On the topic of thousands needlessly dead, look at the UN's suggestions:

Useless yapping about opening windows at night, protecting the vulnerable, limiting global warming to 1.5C, and not drinking caffeine.

Is any of this "Call to Action" actually actionable?

Obviously not; and it is pathetic.

What should be actioned:

- remove regulatory hurdles to AC installation

- mandate such installation in residences that otherwise reach unbearable temperatures

- make funds available to subsidize the installation or train more workers for AC installation

That would 'protect the vulnerable'.

Talking about opening windows at night or climate change does nothing, and is performative only.

▲

ragequittah an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The UN suggestions [1] are pretty unambiguous.

"Despite these drawbacks, AC remains crucial to protect populations at increased risk from high temperatures, as well as for refrigerating essential medicines and other health-protecting technologies. In the absence of other options, AC – or another equally effective active cooling technology – should be available to those who need it most as if it were a medical necessity."

[1] https://mb.cision.com/Public/15083/4360202/b9c9bce2cff90dee....

▲

tonyedgecombe 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Big AC strikes again.

▲

justin66 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think we can all agree that if we just stop talking about climate change, maybe it will go away.

	▲	user43928 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do you propose climate action with effects that we will see in decades, if not centuries, is going to save the vulnerable who are currently dying by the thousands? I do not think that you believe so. How is it acceptable that the actionable solution is entirely ignored in favor of performative speech?

▲

atoav 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes and: doing things that fight the cause of the warming?

▲

user43928 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but this should be an afterthought here.

You cannot talk about thousands dying today, neglect to mention the actionable solution, and talk only about climate action which will help on a time frame of decades to centuries.

▲

atoav 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I grew up in the 90s and there was a book in climate in my shelf that talked about thousands dying today, nearly three decades back. At some point we should stop pretending this is a new and surprising danger and start treating it as the risk we willingly steered ourselves into.

If you live next to a road and every other month a car crashed through your living room wall you'd probably fix the root cause after the first time it happened. If you are clever you fixed it even before it occurs. What you would not do is only deal with the damage caused month for month and pretend there is no need to address the root cause.

The reason why many pretend our only option is handing out band aids while the blade keeps spinning, is because it is hard to imagine anything else, if your salary depends on you not addressing the problem.

It feels more and more like watching a bus driver playing chicken against a solid, immovable concrete wall. It is obvious who wins, the only question is into which directions the scrap explodes most, while the driver eyes for the ejector seat. And all the kids pretend driving into the wall is the only reasonable option.

It is possible for humanity to create unsurvivable conditions in our earths atmosphere. Should we do that if there is enough profit in it? If not, where would you draw the line and how would you set/enforce the limits?

▲

user43928 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Let me also invoke an analogy:

After a record year of traffic casualties, I suggest to remove regulation that commonly prevents installing seat belts in your car, mandate the presence of seat belts, and subsidize retrofitting older cars.

Instead, politicians talk at length about better education in primary school promoting safe driving later in life. Additionally they recommend to pay attention while driving, and they call this an "Action plan" to make driving safe. No word about seat belts.

You respond to my proposal, saying that seat belts are merely a band aid, that I pretend they are our only option, and that we better fix the root cause before an accident occurs.

When then someone talks about the thousands upon thousands needlessly dead while ignoring the existence of seat belts we could install today, it just drives me furious.

	▲	atoav 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Great, you sucessfully showcased the idea that analogies can be bent around till they no longer reflect the scientifically measurable reality. So again: It is possible for humanity to create unsurvivable conditions in our earths athmosphere. 1. Should we create it if there is enough profit in it? Y/N 2. If not, where would you draw the line and how would you set/enforce the limits? If your answer is Yes to (1) you are in a suicidal, planet killing cult. If your answer is No, you realize the simple fact there are limits to what can be done in a limited space. But then you have to draw a line and find a mechanism even if you don't like it from an ideological standpoint. And that is what I would be really, honestly be interested in.

▲

sn9 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would simply not sacrifice hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable (in Europe alone!) for unnecessary performative bullshit and let people install AC while massively subsidizing solar/wind/hydro/nuclear/etc.

▲

atoav 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah yeah, the myth that a society can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Do you really belive we can't both address the root causes and install AC?

Which other things do you believe a society can't do at the same time? Taxes and waste managment? Breathing and thinking?

	▲	sn9 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think you misunderstood me lol. I'm saying we can easily do both. The only obstacle is morons.

▲

nozzlegear 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> At some point we should stop pretending this is a new and surprising danger and start treating it as the risk we willingly steered ourselves into.

And then what?

▲

atoav 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Either accept it and perish or mitigate it obviously? What would you propose?

	▲	nozzlegear 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What's interesting to me is that both of those options – accepting and perishing, or mitigating – would look no different than what we're doing right now. We've made remarkable progress with renewable energy since 2000 (my own state generates almost 70% of its energy from wind). The US isn't part of the climate accords, but the country is still embracing renewable energy at a breakneck pace despite the current admin's attempts to derail it. We need only compare our current emissions to those from 20 years ago to see the difference. So what I propose is that we've already accepted it, and wringing our hands saying "if only you'd all repent your ways and admit you were wrong by ignoring Al Gore!" might feel cathartic, but ultimately wouldn't result in much change if people did, indeed, truly repent.

▲

bsian 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The thousands dying are just a means to an end. They don't really care about them.

▲

ballsac 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]