US emissions have declined 18% since 2005.

Look at Asia.

American gas is not cheap. In absolute-numbers-sense, it's comparable to the current prices in Russia. And by all means and for all the different reasons, one would expect gasoline to be enormously expensive there right now. Far more expensive than in the States. It doesn't seem to be the case.

But what will be the safe places people could migrate to? I'm not sure we can really predict this, especially since the least affected locations are going to be the ones everybody will be interested in. And given the ramping-up xenophobia I can't imagine climate refugees suddenly being welcomed with open arms...

> The interior of my new build luxury apartment in the financial district is routinely over 30°C

That's not a well built building though. Our flat in warmer location in Europe does not get over 27C unless it's over 33C outside, and that withou the AC active.

Maybe they mean consumption is the same but price is up.

I assume they mean natural gas

Or driving a small, economical car?

No, but I have a pool and it's been drying up below the skimmers, I need to keep the water level or the filtration dies.

I can explain. I work from home - no commute. Yes, I don't have to drive as much as the average person has to in my area. This summer has been extremely hot, hotter than any previous - seems that's becoming a new normal. Past couple of weeks the heat remained in the 90s, even around midnight. Water district installed big banners with warnings "draught stages in effect", there's a penalty for irrigating at certain hours - it gets added to the bill. These banners getting erected for the past three years. Yes, water here is expensive.

How much water usually cost in dryer regions of USA?

A few years ago (before wildfires forced us to move), we were in the East Bay of San Francisco. East Bay gets unusually hot - the mountain range prevents cool winds from the ocean passing over. Summer was extreme, the AC couldn't keep up, we had to hose the outer walls every evening, just to cool it a bit.

One day we woke up, had breakfast and the power line had failed. I quickly imagined what happens if it lasts more than a few hours, checked the heatmap, found an area that wasn't dark orange, and told everyone to pack - we're leaving. We headed towards Half Moon Bay. It's a little over an hour drive, but it took us another forty minutes to find a beach with a room for parking - entire coast was packed with the heat escapees like us. The beach was full of stinking kelp, there were tons of flies - they've tormented our stay, but we had little choice. We thought we were lucky to find a spot with not too many people, only to realize there was a carcass of a dead sea lion and it was dead-cat-stenchy. At least, being next to the ocean offered some relief from the heat. Later that afternoon, our neighbors called us to tell us that they were sitting in their minivan, at an empty parking lot. The power was still out, and to have a dignified dinner, they've grabbed some food and convened in the car, which had a working AC. But they didn't want it to look weird, so they drove away from their street, away from curious neighbors and friends.

Next summer wildfires came back. This time bigger than ever. Dealing with both smoke and COVID restrictions together felt like too much, and we decided to move. We headed East, our first stop was Barstow, CA - we decided to rest a night. It's pretty far from where the actual fires were raging, yet when we woke up, we were greeted with what looked like snow at first. It was ash. Our car was covered with it. We kept driving. The sky was black from the smoke. It only started clearing out when we crossed into New Mexico. We were all terrified to realize the scale of that disastrous event. Which has now become "a seasonal climate occurrence" - it's almost guaranteed that each year something will massively burn somewhere in the West Coast. And the fuck are we doing about that? Entertaining a clown with renaming a lake.

> Aren’t you the problem?

I am. We all are. We are an invasive, parasitic species, and regardless of where we live or our lifestyle, we still are a great threat to the environment. I'm sorry that my mere existence is a huge inconvenience to all sorts of animals, including you.

Individually you can't do anything. You can drive an EV, set your AC to 78, or whatever makes you feel good but only national governments can make the regulatory changes that will really have an impact.

I even roll my eyes at my city council spending even one second on climate change policy (and they have spent whole meetings on it). Our city of 80,000 people could disappear from the face of the planet and it would not make a bit of difference.

You can do all of that, and then Elon Musk will use his hundreds of billions to install another pedofile in charge who won't give a shit about the environment.

You’re correct that LA is usually hot (95F+) this time of year, but the humidity is what’s abnormal. The dew point in Disneyland was higher than in Disney World yesterday due to a tropical storm that dissipated west of the LA basin.

More tropical storms are approaching LA and that’s increasing humidity is why it’s sweltering.

Climate change is a fact. You can’t believe in a fact.

I haven't paid much attention to la lately.is this true? San Diego is having an unusually hot and humid summer. Water temperatures are nearly tropical right now too

“Both-sides”ing this is ridiculous. Certain leftists might sometimes disproportionally blame corporations for the issue rhetorically but they aren’t broadly opposed to the kinds of taxes and regulations - on corporations or individuals - that would be needed to bring carbon emissions down.

If you insist on finding a way to criticize leftists on the climate file, a much better tack would be pointing out how some environmentalists have opposed nuclear power or densification.

For most individuals there is no lifestyle change they can make that will matter. Fixing it requires collective action.

The way individuals can meaningfully contribute is by supporting politicians that will make policies and rules and regulations the meaningfully encourage that collective action, and when they have a choice between more than one corporation for some product or service that are not too different as far as impact on the lifestyle goes choosing the one that is better from a climate change point of view.

The politicians and the corporations (encouraged by incentives and regulations by the politicians) can then bring about changes that will make it so the lifestyle changes for individuals that help with climate change also improve the individual's situations so people voluntarily make them in large numbers.

For example there are a lot of people in the US who would be better off if their next car was an EV except the public charging infrastructure isn't good enough for their needs. Build a lot more public chargers that support 800V cars and many of these people will pick an EV. This is something government can bring about.

For an average individual it is perfectly fine, to use a sports analogy, to play the game as it is now while supporting league wide changes to the rules to make it a better game in the future.

> everyone wants the problem to go away

And we do feel hopeless and helpless. And the only thing we can do is to promote and advocate for science. It was a scientist who made us stop adding lead to gasoline. It was because of scientists we were able to stop ozone layer destruction. It was a scientist who invented the catalytic converter. It was a scientist who broke the asbestos industry's decades of denial and a scientist who broke big tobacco.

We didn't have to "change our lifestyle" - scientists proved bad things happening and politicians listened. The current imbalance in the political system is that the right simply just wants to ignore the science. And even half the country shitting their souls out in explosive diarrhea won't change it. Therefore the right have no right to representation, because the survival of our species is at stake. We need to vote them out.

> and the left thinks it's on corporations (not themselves)

Of course... Every year where the consequences weren't in sight, saying we should consume less, buy less, eat less meat, I have been called 'degrowther' and it has been explained to me that I would increase human suffering because it would reduce the economy size. Ok, fair, I just wanted to help future human, but if you don't plan to have any, you do you.

Now I'm told I think it's corporations that should fix it. Of course.

By the way, I still think it's consumerism (and consumption capitalism) the reason we can't deal with the issue. That corporations are the biggest voice that push for this system is incidental, but yes, breaking big corps in smaller entities would probably help solve the problem. A bit too late now, but better than never.

Also, who on the left think that corpos will do anything to help humanity? Really? I think at most, some thinks it's the government to do everything but corpo? Really? Your friends on the left seems to me very, very much in the center, center right to be exact.

It’s a thing you can avert? Or do you mean one in the far future which we might avert by reducing carbon emissions now?

Nuclear has a lot of environmental impact too. You need to mine a lot of earth to get a little uranium, and a lot of that activity is very polluting and a lot of that activity is not climate neutral. Then you have the waste problem that's not figured out, proliferation etc.

We can't go cherrypicking environmental problems. That way we roll from one crisis into the next. There's so many issues we're causing, like entire ecosystems going extinct. Sooner or later that will lead to crises too. We have to stop externalising.

And yes the electorate wants to be safe and for good reason. Even Fukushima polluted a lot. It's not just about death tolls.

> but I’m lucky since I live in a minivan full-time.

Tell us more

// Now Darwin rules the day

How many children do you have?

Hey I grew up super environmental and I have plenty of hippie cred, but this statement gave me shudders "the only real solution is a one world government". Yeesh, yeah a single government, surely nothing could go wrong.

It seems we are no more capable of organizing than bacteria in a petri dish could avoid replicating until the resources are exhausted.

I've had this thought too. And when I think about it in the big picture way, I don't think it doesn't need to be all that hard to solve. It's not like we're talking about like, you know, some huge slice of GDP or something. Yes, the price of fossil fuels effectively doubles. But we can create lots of jobs to make solar and nuclear and all these other solutions in the meantime.

An economy that seizes climate solutions can zoom ahead in terms of innovation, manufacturing, and enforcement. The changing climate is one of the biggest economic opportunities we've ever seen in human history, but somehow we've convinced ourselves that it's not only the worst non-opportunity ever but somehow would break capitalism. The richest man on the planet makes electric cars.

Let me guess, you think it’s somehow impossible that people like Trump and Musk would end up running this One World Government like Trey have done in the US because…reasons.

Other agencies tracked ocean thermoclines.

Eg: Totally not tracking submarines, we're looking at dolphins and whales!

With notable funky bespoke hardware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP

Scripps itself has been running since 1903.

Deep ocean temperatures have also been rising over the decades: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202...

That's not the issue, though I recognise the poster above was remarking about fish. High surface temps means more cyclones / typhoons / hurricanes, more coral bleaching, lower fish breeding and feeding because reefs die, impacts out food chains and destroys our homes.

Im Australian, so it also means droughts, water restrictions, and significant increases in bushfire number and severity after a few years of drought. Drought followed by cyclone, or bulk rain events causes catastrophic flooding. Its a shit show.

Why would investing in green tech make you poor? That's what's wrong with that argument.

Moving away from fossil fuels is cheaper. Green energy is very cheap, it just misses a base load component right now. It's just that the people benefiting are different ones. And those people are going to lose sooner or later anyway, because in addition to climate change, fossil fuels are also finite.

The only reason trump is on the oil bandwagon is because many of his buddies are benefiting from it. And probably because he's still pissed at the Scotland windmill thing.

But doing the right thing doesn't have to make you poor. It will benefit everyone including the investors.

The causes of the subject of the article are inherently political. It absolutely is relevant.

please refrain from referring to countries as if they were individuals

I lean towards agreeing with you. That said, people often confuse carbon dioxide removal with CCS. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) generally refers to "carbon neutral" technologies to pull carbon dioxide out of emissions. At some kind of theoretical best, CCS is carbon neutral, so the best CCS can ever hope to offer is being neutral like solar, wind, or nuclear.

Carbon dioxide removal refers to a different process. Carbon dioxide removal is the process to pull carbon dioxide back out of the air itself. It's not a supplement or replacement for carbon neutral technologies. Every model proposed by the IPCC to stay at 1.5C of warming requires billions of tons of carbon dioxide, alongside zeroing out new emissions.

Also, this event is about El Niño.

Ironically the war in Iran was probably one of the most effective ways to cut oil consumption.

Absolutely.. but, sith are property of abcdisney. People are property of the Earth, until such a time we prove otherwise. We are less the landlords and more the squatters, with all sorts of events trying to evict us.[1][2][3]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter_of_536

With the depletion of the coal and oil deposits the industrial revolution relied on the first time around, it is now locked in that this century is human civilization's only shot at reaching some kind of abstract technology escape velocity.

Crash now and there will never be a second chance, just iron age stuff in a harsher environment for however many tens of millennia it takes to have some random pandemic that wipes the descendants out occur.