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.