and relatively non-toxic) chemical that's more reflective than our atmosphere.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

yeah either by sever action years ago or by things being unpleasant. With sever action now making things less unpleasant than they otherwise could be.

[–] ninbreaker@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People can’t keep blaming every case of wildfires on “arsonists” forever

[–] taco_ballerina@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

You'd think so. On another completely unrelated note, isn't it unusual that every unarmed minority who gets killed by the police in an egregious enough way to garner public outcry totally deserved it for committing various offences that bear no relation to the killing?

[–] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I mean most of them are, but does it matter? Heat waves and drought create conditions that make the fires as critical as they have been.

[–] Domille@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

is it possible to somehow summon the tldr bot here? anyone know?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Media isn’t reporting on climate accurately, and science aren’t speaking up enough because of ridicule.

[–] Domille@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks! I actually read the article itself, just thought it would be helpful to have a tldr

[–] subignition@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The article is fewer than 2,200 words and is definitely worth the 10 minutes of your time to read in full.

[–] Domille@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

oh I read the whole thing, I just thought it would be helpful to have a tldr