| ▲ | inigyou 2 hours ago |
| In the 90s it was something to deal with later. Now that it's something to deal with right now, of course they won't cover it. In a few decades they'll cover it again, but only to say how it's too late now. Another factor is that rich oil and gas people figured out they could just buy the media. |
|
| ▲ | FeloniousHam 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Another factor is that rich oil and gas people figured out they could just buy the media. Who is this "media"? Is this the same "media" that Trump and his dullards claim is so corrupt and contrary to The Truth? Are you influenced by this "media"? I don't read The Guardian or Jacobin, but I'm occasionally exposed to their headlines and they are certainly reporting on climate change. Are they part of the "media"? There is no monoculture "media" and to the extent there is, it is (in the US at least) overwhelmingly left-leaning. And ironically, when there were fewer outlets for information, those outlets (because they served such a large and diverse audience) hewed to a common sense/conventional wisdom understanding of the facts. No is one controlling media. Maybe the CCP through TikTok steering. |
|
| ▲ | unsupp0rted an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why would it be too late? |
| |
| ▲ | chicken-stew an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Thermal systems are slow. On the planetary scale of pump and dump heat the lag is something like 30 years. So the change you’re experiencing today is the effect of what was exhausted in the 90s. What we’re getting in 2050 is already locked in. | | |
| ▲ | ffsm8 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't disagree but I feel like this comment chain kinda implies taking action today would actually meaningfully change the trajectory too... It really doesn't.
Climate change is a global problem. It would need a global solution, and everyone should know that that's beyond unlikely to appear... So the only thing you can do is reduce local pollution - which is meaningful in it's way (better quality of life), but has no long term impact on the climate. | | |
| |
| ▲ | galangalalgol an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Some reports indicate it is already to late for emission reduction, or even elimination, to halt the feedback effects that continue the trend. But it won't be too late for active climate engineering until the effects of the climate change prevent our ability to do that engineering. | |
| ▲ | K0balt 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because photosynthesis grinds to a halt at about 40c. This is what people are missing. Climate change isn’t the world hiding in their apartments with the AC blasting, its cities burning a week after everything seemed fine. Civilisation takes millennia of stable, plentiful resources to create, and a week without food for 30 percent of the population to utterly destroy. I’d love to be wrong, if you disagree please say why. | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It'll already be summer temperatures in winter and most life will have died off |
|
|
| ▲ | actionfromafar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And government. |
|
| ▲ | Demiurge 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The bigger factor is probably the global pandemic, economic degradation, looming nuclear winter, genocide, WW3, aliens, and singularity. Not to mention orange clowns. We have surpassed the Britney Spears controversy era. Unless the polar bears are going to invade DC and attack ICE, we might not hear much about the climate change until these other problems go away. |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And let’s also not forget, we all want the climate crises fixed, but nobody is willing to personally make any changes to their lifestyle! All parties are incentivized against fixing this problem. | | |
| ▲ | Ekaros an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That is fundamentally the problem with whole thing. Vast majority of population on Earth is not ready for personal sacrifices needed. And if some government will get to around it, I am pretty sure they will be replaced and most things are rolled back. My guess is that we somehow end up geoengineering it with even more debt... | | |
| ▲ | nradov an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The solution will have to come from growth and technical innovations, not personal sacrifice. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay an hour ago | parent [-] | | I agree, because (and I'm being a bit flippant) I sure as hell am not giving up my gas stove while billionaires fly around in private jets and MAGA guys are coal-rolling in their F-250s... It seems to me that carbon capture technology plus renewables and nuclear + dream energy (fission) will be the future but we're probably not going to go off of fossil fuels much, which will necessitate in part the need to suck this stuff out of the atmosphere. |
| |
| ▲ | glitchc an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would they be when they see the hypocrisy of the chattering classes? How many celebrities or billionaires have curtailed their own lifestyles while pitching for climate change? Has the number of luxury jets and superyatches gone up or down over time? The average person may seem stupid but they are paying attention to the actions, and it all sounds like "I got mine, screw yours" to them. | | |
| ▲ | everdrive an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Hypocrisy is really not as useful as people think. Imagine if some man, who beat his wife, made a career of talking about the important and harrowing issues of domestic abuse. People would rightly scratch their heads at such an over-the-top hypocrite. But surely, the man would be correct: domestic abuse is an important issue. And imagine a response from the peanut gallery? "I'm not going to stop beating my _own_ wife until that hypocrite gets his comeuppance!" | |
| ▲ | netsharc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Standard tragedy of the commons behavior... And people in developing countries complain that "why should beef or jet vacations be taxed more, those Westerners got to enjoy it, and now when we want to enjoy it, it's suddenly bad?". And we rich Westerners think it's sacrifice to have to drive an EV or pay more for beef... | |
| ▲ | rwmj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What have luxury jets and superyachts got to do with the chattering classes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes | | | |
| ▲ | ifwinterco an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | tim-star an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | at the end of the day 'personal changes' as a fix for climate change are just another lie big corporations fed us to make it feel like the onus was on a personal level. the amount of co2 that industries pollute and that various regulation would be able to change is multiple orders of magnitude compared to regular personal responsibility. | | |
| ▲ | Demiurge an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | This sounds right. An individual person can’t change a complex system that gives him everything they have, from plastic forks to gas cars. The society can get together and agree on things, but the society clearly just isn’t concerned enough. There is no solution or workaround to this, unless certain scientific discoveries get made that change the warming trends by sheer coincidence. They would have to coincide with popular demand, like more attractive electric cars, and new materials, or fusion energy that’s cheap. Or, perhaps, AGI decide it for us. | |
| ▲ | pingou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who do these corporations pollute for? Isn't it for individuals? | | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Who benefits from a corporation? Is it the customers, the workers or the owners? | | | |
| ▲ | sdellis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | For the accumulation of wealth and power. This is the natural consequence of unregulated capitalist incentives. Do you think the corporations care about the individuals? | | |
| ▲ | 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pingou 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I suppose you can see it that way, but ultimately the power is mostly in the hands of individuals, either by voting in elections or voting with their wallets. However, this does not mean corporations aren't actively trying to influence and manipulate them, or that they don't exert pressure on politicians. Aren't Americans responsible as a whole for electing Donald Trump, for example? |
|
| |
| ▲ | hnaccount19293 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Changes to those corporations will obviously have downstream effects that voters will largely not tolerate. | |
| ▲ | cxr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "The amount[...] that industries pollute" is just "personal changes" with more steps. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Personal changes against the grain or personal changes following the grain. Imagine I want to be responsible by drinking soy milk but it's hidden in a corner of the supermarket. Now imagine every supermarket prominently displays soy milk and cow milk is hidden in the corner. Seems easier to make the change, right? Many people will change automatically because they don't really care and just do what's easiest. |
| |
| ▲ | Robotbeat an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, in the real world, people will just vote out politicians who raise their gas prices. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | qsera an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >Another factor is that rich oil and gas people figured out they could just buy the media. Yea, they figured it just now, in the 2010s and 20s. During the 90's the thought just didn't occur to them...Makes complete sense. Nothing discredits an idea so much like the proponents of it being total idiots. |
