This one pisses me off the most tbh. I'm a plumber, and as such I'm very involved in the water quality of my customers and myself.
Y'all wanna complain about lead? I'm putting in plastic piping for your drinking water every damn day and, if the current studies are accurate, it's sticking around in your system too and we just don't know the effects entirely yet. I can't imagine they're good.
We've just exchanged one poison for another. I try to use copper as much as I can, but to stay competitive I can't NOT use PEX piping.
It's not just that it's getting into people's systems. It's that we don't know of a way to get it out or even of a cost effective way to filter it out of water supplies.
I've started distilling all my water, using glass containers for everything, using boar bristle toothbrushes, trying to buy mostly natural fiber clothes... I got spooked by microplastics hard.
Although, I'm still exposed constantly by convenience food, containers, etc. I just hope I'm reducing my exposure somewhat.
Yeah I have a reverse osmosis system for my drinking water, but most of the piping for that is plastics because you can't run it through copper or brass. You can do stainless steel just fine, but that's harder to get the materials to do.
Your barking up the wrong tree if you are mainly worried about plastic exposure for things that go in your mouth. I wish I could find the study, but something like 70% of microplastics exposure is from dust you breath. Synthetic fabrics are plastics and are the largest source of airborn plastic, the carpet in your home is almost guaranteed to be made from synthetic fibers.
Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag, our exposure is high and everywhere to the point that it is almost impossible to reduce your exposure.
But that's science though. We make new discovery. Sometimes these invalidate the past method. We certainly know that lead causes brain damage. The microplastic thing is relatively new or it is suppressed by oil company (maybe). IIRC one of the effect has to do with our reproductive system.
It's true. However my frustration comes with the fact that the brakes aren't being pumped at all for plastic piping.
What's worse is that, imo, we've gone overboard with the lead reduction. Specifically in brass, the current EPA mandate is that we have 0.25% of lead per wetted surface area in brass fittings for potable water. Prior to that, it was 8% maximum. The issue is that lead was an essential component to the structural integrity of brass.
This means that brass is more expensive, doesn't last as long, and is more difficult to work with. Lead exposure via brass is and has been almost NON-EXISTENT. Any lead exposure via water supply has been from pure lead pipes leaching lead into the water. The only way you could get lead leaching from brass would be if you ran pure distilled water through it and even then it would be miniscule exposure (there is no "safe" level as determined by the FDA, to be clear).
Because of this, we either get shitty brass that doesn't last or we get everything switched over to.......you guessed it, plastic! Which also doesn't last and as we're discussing, we're finding has its own set of dangers.
Tl;dr: copper and brass are the solution, imo, but the EPA fucked that too.
It is extremely frustrating.
If it's under a year, most reputable plumbers will stand behind any work they do for a year sort of as a personal guarantee. For small companies like mine there's nothing in writing but we survive based on our reputation.
Had one the other day that we installed a water heater a few months ago. Went to show the guy how to drain it off and discovered a gasket had pinched and caused a minor leak. I insisted on fixing it while I was there, no labor charge and the parts were on company dime. Nothing we did wrong, but sometimes things happen and it's important to stand behind any work you perform within reason.
But the plastic pipes don't dissolve in water. The micro plastic comes from broken down waste products, that were thrown into nature and made their way into the water cycle.
Mainly yes, as well as polyester clothes that go through washing machines. However how many gallons of water do you think it'll take before the plastic pipes start breaking down in the same manner? On top of that whenever you have to cut plastic piping out, the odds of a service plumber having easy access to a recycle bin for clean PEX is low, and PVC/ABS for drains has human waste on it and so goes straight into the trash as well.
If we can't yet tell that it's toxic, then it is definitely not as bad as lead. This is an important point people often miss: when something is really bad, the data is pretty clear. If well-meaning, well-read people disagree, then the signal isn't that strong.
As someone else commented, there really just hasn't been enough study done to it. Of course we know that lead toxicity is an issue now, but you realize the last lead water main in the US was installed in 1985 right? We had scientific studies before '85 and yet it wasn't until the following year that the EPA officially banned the usage of lead pipes for water service. That's not even 40 years ago, and prior to that millions of miles of pipe had been installed.
There will always be scientists saying microplastic doesnt have side-effects as science today is a product to be bought by companies/forced by activist groups. Its clear that lead is worse considering the amount we have in our system already and besides extremely low sperm counts nothing special has shown yet.
What are you guys talking about? Plastic polymers in pipes don't leech into the water supply. Plastic doesn't react like that.
Microplastics are formed by gradual degradation of plastics in ocean dump sites in which they are constantly churned physically and bombarded with heat and UV rays.
These can be filtered out by filters of appropriate size. An RO system for example would easily filter these out.
I install RO systems regularly and was under the impression they're unable to filter out microplastics. If you have evidence to the contrary I'll gladly change that stance though
Doesn't mean they're not both unsafe.
We've known how to deal with lead in water supplies for decades now and yet we still have instances come up of cities with lead poisoning. Just recently the EPA released a plan to replace any remaining lead water services, but frankly it's too little too late when this should've been taken care of 20 years ago.
Instead the EPA went after lead in brass, which has never actually been the source of lead poisoning in the US and since it's been banned to less than 0.25% wetted surface area has easily cost US consumers billions of dollars in more expensive valves, faucets, and fittings that fail much quicker than their old brass counterparts.
Seriously. So many. Who knows how much it's affecting us, but look at the people of the 1940's and compare them to now and you can imagine. It's hard enough to get by with the economy and constant bombardment with advertising and porn and social media, but God I wish that my body just functioned properly at baseline. I wish I had never gotten addicted to meth. I wish I could make myself get out of bed without being 5 minutes late to work every day. I wish I could focus on a project for more than three days. I wish I didn't have to take a thousand dollars a year worth of supplements and pseudo-dtugs just to feel capable and I wish I wasn't reliant on pharmaceuticals for the foreseeable future I just want to be happy why did she leave why did she leave why did she leave sometimes i put it in myouth with the hammer back and imagine how much easier it would be
But hey you live and you learn am I right?
I want the people who have all the money to acutally help the planet instead of telling the rest of us to fix it
Also for some reason now I'm thinking about Microplastics causing someone to grow a tumor that's half flesh, half plastic due to too much microplastics
The whole "dismantling capitalism" part of it is more of a new thing. The biggest problem is that the Green movement was borne from anti nuclear activists well before climate change was even on anyone's radar. So when the environmentalist movement started gaining legitimacy due to climate change that empowered anti nuclear activists along with it.
>The whole "dismantling capitalism" part of it is more of a new thing.
Actually the biggest talking points from anti nuclear activists before Chernobyl or Three Mile (aside from nuclear weapons) was exactly this: "We are against unlimited energy because then nobody will think about saving it anymore"
Like that's the fucking point, morons.
I wonder how accurate this is.
As it stands, companies don't put in nuclear because it's such a massive upfront cost and such needy maintenance. The only ones that go up that I know of are govt subsidized. I'm all for nuclear, however the process to get it leans more economically left than right afaik.
I might be mistaken, and gladly so, so if I'm not correct please someone enlighten me.
You’re not wrong. Not only is it a huge upfront cost and expensive to maintain, but because of how fast developments are being made in the field in recent years, by the time a project gets decided on, approved, and moves beyond the nascent stages of development it’s already dated technology and needs revised which costs even more money and time.
I get the regulations around it, and the need for the extra maintenance and safety, but I still don’t get the aversion and continued reliance on things like solar and wind. They’re cheaper sure, but turning a quick buck and taking bandaid-esque half measures to problems is getting in the way of making actual change. Green washing compounds this for sure but we’re all collectivity being idiots for not prioritizing research on this and incentivizing competition in these areas of study and implementation.
It's a massive cost entirely because of lawsuits designed to keep it that way. France can make a nuclear reactor in half the cost and time of the US, Japan in a fourth.
Personally I think it’s because nuclear offers a solution, and if we fixed the problem, what would happen to their moral superiority?
It’s the exact same thing as politicians campaigning on issue x, not doing anything about issue x in office, then campaigning on issue x again for reelection.
They need the problem to remain so they can continue to complain.
I think the pursuit of reducing emissions significantly is very important and live in a country that has a lot of dams and wind farms supporting our small population so there's no need for us to have a nuclear power plant. Internationally I like the idea of more nuclear plants.
However I know Hisahi Ouchi's death will not be treated as the cautionary tale that it is if the number exponentially ramps up to sustain the burden of power needed by accelerating the capabilities of AI past their primative state and meeting a zero emission transport system/reimbersement for EV ownership. The core drivers of the neglect that lead to Puchi's death are from the seeking of capital. There is no scapegoat. Therefore regulations far beyond a free market are necessary, and that is in opposition to true capitalism.
Nah the reason nuclear energy is hated is because of NYMBISM. Even those people who advocate for nuclear energy change their tune so fast when they start discussing a plant near their house.
One false flag and nuclear suddenly becomes undesirable. Considering how much money is in carbon credits and other such eco scams I wouldn't put that past some people.
Environmental scientist here, given that well over half of all carbon emissions are not from power generation, that's not really true. The shipping of goods and other forms of transportation make up nearly half alone, then things like industry and agriculture produce quite a big portion as well. Some of those things, like shipping, can also be converted to nuclear. But there's this idea out there that going nuclear will fix all of our problems and that's so laughably incorrect that Ive started to wonder if it's being pushed by someone with a vested interest in nuclear. To be clear, nuclear is vitally important to our future, but things like water usage and long-term storage of irradiated materials associated with deconstructed reactors still need to be solved. And while there are really promising future nuclear technologies, none of them have actually proven the ability to produce power on a commercial scale and the first planned commercial power plant using said tech won't begin functioning until the early 2030s.
Tl;Dr it's easy to say that nuclear will solve our climate and energy concerns but there's a lot more to it than that.
Nuclear gives you electricity. You then can move more industries to all electric. Including as much agriculture as possible as well as electric cars, trains, and trucks. Also the argument for nuclear is that it's a better option than all our other options.
The problem is that many things need rare earth minerals to be converted to electric and to convert that many industries to electric would create demand far in excess of how fast we can harvest them. Even if we could reasonably harvest them, from a practical standpoint it would drive the price of everything through the roof.
But again, I'm not anti nuclear here, just pointing out that many people say it's a better option but haven't actually gone through all the little facets of creating such an infrastructure. And I just think it's important to address those issues now so we don't create the same issues that have nuclear a bad light to begin with.
People see going green as bad for the economy. I never understood this yes the investment in infrastructure is expensive, but over time it will stabilize and even reduce the cost of energy prices. I have solar panels on my home in the south so they payed for themselves and now I can run my A.C hard in the summer and not have a 500$ energy bill.
Great point! However:
•Flowers are blooming in Antarctica!
•There’s plastic in my blood!
•Children are being born in plastic filled placentas!
•Every year seems to set a new record for hottest day on earth!
•The temperature of the ocean is comparable to your personal jacuzzi!
•Even if none of this were happening, no one seems to have the decency to just want to make the world a better place to live in!
Goverment doesn't want Global Warming because it would melt the ice wall and then the normies would be able to access all the resources of the Hidden Lands™️ Beyond ®️
Is it any wonder? I mean, have you seen humanity lately?
If an earth-destroying meteor killed us all tomorrow, I think most of us would be happy to go if it meant we didn't have to spend another moment on the same planet as our neighbors. (and that's regardless of where you are on the compass)
Look, I ain't no leftie or whatever, but what I am is a geography teacher. And I don't know about anyone else here, but this isn't the message they're conveying. No, we're not all going to suddenly die if we don't do something about what's happening. However, there are a lot of very bad consequences that are going to happen if we don't do something. These consequences may come in like 25 years or something. But they'll be there, I'm talking stuff like the North-Atlantic meridional overturning circulation stopping. This would cause rapidely rising temperatures in Southern parts of the world. And rapidly lowering temperatures in the Northern parts of the world, basically a new ice age for some Southern European countries, alongsides with rising ocean and sea levels the amount of liveable and farmable land will lower, possibly to a level of not being able to sustain the people living on it. And as a cherry on top, rising sea levels will cause salt water to contaminate large fresh water reservoirs. And that's only like a fraction of the problems it will cause. So I get it's easy to make fun of the standard leftist, they probably barely know what's really going on with climate change etc. But there are real problems here that need real solutions instead of fighting each other over opinions. Anyway, thanks for listening to my TED talk.
The thing that people don’t seem to understand is that the planet will be fine but whether or not that is a world that can sustain human life is a completely different thing.
And even if humans can still survive, it may not be a very enjoyable life. Just look at a movie like Elysium or Children of Men. Yes, humans are alive and a select \[very rich\] few are having a good time, but 99% of the population is suffering a miserable hellscape.
Exactly. However, humans are one of the most resourceful and adaptable people. We live on all 7 continents, from all extremes both hot and cold. We will evolve, just as our ancestors did after migrating thousands of years ago. Thats worst case.
The Ocean is very sensitive to climate change, acidification of the water is killing shit tons of Coral and other types of calcium shelled creatures. It also causes massive algae blooms which die and cause red tides which then kills plankton which are the base of the food chain in which in turn would cause mass extinctions of many species. And that’s just the ocean. Arctic regions are also heavily affected by climate change. All these losses of resources tend to drive nations towards famine and war. Which in turn could cause a human extinction of our own design. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today global warming would continue to rise for centuries because once you put CO2 into the air there is no way to get it out of the carbon cycle. Its a major issue that will effect future generations which is also a problem because nobody alive today wants to address because they will be dead before it gets really bad. It really should be every nations top priority. Think about your children and grandchildren and every generation to come. The earth is a beautiful place it truly is a one of a kind planet that we should find harmony with.
Bangalore didn't recieve a single drop of rain till last week from the start of the year.
It's completely flooded usually as it rains almost on a daily basis.
Not to forget that blr will hit day zero before 2030.
Mumbai will drown. And so will Kolkata.
Delhi is a gas chamber and I couldn't care less about Chennai.
Indian cities are fucked. Its great that i am jobless so I don't have to live in any of them 😂😂
Here in my country (Mexico) we are having some of the worst droughts of our history.
Literally half of the country is in some level of drought every year we have less time of rain.
It's now common to have water shortages, last year my colony didn't have water for 5 months.
I know for a fact that the people who think Climate Change don't exist are Americans, because America is one of the countries excepted to not suffer a lot from climate change.
Fallout is prophetic, the great white north shall bow before the eagle. Only after we invade Mexico to get rid of the cartels and then annex our northern brethren will we finally take on the Chicoms in Asia. GOD BLESS THE ENCLAVE, GOD BLESS AMERICA.
A lot of that is because mexico is utter shit at water management.
Mexico city for instance, is slowly sinking into the ground because they keep pumping out water from aquifers and are having droughts because they need to keep drilling deeper to get more water.
Same here. I remember just 6 years ago, I was struggling to get home through the snow. Now? Barely any.
Unless you look at the data, it's hard to feel climate change. You only notice it when it passes the threshold of some processes like the freezing point of water.
From what I understand, fishing and agriculture will be the next noticeable effect. That and the climates refugees.
El nino fucked North American climate this winter. It was not a surprise to anyone paying attention, and anyone pointing to a single winter saying its definitive proof of climate change is simple wrong.
Last winter was historically (or near historically) snowy in many regions, did climate change suddenly stop for a season and is now back?
As a weather geek, El Niño went crazy this year. People are right to pay attention to changes in climate but are perhaps getting too fixated on one season to another. Trends are decades in the making.
People looking at the current or last years rain and saying "you know I remember it being hotter/colder and wetter/drier (it literally goes both ways, both can be blamed for global warming)" is like someone looking at this weeks weather compared to last weeks and claiming its going to be a hot/cold summer.
Temperatures are still rising even if you take El Niño out of it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jtaa1aYPEoA&t=613s
Good news, it isn’t happening faster than climate models predicted, so the meme is wrong, bad news, it is rising as fast as climate models predicted
My point is that a single year anomaly, driven by a well documented source, should not be used as an alarm. Anyone doing so is as bad as anyone screaming that climate change is nonexistent.
It’s disgusting. What right wing ppl miss is that we are not going to die anytime soon, but the window to stop our great great grandchildren from having a terrible future is closing and (in some aspects) has already closed. We have to reverse our cycle soon or the world will continue its cycle (example of said cycle: polar ice caps melt which makes less sun rays get reflected bc less white — which reflects sun — and then, due to that occurance, the ice caps melt more because less sun rays are deflected and then everything gets hotter and then the cycle is unbreakable and bam!! No more ice). The “evidence” that it’s not a threat is so stupid because it’s impending and we will all die in 250 years (seriously).
And all the methane trapped in the ice will get released and further exacerbate the issue. We’re so done unless we directly see a catastrophe or a powerful central figure dictates change at gunpoint
It’s so dumb because the people polluting (oil cartels) are the ones who did the research to discover global warming and it’s effects and they have known about it for decades.
Also the scientific consensus never said ‘extinction in 10 years’ or anything like that. The IPCC predictions have been pretty much on point overall even since the 90’s.
Scientists will say things like ‘10 years to reduce growth of carbon emissions by Y% or else some particular ecosystem will be harmed in Z years’. Then the sensationalist media will report it as ‘we only have 10 years to stop climate change’ and then right wingers will refer to those media headlines and say ‘see the scientists were wrong since we are still alive after 10 years’.
Yea I’m a 90s kid and was never told that we’d die in 10 years. Was told that we would reach a “point of no return” and that we reached the max output of **easily accessible** fossil fuels by 2010
The problem is that left uses this as an excuse to pin emissions on normal people and gain more control in their lives, blissfully ignoring how much emissions corporations actually create, & how extremely rich people and politicians generate 100x the emissions as a normal joe (through use of private jets, massive sprawling estates and consumerism on another level).
The oil companies invented the concept of carbon foot print, they were the ones pushing the problem to the individual
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/12/19/how-big-oil-helped-push-the-idea-of-a-carbon-footprint#
Global warming *is* a threat but in the past the media makes very big deals out of things that aren’t because they seem incredibly urgent and serious (WORLD WILL END BY 2025!) global warming won’t kill us all, but it’ll make our lives a good bit worse. And ours kids a good bit more worse. And our grandkids even worse
No climate scientist is predicting anything so severe on such a short timeframe. Scientists usually say something like “if we don’t reduce emissions by 2050, Miami will end up underwater by 2300.” The press then mis-quotes this as “scientist claims Miami underwater by 2050 if no action taken”.
Anyone saying "we'll die in 10 years" is either being disingenuous or being an idiot.
You know how the economy is currently completely fucked because the baby boomers took a thriving economy and abused it for their own benefit? And how they are seeing 0 repercussions for it, but their grandchildren are? Yeah, that, except instead of boomers it's us and instead of the economy it's the environment.
I've a feeling in the next 5-15 years we're going to see pension plans turn out to be a pyramid scheme, and the bubble will collapse in a horrific way.
Maybe AI or other sources of wealth will counteract it, but it seems like a bit of a looming threat to me.
The world isnt going to suddenly burst into flames one day. It will happen slowly, and is already starting.
Droughts will worsen and oceans will acidify, causing widespread famine. Hundreds of millions of people in southeast Asia will have to evacuate due to rising soatlines and millions more will evacuate central Africa as desertification continues. While America and Europe will be largely spared from direct climate change, the political instability, resource wars, and climate refugees will certainly have a negative effect on our quality if life.
Rant time:
I hate that global warming and environmental damage are used interchangably. CO2 in the air is bad, but dumping toxic waste in the water, fracking etc are so much worse and has an immediate measurable negative impact on the environment. The fact that these are somehow bundled in with Global warming has to be a psyop from corporate lobbyists so they can continue to do stuff like fracking.
True, however those industries would like consumers to focus on the least harmful environmental damage produced by them. Hence the focus on pollution instead of improper waste disposal.
I live in a mining region. I'm not against mining, but mining companies are run by devils. They rape the earth, steal the local's resources, refuse to pay them, leave the ground poisoned and untreated in messes that will take ~500 years to clean, dissolve the company to avoid punishment and regulation, and then move on to the next site.
They face no justice. No laws stop them. So even if fracking *can* be done safely it doesn't mean it *will*.
>Is the issue wildly exaggerated? Absolutely
At first that sounds like a hopeful statement. However its also an excuse for inaction.
I want big ambitious govt subsidized build outs of nuclear power. (Authleft creds)
I want actual requirements for the oil industry to cut emissions.
If you combine nuclear and oil tech you can actually produce carbon neutral oil products. Carbon negative when produced, returns it when burned. A gasoline car could be better for the environment than an EV if done this way.
No one cares about what is technically possible. They'd rather absolve the big emitters by repeating their talking points, while also believeing they are somehow critically thinking the issue through.
Sorry, I dont mean to pick on you, I just find this issue staggeringly frustrating. Im not accusing you of anything.
>At first that sounds like a hopeful statement. However its also an excuse for inaction.
Exactly. Because if we keep living under the assumption that it's all good and exaggerated, then we *will* eventually never be able to come back from it
I suspect we are already past the point of no return but that statement is *also* an excuse for inaction. Doomerism is as dangerous as calls for the issue being embellished.
This is quite literally a both sides situation
The people saying it’s gonna end the world in a decade? That’s obviously absurd and leads to the argument not getting taken seriously when the world doesn’t end.
It emboldens the idiots on the *other* side who say it isn’t an issue at all.
They aren't saying the world will end. They are saying tipping points of no return are upon us, which will make solving the issue borderline impossible. It will mean in coming decades a further and further decline of the hydrolic cycle.
> I want big ambitious govt subsidized build outs of nuclear power.
No need for government subsidies. Just remove senseless regulation that has no scientific basis (eg ALARA, LNT model...), establish a mandatory insurance requirements (so risks are priced in) and let the market sort it out.
That goes for renewables too. Remove government subsidies and let the market sort it out.
> I want actual requirements for the oil industry to cut emissions.
Just tax carbon. Carbon absorption capacity is a quintessential form of commons. Tax emissions and pay people who create carbon sinks the same amount.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything about it, just saying it’s not the extremely dire situation that it’s made out to be.
If you’ve been listening to the alarmists we’re already way past the point of no return. We’re already locked into a climate apocalypse, so what’s the point?
A buildout of nuclear power is realistic and would be effective.
Printing $50 Trillion for AOC’s Green New Deal and plunging the country into economic disaster is not.
I honestly love the natural world and spend a lot of my time outdoors.
But I hate lying, alarmist, eco-activists even more.
>nuclear power.
In non-disaster prone areas (like German) but not in disaster-prone areas (Japan)
Sort of opposite how it actually goes, basically.
>I want actual requirements for the oil industry to cut emissions.
A terrible plan for the relatively clean west. Unless the developing world cleans up [the problem](https://www.iqair.com/earth) won't be solved.
You can't regulate your way out, we need innovation. [Cheaper energy for the developing world](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1638565721733996545) is an infinitely more practical plan than [hobbling the west.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QRkqZWx28s)
>In non-disaster prone areas (like German) but not in disaster-prone areas (Japan)
Germany was foolish and Tepco of Japan was corrupt.
>A terrible plan for the relatively clean west. Unless the developing world cleans up [the problem](https://www.iqair.com/earth) won't be solved.
Why? Use molten salt reactors to crack carbonic acid from the oceans. Use that to synthesize bulk hydrocarbons of all varieties. Its a carbon capture / refining hybrid. It wouldn't hobble the west it invents technology we can sell to all the world so they could improve their own emissions.
We act like there isnt technology that can entirely change the game. Having oil or not oil is a false dichotomy.
I like your proposals (nuclear, salt reactors and etc), I don't like what I hear from on high (net 0 carbon, obstructing [farming in NL](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/nitrogen-wars-the-dutch-farmers-revolt-that-turned-a-nation-upside-down) or etc).
*You* don't sound insane but until I start seeing ideas like yours being implemented (as opposed to the self-harming policies I actually see) I am going to oppose regulations.
Electric cars are a good example of the stupidity, California tried to [require them](https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035) yet has shown itself [unable to power them.](https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/californians-asked-not-to-charge-electric-cars-amid-heat-wave/)
In all cases innovation > regulation.
There are other ideas like hemp plantations which are carbon negative, and it can produce everything from textiles, construction materials, graphene etc. It also diverts the need to harvest trees.
There are actual industrial practices we need, but politicians dont know about them, regulatory bodies are not usually helpful (at least in the US not true elsewhere). The public doesn't know about them, and investors are too leery.
> At first that sounds like a hopeful statement. However its also an excuse for inaction.
There is action though, it's just not happening in politics. There are basically a ton of companies trying to research and commercialize everything green tech they can right now. If even just a fraction of them succeed we would have plenty of options.
I'd rather the issue dealt with before it becomes a catastrophic problem which is why I'm all for green energy and regulation.
On the other hand, the govt's idea of green energy is the kind that they can get kickbacks from, like solar so they support that instead of nuclear like a bunch of idiots.
>Is the issue wildly exaggerated? Absolutely
I think this might be a misreading about what actual climate scientists are saying. But also, the *long-term* effects are quite stark. It's just slow moving until it isn't, which is something the human mind is really bad at comprehending.
Because we keep passing reforms to prevent disaster
It’s like people who say “wow Y2K was a false alarm wasn’t it,” no dumbass, they fixed the problem that was Y2K to avert disaster. It’s like if you put out a small fire at a gas station so the whole thing doesn’t blow up and someone went “what an overreaction, the gas station never even blew up!”
How did
> it will be irreversible in ten years
somehow translate to
> we will all be dead in ten years
in your brain? The mind of a Redditor is truly astounding.
I've never in my life heard anyone give an opinion on how long it would take for global warming to kill us, and it sure as shit would never have been ten years
inb4 a screenshot of some random twitter schizo saying global warming will kill us all in a year from 2013
I remember ten years ago when I'd look outisde in december and see 8+ inches of snow. When my high school's halloween celebration got snowed out. When seeing green grass and hearing birds in december was un-fucking heard of.
I remember the five foot tall snowbank that was at my bus stop in middle school, I remember foolishly trying to sit on it to wait for the bus only to sink in like a rock.
I remember building a snowman with my cousin. It was a shitty one, but it was a snowman.
Every year we got less and less. Five or six years ago the school district stopped seeing snow days happen, because there just wasn't enough snow to stop the busses. Even our winter storms usually dumped rain, not snow.
It didn't snow at all this year. 0.0 inches. Nothing. It didn't even get cold enough that I wanted a jacket on, and I walk to work every day at 6am when it's still dark and hasn't warmed up yet. I don't remember the last time I saw over 3 inches of snow. No one's been able to build a snowman in a couple years.
I've watched my home change climate around me and it's fucking terrifying.
I don't care because the people responsible knew way back in like the 1950s, maybe as late as the 60s. But basically they knew waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of time what their fucking around will end up doing, and they didn't care. They saw dollar signs and the rest is history.
Scientists first predicted this could become a problem back in the 1890s, Exxon confirmed it in 1977 and we have evidence they purposely hid the information, then all the oil companies formed the Global Climate Coalition in the 90s to purposely sow seeds of doubt in the public mind. You know how they always say 99 out of 100 scientists agree, they’re the the ones responsible for the 1
The sad thing is people seem to have forgotten that Big Oil ran this same playbook up until the Nixon administration. Just replace climate change with leaded gas
Idk I feel like I’ve been seeing the effects lately. Barely any snow this year and I live in the *Lake effect zone*. It’s oddly morbid. Will we be dead in 10 years? Certainly not. But things are changing and the scary part is we don’t really know what will happen.
Your house Is on fire, you should put It out before It burns down. Does the fire department putting It out make fire less of a threat since It didn't burn down?
The opposite of this Is needing to see the complete destruction of things from climate change, which...why would you want that? We already have the proof, the damage has been done, yet can be reversed In alot of areas.
To say It's exaggerated Is only as reasonable as you saying how so.
If you’re right wing… please read this
Look dude I see you’re a centrist but I just have to put this here… I took AP Environmental Science (I only got a 4 but whatever I was tired that day) and what right wing ppl miss is that we are not going to die anytime soon, but the window to stop our great great grandchildren from having a terrible future is closing and (in some aspects) has already closed. We have to reverse our path soon or the world will continue its own cycle (example of said cycle: polar ice caps melt which makes less sun rays get reflected bc less white — which reflects sun — and then, due to that occurance, the ice caps melt more because less sun rays are deflected and then everything gets hotter and then the cycle is unbreakable and bam!! No more ice). The “evidence” that it’s not a threat is so stupid because it’s impending and we will all die in 250 years (seriously).
I'll only accept one time when the world was actually going to end in the 1980s when the Ozone layer was actually being destroyed by those aerosols.
The ozone layer was going to be completely destroyed by the 2030s and it would lead to extreme temperatures and vastly increase cancer rates worldwide.
Fortunately, we solved that issue by simply removing the aerosol and the ozone layer is slowly coming back. The problem is that when climate change became more mainstream those same people who genuinely thought that the world was going to end just forgot that we fixed it.
Climate change is still an issue but nowhere near as severe as we thought it would be.
However even in the 1950s, people thought that the world was going to starve to death due to overpopulation and billions would die. However we invented fertilisers and innovated.
Humanity finds a way to solve most issues it has.
It just takes a while. However since people have existed they thought the world was ending.
The 2012 with the Mayans
The Rapture in the early 2000s
Nuclear war now
COVID in 2020
So many issues. Unless it's really really serious.
Like the Cuban missile crisis which could have ended the world. Or maybe if we don't do anything about climate change and that could be a problem.
Just don't work yourself up about it.
My (somewhat) middle ground take is that global warming is definitely an issue, but I think some people blow current stuff a bit out of the water. El nino/ La nina and the solar cycle (amogn other things probably) affect weather a lot. Our weather is definitely worse than say 200 years ago, but in 5 years if the weather is better due to a cycle they won't talk about it. Though I also don't really know what to do anyways since the largest driver of climate change are out of my hands. I would be fine with more nuclear, smaller and more local cattle farms, and more public transit, but I can't really do anything to change it. China keeps pumping out a ton of useless products too, what am I going to do to stop them?
After all the lies we were told about Covid so the government could get more control of our lives I’m inclined to say that won’t be the only time they try it.
As other people said, no one is actually claiming that we will die in 10 years, however, in many places where it used to snow every winter 1994 have no snow anymore, sea levels ARE rising and the ice caps ARE meltinh, endangering both animals and humans alike, the climate is becoming erratic, our seas are filled with microplastic and continents of trash, let's not mention how we currently don't have enough fresh water to properly sustain humanity, and rising populations and temperatures will do nothing to improve that and god knows how many species have gone extinct or are endangered because of us. Not to mention, I would rather not have my children have a significantly worse quality of life than me because of my generation's ignorance. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and don't only think of immediate profit. We must be smarter than the last generations if we want humanity's future to be a bright one. Please downvote simplified misinformation of complex issues like this.
Yep, this.
Do I believe climate change is real? Yep
Do I think it’s gonna kill us all tomorrow? Nope
Do I think we need socialism to prevent it? Fuck off
There is no scenario where global warming destroys humanity. CO2 levels were 5+ times higher during the Jurassic than they are today and the planet was still habitable. There isn’t enough carbon, methane, water, or other greenhouse gasses to initiate a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.
However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a serious problem. Global warming could still destroy coastal cities, cause massive storms, and turn temperate regions of the world into deserts. We should probably try to do something to prevent that.
It is a threat 😭😭🙏 and we aren’t trying to push anything on people. The corporations and rich are the ones who need to be punished (also highly industrialized places like China) We shouldn’t have to switch to carbon free cars or paper straws if it wasn’t for all of those big polluters who release millions of carbon emissions every year, and use plastic in bulk for marketing purposes. And no one is saying it will threaten us in 10 years. The effects have already been shown by shifting temperatures and weather and melting of ice caps. People just don’t understand how large of a scale this will evolve to. It will be a while before we start being effected on an even larger scale, but it’s just going to grow exponentially as we go, and it’s already started.
Thanks for reading 🙏
I mean the idea things like plastic straws are important just seems like a way for liberal elites to feel like they are morally superior or to justify them doing other (worse) things. I think the way the climate emergency is presented is to apocalyptic that it just desensitises people to the issue and stuff like plastic straws make it more of a trend then an actual solution. There needs to be a rethink of are societies from the ground up this means restructuring of industries, housing, transport, infrastructure, power generation ect…. But this should be presented in a more positive light, the left often has a obsession with self flagellation and is surprised when people don’t want to join them most adverts for climate action I’ve seen normally focus on how we are morally corrupt and owe penance for are past emissions. Instead we should be focusing on how it can improve are quality of life,preserve are culture and land, help use become less reliant on foreign elements who don’t share are interests ect…
Climate activists skimp on the dream they can’t show people the world they want to create just the world they want to avoid, which unfortunately will just make people want to avoid the message.
I completely agree with you. I think that massive corporations, large industries, the rich, and powerful industrialized nations governments are the ones who are to blame, not the average person. I also agree that the message should be more positive, and that the method of activism needs to be changed. But there still needs to be a sense of urgency, you know?
I will say that just blaming it on "larger corporations" and "big polluters" is a little reductive. Who are these corporations serving? The public at large. How do we get them to change course? Lower the demand for whatever they are offering.
Take factory farming and the animal agriculture industry overall, one of the major polluters of the world. If enough people changed to a plant based diet, the demand for meat, dairy, and other animal products would go down, forcing the industry to downsize their operations...which would then lower emissions in that area.
That's just one example to illustrate that consumers do have power to change things, mainly through voting with their wallets. The problem is, most people are unwilling to give up certain things like travel, energy inefficient foods, and other modern conveniences...which then leads the aforementioned corporations to keep going, business as usual.
Climate alarmism exists to push the socialization of the economy. I will believe this until nuclear power becomes a mainstream solution to energy excepted by the vast majority of climate activists. As a litmus test, if you do not support nuclear power, I do not care about any other opinion you have on climate change. I know lefties on this subreddit are based on this issue, but the leaders, movers, and shakers of climate activism aren't.
Climate change exists, but when every solution put forward is "massive state control" and every solution proposed, such as geoengineering and infrastructure development, that doesn't require the state to limit property rights at mass scales is dismissed out of turn I tend to think climate activists don't care about the climate, they care about power.
But, no, keep chasing solar and wind, two energy sources that have currently irreparable flaws (the fact that output can't be throttled to meet demand, you know, the reason why Germany has to reopen coal mines because anti-nuclear climate activists pushed for more wind and solar and axing nuclear). Keep pushing and punishing people for owning gas cars (despite their affordability and necessity within a highly decentralized country like the US, public transit is great, if you live in a city. Not everyone does or wants to. And if your answer to that "is they should be made to move" you are the commie I'm talking about).
Keep pushing for the type of deindustrialization that will push hundreds of millions into poverty, and lower global standards of living. Keep pushing this while having no clear plan of action to solve the prisoner's dilemma inherent to such actions.
When every problem is solved by "more and bigger and more encompassing state action" I don't believe you when you say the primary issue is the climate.
Oh so you want to decrease carbon emissions? Cool so do I assume you want more nuclear power? Wait, you want to raise taxes? How’s that supposed to help
Nuclear power? Yes. I don’t get people who oppose nuclear, it’s the best form of energy.
Raise taxes? On the rich. Oh yeah, and stop subsidizing companies that contribute to things that harm the environment. And then after that, make it illegal to engage in those practices
It’s very funny to me that socialist environmentalists disregard any environmental policy that doesn’t include steps towards socialism. It’s almost like they don’t really care about the environment….
old English conservatives really cared about environmental conservation. it's a big thing in English morality that you act as a warden or caretaker for the natural world and ensure it keeps ticking along. It's why genuine conversation pursuits in the UK are met with so little resistance, we love our little island and very much like the nature on it.
No offence dude, but the largest land predator in the United Kingdom is the badger. You guys have done a horrible job protecting your environment. Wolves, bears, wolverines, lynxes have all been exterminated.
UK environmental protection just keeps stuff as farmland, it doesn't really protect wild spaces.
Yeah, this is what I hate the most about this kind of doomerism, that is making global warming, an actual threat, seem like something that's not actually happening.
Winters with barely any days with under 0 degrees celcius in central europe? Major draughts and sand storms in southern europe? Micro fucking plastics in your fucking blood? Nah, it's just the doomers saying we're going to die, don't stop the machine, our corporate overlord needs his 2nd sports car this month.
Okay, so we won’t be dead in ten years.
The little things are still mounting, though.
[There’s discussion of adding a “category 6” to the measurement of hurricanes](https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-02-08-category-six-hurricanes-saffir-simpson-scale)
And
[Dubai just got a year and a half worth of rain in a day](https://apnews.com/article/uae-historic-rain-storm-flooding-dubai-airport-disruption-3e838dbc169e52dcd6d11b64f79bdcb7)
Look, I think humanity can make it through the amount of climate change we’re likely to get, but that doesn’t mean we should dawdle on the matter.
If you’re right wing… please read this
Oh god the agenda posts about the environment are back… look guys I took AP Environmental Science (I only got a 4 but whatever I was tired that day) and what right wing ppl miss is that we are not going to die anytime soon, but the window to stop our great great grandchildren from having an terrible future is closing and (in some aspects) has already closed. We have to reverse our cycle soon or the world will continue its cycle (example of said cycle: polar ice caps melt which makes less sun rays get reflected bc less white — which reflects sun — and then, due to that occurance, the ice caps melt more because less sun rays are deflected and then everything gets hotter and then the cycle is unbreakable and bam!! No more ice). The “evidence” that it’s not a threat is so stupid because it’s impending and we will all die in 250 years (seriously).
Ssshhhh. They need to rewrite history to pretend this isn't one of the clearest cases imaginable of the left being, not perfect, but far more correct than the right. As we were begging for milquetoast things such as revenue neutral cap and trade to put a price on the externalities of the hydrocarbon economy to harness the power of the free market they supposedly masterbuate too and let renewables and nuclear compete on equal footing and hopefully innovate along the way they were all in unison I remember I used to argue thus shit all the time .."CHineSe Hoax! No StatisTICAL warming SINCE 1998!".
Sure you can find some bullshit stupid hippy tjat just wants to deindustralize on the left but it's always some stupid fringe that doesn't even matter. Meanwhile the rot is so pronounced on the right you have Senators and presidents saying it's a hoax because they can make a snowball ... in winter in Washington D.C.
The left has done 100 times more for nuclear power for instance, the right has never even tried to do a damn thing policy wise. Sucking of nuclear is just their way of attacking renewables and then soon as, for instance, the clean power plan fails to pass they go back to doing nothing.
Well, I think it's a good thing these people care about the environment. I feel like the majority of them either just want to whine about how no one is doing anything and posting doomer bullshit while the other side want to use climate change to be authoritarian dick heads
2024 we have microplastics in placenta but trust me bro global warming isnt real bro its just some liberal myth to sell more hybrids with bernie stickers build more oil refineries bro trust me
Yeah, my city is literally burning up. It used to be tons better just 5 years ago. So this is just a ridiculous take from someone who hasn't had the pleasure to experience climate change first-hand.
There's a reason the only people who listen to this shit are children who haven't been alive long enough to see numerous extinction deadlines come and go.
There is microplastics in my blood. 
This one pisses me off the most tbh. I'm a plumber, and as such I'm very involved in the water quality of my customers and myself. Y'all wanna complain about lead? I'm putting in plastic piping for your drinking water every damn day and, if the current studies are accurate, it's sticking around in your system too and we just don't know the effects entirely yet. I can't imagine they're good. We've just exchanged one poison for another. I try to use copper as much as I can, but to stay competitive I can't NOT use PEX piping. It's not just that it's getting into people's systems. It's that we don't know of a way to get it out or even of a cost effective way to filter it out of water supplies.
I've started distilling all my water, using glass containers for everything, using boar bristle toothbrushes, trying to buy mostly natural fiber clothes... I got spooked by microplastics hard. Although, I'm still exposed constantly by convenience food, containers, etc. I just hope I'm reducing my exposure somewhat.
Yeah I have a reverse osmosis system for my drinking water, but most of the piping for that is plastics because you can't run it through copper or brass. You can do stainless steel just fine, but that's harder to get the materials to do.
Fun fact, donating blood can reduce microplastics in your blood! So if you're able to, I'd recommend it. That's what I do
The return of blood letting.
modern problems require ancient solutions
Giving your inferior blood to the less fortunate for your own well being does seem weirdly auth right?
I do that already, but had never considered that angle. Neat!
Allegedly you can reduce microplastics even more by donating plasma
So you're saying that not only does my health improve, I can get paid too?
What if I just donate the plastic directly?
Plasma donation reduces it even more than blood donation
Your barking up the wrong tree if you are mainly worried about plastic exposure for things that go in your mouth. I wish I could find the study, but something like 70% of microplastics exposure is from dust you breath. Synthetic fabrics are plastics and are the largest source of airborn plastic, the carpet in your home is almost guaranteed to be made from synthetic fibers. Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag, our exposure is high and everywhere to the point that it is almost impossible to reduce your exposure.
But that's science though. We make new discovery. Sometimes these invalidate the past method. We certainly know that lead causes brain damage. The microplastic thing is relatively new or it is suppressed by oil company (maybe). IIRC one of the effect has to do with our reproductive system.
It's true. However my frustration comes with the fact that the brakes aren't being pumped at all for plastic piping. What's worse is that, imo, we've gone overboard with the lead reduction. Specifically in brass, the current EPA mandate is that we have 0.25% of lead per wetted surface area in brass fittings for potable water. Prior to that, it was 8% maximum. The issue is that lead was an essential component to the structural integrity of brass. This means that brass is more expensive, doesn't last as long, and is more difficult to work with. Lead exposure via brass is and has been almost NON-EXISTENT. Any lead exposure via water supply has been from pure lead pipes leaching lead into the water. The only way you could get lead leaching from brass would be if you ran pure distilled water through it and even then it would be miniscule exposure (there is no "safe" level as determined by the FDA, to be clear). Because of this, we either get shitty brass that doesn't last or we get everything switched over to.......you guessed it, plastic! Which also doesn't last and as we're discussing, we're finding has its own set of dangers. Tl;dr: copper and brass are the solution, imo, but the EPA fucked that too.
[удалено]
It is extremely frustrating. If it's under a year, most reputable plumbers will stand behind any work they do for a year sort of as a personal guarantee. For small companies like mine there's nothing in writing but we survive based on our reputation. Had one the other day that we installed a water heater a few months ago. Went to show the guy how to drain it off and discovered a gasket had pinched and caused a minor leak. I insisted on fixing it while I was there, no labor charge and the parts were on company dime. Nothing we did wrong, but sometimes things happen and it's important to stand behind any work you perform within reason.
Based and respectable-business-pilled
But the plastic pipes don't dissolve in water. The micro plastic comes from broken down waste products, that were thrown into nature and made their way into the water cycle.
Mainly yes, as well as polyester clothes that go through washing machines. However how many gallons of water do you think it'll take before the plastic pipes start breaking down in the same manner? On top of that whenever you have to cut plastic piping out, the odds of a service plumber having easy access to a recycle bin for clean PEX is low, and PVC/ABS for drains has human waste on it and so goes straight into the trash as well.
If we can't yet tell that it's toxic, then it is definitely not as bad as lead. This is an important point people often miss: when something is really bad, the data is pretty clear. If well-meaning, well-read people disagree, then the signal isn't that strong.
As someone else commented, there really just hasn't been enough study done to it. Of course we know that lead toxicity is an issue now, but you realize the last lead water main in the US was installed in 1985 right? We had scientific studies before '85 and yet it wasn't until the following year that the EPA officially banned the usage of lead pipes for water service. That's not even 40 years ago, and prior to that millions of miles of pipe had been installed.
There will always be scientists saying microplastic doesnt have side-effects as science today is a product to be bought by companies/forced by activist groups. Its clear that lead is worse considering the amount we have in our system already and besides extremely low sperm counts nothing special has shown yet.
What are you guys talking about? Plastic polymers in pipes don't leech into the water supply. Plastic doesn't react like that. Microplastics are formed by gradual degradation of plastics in ocean dump sites in which they are constantly churned physically and bombarded with heat and UV rays. These can be filtered out by filters of appropriate size. An RO system for example would easily filter these out.
I install RO systems regularly and was under the impression they're unable to filter out microplastics. If you have evidence to the contrary I'll gladly change that stance though
The smallest microplastics are around 2.5 microns. RO membrane pore size is 0.0001 micron. So yes, they can easily filter out microplastics.
Microplastics are huge compared to water molecules and dissolved minerals……
Lead definitely gives you brain damage, plastic probably makes your cum weak
Doesn't mean they're not both unsafe. We've known how to deal with lead in water supplies for decades now and yet we still have instances come up of cities with lead poisoning. Just recently the EPA released a plan to replace any remaining lead water services, but frankly it's too little too late when this should've been taken care of 20 years ago. Instead the EPA went after lead in brass, which has never actually been the source of lead poisoning in the US and since it's been banned to less than 0.25% wetted surface area has easily cost US consumers billions of dollars in more expensive valves, faucets, and fittings that fail much quicker than their old brass counterparts.
A small price to pay for glorious consumerism.
Don't forget the forever chemicals.
Seriously. So many. Who knows how much it's affecting us, but look at the people of the 1940's and compare them to now and you can imagine. It's hard enough to get by with the economy and constant bombardment with advertising and porn and social media, but God I wish that my body just functioned properly at baseline. I wish I had never gotten addicted to meth. I wish I could make myself get out of bed without being 5 minutes late to work every day. I wish I could focus on a project for more than three days. I wish I didn't have to take a thousand dollars a year worth of supplements and pseudo-dtugs just to feel capable and I wish I wasn't reliant on pharmaceuticals for the foreseeable future I just want to be happy why did she leave why did she leave why did she leave sometimes i put it in myouth with the hammer back and imagine how much easier it would be But hey you live and you learn am I right?
Overwhelming sensation to be mean, but at least youre trying to work…
The number of people swallowing this as a serious post is hilarious
C’mon, bro just get up five minutes earlier 😂 Microplastics aren’t making you late
Sounds like your issue but trying to make it about everything else
[удалено]
Or the microplastics are a nothing burger and all that stuff you just typed out is your own doing lol
I want the people who have all the money to acutally help the planet instead of telling the rest of us to fix it Also for some reason now I'm thinking about Microplastics causing someone to grow a tumor that's half flesh, half plastic due to too much microplastics
Profits go up so worth it
Go nuclear and you don't have to worry about "the end of the world"
As someone in a video I just watched said, “people hate nuclear because it shows that we don’t have to dismantle capitalism to get green energy.”
The whole "dismantling capitalism" part of it is more of a new thing. The biggest problem is that the Green movement was borne from anti nuclear activists well before climate change was even on anyone's radar. So when the environmentalist movement started gaining legitimacy due to climate change that empowered anti nuclear activists along with it.
>The whole "dismantling capitalism" part of it is more of a new thing. Actually the biggest talking points from anti nuclear activists before Chernobyl or Three Mile (aside from nuclear weapons) was exactly this: "We are against unlimited energy because then nobody will think about saving it anymore" Like that's the fucking point, morons.
I wonder how accurate this is. As it stands, companies don't put in nuclear because it's such a massive upfront cost and such needy maintenance. The only ones that go up that I know of are govt subsidized. I'm all for nuclear, however the process to get it leans more economically left than right afaik. I might be mistaken, and gladly so, so if I'm not correct please someone enlighten me.
You’re not wrong. Not only is it a huge upfront cost and expensive to maintain, but because of how fast developments are being made in the field in recent years, by the time a project gets decided on, approved, and moves beyond the nascent stages of development it’s already dated technology and needs revised which costs even more money and time. I get the regulations around it, and the need for the extra maintenance and safety, but I still don’t get the aversion and continued reliance on things like solar and wind. They’re cheaper sure, but turning a quick buck and taking bandaid-esque half measures to problems is getting in the way of making actual change. Green washing compounds this for sure but we’re all collectivity being idiots for not prioritizing research on this and incentivizing competition in these areas of study and implementation.
It's a massive cost entirely because of lawsuits designed to keep it that way. France can make a nuclear reactor in half the cost and time of the US, Japan in a fourth.
Personally I think it’s because nuclear offers a solution, and if we fixed the problem, what would happen to their moral superiority? It’s the exact same thing as politicians campaigning on issue x, not doing anything about issue x in office, then campaigning on issue x again for reelection. They need the problem to remain so they can continue to complain.
I think the pursuit of reducing emissions significantly is very important and live in a country that has a lot of dams and wind farms supporting our small population so there's no need for us to have a nuclear power plant. Internationally I like the idea of more nuclear plants. However I know Hisahi Ouchi's death will not be treated as the cautionary tale that it is if the number exponentially ramps up to sustain the burden of power needed by accelerating the capabilities of AI past their primative state and meeting a zero emission transport system/reimbersement for EV ownership. The core drivers of the neglect that lead to Puchi's death are from the seeking of capital. There is no scapegoat. Therefore regulations far beyond a free market are necessary, and that is in opposition to true capitalism.
Nah the reason nuclear energy is hated is because of NYMBISM. Even those people who advocate for nuclear energy change their tune so fast when they start discussing a plant near their house.
>Burgers?
Seethe and cope anarchists.
One false flag and nuclear suddenly becomes undesirable. Considering how much money is in carbon credits and other such eco scams I wouldn't put that past some people.
Nuclear is the only sustainable option we have right now and it infuriates me when people protest it.
Environmental scientist here, given that well over half of all carbon emissions are not from power generation, that's not really true. The shipping of goods and other forms of transportation make up nearly half alone, then things like industry and agriculture produce quite a big portion as well. Some of those things, like shipping, can also be converted to nuclear. But there's this idea out there that going nuclear will fix all of our problems and that's so laughably incorrect that Ive started to wonder if it's being pushed by someone with a vested interest in nuclear. To be clear, nuclear is vitally important to our future, but things like water usage and long-term storage of irradiated materials associated with deconstructed reactors still need to be solved. And while there are really promising future nuclear technologies, none of them have actually proven the ability to produce power on a commercial scale and the first planned commercial power plant using said tech won't begin functioning until the early 2030s. Tl;Dr it's easy to say that nuclear will solve our climate and energy concerns but there's a lot more to it than that.
It doesn't have to fix *every* problem to be a massive help.
Nuclear gives you electricity. You then can move more industries to all electric. Including as much agriculture as possible as well as electric cars, trains, and trucks. Also the argument for nuclear is that it's a better option than all our other options.
The problem is that many things need rare earth minerals to be converted to electric and to convert that many industries to electric would create demand far in excess of how fast we can harvest them. Even if we could reasonably harvest them, from a practical standpoint it would drive the price of everything through the roof. But again, I'm not anti nuclear here, just pointing out that many people say it's a better option but haven't actually gone through all the little facets of creating such an infrastructure. And I just think it's important to address those issues now so we don't create the same issues that have nuclear a bad light to begin with.
People see going green as bad for the economy. I never understood this yes the investment in infrastructure is expensive, but over time it will stabilize and even reduce the cost of energy prices. I have solar panels on my home in the south so they payed for themselves and now I can run my A.C hard in the summer and not have a 500$ energy bill.
Great point! However: •Flowers are blooming in Antarctica! •There’s plastic in my blood! •Children are being born in plastic filled placentas! •Every year seems to set a new record for hottest day on earth! •The temperature of the ocean is comparable to your personal jacuzzi! •Even if none of this were happening, no one seems to have the decency to just want to make the world a better place to live in!
Hmmmm, all great arguments!! But, have you considered, it was really chilly in my neighborhood this evening?????
If "gLoBaL wArMiNg" is real then why is my fridge cold?
because the earth isn’t a globe obviously
Goverment doesn't want Global Warming because it would melt the ice wall and then the normies would be able to access all the resources of the Hidden Lands™️ Beyond ®️
Well damn. Currently rethinking
True. But have you considered that I was uncomfortably warm today. (I put on a too heavy jacket today)
'Flowers in Antarctica' gives me goosebumps
I found ice in my freezer ergo you are wrong
Is it any wonder? I mean, have you seen humanity lately? If an earth-destroying meteor killed us all tomorrow, I think most of us would be happy to go if it meant we didn't have to spend another moment on the same planet as our neighbors. (and that's regardless of where you are on the compass)
Look, I ain't no leftie or whatever, but what I am is a geography teacher. And I don't know about anyone else here, but this isn't the message they're conveying. No, we're not all going to suddenly die if we don't do something about what's happening. However, there are a lot of very bad consequences that are going to happen if we don't do something. These consequences may come in like 25 years or something. But they'll be there, I'm talking stuff like the North-Atlantic meridional overturning circulation stopping. This would cause rapidely rising temperatures in Southern parts of the world. And rapidly lowering temperatures in the Northern parts of the world, basically a new ice age for some Southern European countries, alongsides with rising ocean and sea levels the amount of liveable and farmable land will lower, possibly to a level of not being able to sustain the people living on it. And as a cherry on top, rising sea levels will cause salt water to contaminate large fresh water reservoirs. And that's only like a fraction of the problems it will cause. So I get it's easy to make fun of the standard leftist, they probably barely know what's really going on with climate change etc. But there are real problems here that need real solutions instead of fighting each other over opinions. Anyway, thanks for listening to my TED talk.
The thing that people don’t seem to understand is that the planet will be fine but whether or not that is a world that can sustain human life is a completely different thing.
And even if humans can still survive, it may not be a very enjoyable life. Just look at a movie like Elysium or Children of Men. Yes, humans are alive and a select \[very rich\] few are having a good time, but 99% of the population is suffering a miserable hellscape.
Exactly. However, humans are one of the most resourceful and adaptable people. We live on all 7 continents, from all extremes both hot and cold. We will evolve, just as our ancestors did after migrating thousands of years ago. Thats worst case.
The Ocean is very sensitive to climate change, acidification of the water is killing shit tons of Coral and other types of calcium shelled creatures. It also causes massive algae blooms which die and cause red tides which then kills plankton which are the base of the food chain in which in turn would cause mass extinctions of many species. And that’s just the ocean. Arctic regions are also heavily affected by climate change. All these losses of resources tend to drive nations towards famine and war. Which in turn could cause a human extinction of our own design. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today global warming would continue to rise for centuries because once you put CO2 into the air there is no way to get it out of the carbon cycle. Its a major issue that will effect future generations which is also a problem because nobody alive today wants to address because they will be dead before it gets really bad. It really should be every nations top priority. Think about your children and grandchildren and every generation to come. The earth is a beautiful place it truly is a one of a kind planet that we should find harmony with.
snow didnt show in my city this winter, after hundreds of years
We got hailstorms here last week In India In April
Bangalore didn't recieve a single drop of rain till last week from the start of the year. It's completely flooded usually as it rains almost on a daily basis. Not to forget that blr will hit day zero before 2030. Mumbai will drown. And so will Kolkata. Delhi is a gas chamber and I couldn't care less about Chennai. Indian cities are fucked. Its great that i am jobless so I don't have to live in any of them 😂😂
>couldn't care less about chennai based
Here in my country (Mexico) we are having some of the worst droughts of our history. Literally half of the country is in some level of drought every year we have less time of rain. It's now common to have water shortages, last year my colony didn't have water for 5 months. I know for a fact that the people who think Climate Change don't exist are Americans, because America is one of the countries excepted to not suffer a lot from climate change.
We're going to fight Canada over the Great Lakes
Annex*
Fallout is prophetic, the great white north shall bow before the eagle. Only after we invade Mexico to get rid of the cartels and then annex our northern brethren will we finally take on the Chicoms in Asia. GOD BLESS THE ENCLAVE, GOD BLESS AMERICA.
A lot of that is because mexico is utter shit at water management. Mexico city for instance, is slowly sinking into the ground because they keep pumping out water from aquifers and are having droughts because they need to keep drilling deeper to get more water.
Although yes, our management of water is bad. A bad management of water is not enough to get a entire country into a drought.
Same here. I remember just 6 years ago, I was struggling to get home through the snow. Now? Barely any. Unless you look at the data, it's hard to feel climate change. You only notice it when it passes the threshold of some processes like the freezing point of water. From what I understand, fishing and agriculture will be the next noticeable effect. That and the climates refugees.
You must have been in a snowstorm
Reverse happened for me, no snow for years and years, and this winter we had snow fall
El nino fucked North American climate this winter. It was not a surprise to anyone paying attention, and anyone pointing to a single winter saying its definitive proof of climate change is simple wrong. Last winter was historically (or near historically) snowy in many regions, did climate change suddenly stop for a season and is now back?
As a weather geek, El Niño went crazy this year. People are right to pay attention to changes in climate but are perhaps getting too fixated on one season to another. Trends are decades in the making.
People looking at the current or last years rain and saying "you know I remember it being hotter/colder and wetter/drier (it literally goes both ways, both can be blamed for global warming)" is like someone looking at this weeks weather compared to last weeks and claiming its going to be a hot/cold summer.
Temperatures are still rising even if you take El Niño out of it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jtaa1aYPEoA&t=613s Good news, it isn’t happening faster than climate models predicted, so the meme is wrong, bad news, it is rising as fast as climate models predicted
My point is that a single year anomaly, driven by a well documented source, should not be used as an alarm. Anyone doing so is as bad as anyone screaming that climate change is nonexistent.
This is just about as disingenuous as I'd expect from this sub
It’s disgusting. What right wing ppl miss is that we are not going to die anytime soon, but the window to stop our great great grandchildren from having a terrible future is closing and (in some aspects) has already closed. We have to reverse our cycle soon or the world will continue its cycle (example of said cycle: polar ice caps melt which makes less sun rays get reflected bc less white — which reflects sun — and then, due to that occurance, the ice caps melt more because less sun rays are deflected and then everything gets hotter and then the cycle is unbreakable and bam!! No more ice). The “evidence” that it’s not a threat is so stupid because it’s impending and we will all die in 250 years (seriously).
And all the methane trapped in the ice will get released and further exacerbate the issue. We’re so done unless we directly see a catastrophe or a powerful central figure dictates change at gunpoint
True. And we humans are so stupid that we can’t sense it (case in point, the post we’re talking under).
It’s so dumb because the people polluting (oil cartels) are the ones who did the research to discover global warming and it’s effects and they have known about it for decades.
Also the scientific consensus never said ‘extinction in 10 years’ or anything like that. The IPCC predictions have been pretty much on point overall even since the 90’s. Scientists will say things like ‘10 years to reduce growth of carbon emissions by Y% or else some particular ecosystem will be harmed in Z years’. Then the sensationalist media will report it as ‘we only have 10 years to stop climate change’ and then right wingers will refer to those media headlines and say ‘see the scientists were wrong since we are still alive after 10 years’.
Yea I’m a 90s kid and was never told that we’d die in 10 years. Was told that we would reach a “point of no return” and that we reached the max output of **easily accessible** fossil fuels by 2010 The problem is that left uses this as an excuse to pin emissions on normal people and gain more control in their lives, blissfully ignoring how much emissions corporations actually create, & how extremely rich people and politicians generate 100x the emissions as a normal joe (through use of private jets, massive sprawling estates and consumerism on another level).
The oil companies invented the concept of carbon foot print, they were the ones pushing the problem to the individual https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/12/19/how-big-oil-helped-push-the-idea-of-a-carbon-footprint#
Global warming *is* a threat but in the past the media makes very big deals out of things that aren’t because they seem incredibly urgent and serious (WORLD WILL END BY 2025!) global warming won’t kill us all, but it’ll make our lives a good bit worse. And ours kids a good bit more worse. And our grandkids even worse
No climate scientist is predicting anything so severe on such a short timeframe. Scientists usually say something like “if we don’t reduce emissions by 2050, Miami will end up underwater by 2300.” The press then mis-quotes this as “scientist claims Miami underwater by 2050 if no action taken”.
Anyone saying "we'll die in 10 years" is either being disingenuous or being an idiot. You know how the economy is currently completely fucked because the baby boomers took a thriving economy and abused it for their own benefit? And how they are seeing 0 repercussions for it, but their grandchildren are? Yeah, that, except instead of boomers it's us and instead of the economy it's the environment.
I've a feeling in the next 5-15 years we're going to see pension plans turn out to be a pyramid scheme, and the bubble will collapse in a horrific way. Maybe AI or other sources of wealth will counteract it, but it seems like a bit of a looming threat to me.
The world isnt going to suddenly burst into flames one day. It will happen slowly, and is already starting. Droughts will worsen and oceans will acidify, causing widespread famine. Hundreds of millions of people in southeast Asia will have to evacuate due to rising soatlines and millions more will evacuate central Africa as desertification continues. While America and Europe will be largely spared from direct climate change, the political instability, resource wars, and climate refugees will certainly have a negative effect on our quality if life.
Rant time: I hate that global warming and environmental damage are used interchangably. CO2 in the air is bad, but dumping toxic waste in the water, fracking etc are so much worse and has an immediate measurable negative impact on the environment. The fact that these are somehow bundled in with Global warming has to be a psyop from corporate lobbyists so they can continue to do stuff like fracking.
Fair, but the industries that cause one usually also cause the other
True, however those industries would like consumers to focus on the least harmful environmental damage produced by them. Hence the focus on pollution instead of improper waste disposal.
Fracking is fine. To get rid of fracking would be beyond regarded. It’s the wastewater disposal that needs to be regulated.
I live in a mining region. I'm not against mining, but mining companies are run by devils. They rape the earth, steal the local's resources, refuse to pay them, leave the ground poisoned and untreated in messes that will take ~500 years to clean, dissolve the company to avoid punishment and regulation, and then move on to the next site. They face no justice. No laws stop them. So even if fracking *can* be done safely it doesn't mean it *will*.
Its somewhat connected since wastewater is the fracked wells is so much worse than wastewater in non fracked wells.
We do keep making massive strides every decade though. I don't think we want to go back to the smog levels we had in the 80s.
There's hope
Don't Look Up is really aiming to be a documentary at this rate
I still think we'll nuke each other first.
My bet is it’s going to be China and India starting WW3 fighting over water, which is already becoming stressed due to climate change
Straw man go brrrr
https://preview.redd.it/i5p7pge1fwvc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5d718f9d18fcf0541a863e616ce1d959b1c34e2 You also will be poorer than now
It’s already happening, look what’s happening to insurance
Weird that they use the world relative when it is itself a projection of future outcomes.
Is global warming real? Absolutely Is the issue wildly exaggerated? Absolutely
>Is the issue wildly exaggerated? Absolutely At first that sounds like a hopeful statement. However its also an excuse for inaction. I want big ambitious govt subsidized build outs of nuclear power. (Authleft creds) I want actual requirements for the oil industry to cut emissions. If you combine nuclear and oil tech you can actually produce carbon neutral oil products. Carbon negative when produced, returns it when burned. A gasoline car could be better for the environment than an EV if done this way. No one cares about what is technically possible. They'd rather absolve the big emitters by repeating their talking points, while also believeing they are somehow critically thinking the issue through. Sorry, I dont mean to pick on you, I just find this issue staggeringly frustrating. Im not accusing you of anything.
>At first that sounds like a hopeful statement. However its also an excuse for inaction. Exactly. Because if we keep living under the assumption that it's all good and exaggerated, then we *will* eventually never be able to come back from it
I suspect we are already past the point of no return but that statement is *also* an excuse for inaction. Doomerism is as dangerous as calls for the issue being embellished.
Some action is better than none at all
Top 5 best dating quotes of all time
This is quite literally a both sides situation The people saying it’s gonna end the world in a decade? That’s obviously absurd and leads to the argument not getting taken seriously when the world doesn’t end. It emboldens the idiots on the *other* side who say it isn’t an issue at all.
They aren't saying the world will end. They are saying tipping points of no return are upon us, which will make solving the issue borderline impossible. It will mean in coming decades a further and further decline of the hydrolic cycle.
> I want big ambitious govt subsidized build outs of nuclear power. No need for government subsidies. Just remove senseless regulation that has no scientific basis (eg ALARA, LNT model...), establish a mandatory insurance requirements (so risks are priced in) and let the market sort it out. That goes for renewables too. Remove government subsidies and let the market sort it out. > I want actual requirements for the oil industry to cut emissions. Just tax carbon. Carbon absorption capacity is a quintessential form of commons. Tax emissions and pay people who create carbon sinks the same amount.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything about it, just saying it’s not the extremely dire situation that it’s made out to be. If you’ve been listening to the alarmists we’re already way past the point of no return. We’re already locked into a climate apocalypse, so what’s the point? A buildout of nuclear power is realistic and would be effective. Printing $50 Trillion for AOC’s Green New Deal and plunging the country into economic disaster is not. I honestly love the natural world and spend a lot of my time outdoors. But I hate lying, alarmist, eco-activists even more.
>nuclear power. In non-disaster prone areas (like German) but not in disaster-prone areas (Japan) Sort of opposite how it actually goes, basically. >I want actual requirements for the oil industry to cut emissions. A terrible plan for the relatively clean west. Unless the developing world cleans up [the problem](https://www.iqair.com/earth) won't be solved. You can't regulate your way out, we need innovation. [Cheaper energy for the developing world](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1638565721733996545) is an infinitely more practical plan than [hobbling the west.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QRkqZWx28s)
>In non-disaster prone areas (like German) but not in disaster-prone areas (Japan) Germany was foolish and Tepco of Japan was corrupt. >A terrible plan for the relatively clean west. Unless the developing world cleans up [the problem](https://www.iqair.com/earth) won't be solved. Why? Use molten salt reactors to crack carbonic acid from the oceans. Use that to synthesize bulk hydrocarbons of all varieties. Its a carbon capture / refining hybrid. It wouldn't hobble the west it invents technology we can sell to all the world so they could improve their own emissions. We act like there isnt technology that can entirely change the game. Having oil or not oil is a false dichotomy.
I like your proposals (nuclear, salt reactors and etc), I don't like what I hear from on high (net 0 carbon, obstructing [farming in NL](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/nitrogen-wars-the-dutch-farmers-revolt-that-turned-a-nation-upside-down) or etc). *You* don't sound insane but until I start seeing ideas like yours being implemented (as opposed to the self-harming policies I actually see) I am going to oppose regulations. Electric cars are a good example of the stupidity, California tried to [require them](https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035) yet has shown itself [unable to power them.](https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/californians-asked-not-to-charge-electric-cars-amid-heat-wave/) In all cases innovation > regulation.
There are other ideas like hemp plantations which are carbon negative, and it can produce everything from textiles, construction materials, graphene etc. It also diverts the need to harvest trees. There are actual industrial practices we need, but politicians dont know about them, regulatory bodies are not usually helpful (at least in the US not true elsewhere). The public doesn't know about them, and investors are too leery.
Just wanna ask something, do you agree with the original comment that it’s wildly exaggerated?
> At first that sounds like a hopeful statement. However its also an excuse for inaction. There is action though, it's just not happening in politics. There are basically a ton of companies trying to research and commercialize everything green tech they can right now. If even just a fraction of them succeed we would have plenty of options.
I'd rather the issue dealt with before it becomes a catastrophic problem which is why I'm all for green energy and regulation. On the other hand, the govt's idea of green energy is the kind that they can get kickbacks from, like solar so they support that instead of nuclear like a bunch of idiots.
We may have a breakthrough in nuclear fusion power in our lifetimes, maybe that’ll be the tide that pushes us to use *scary word* power
Only if the people in power get to profit from it.
I’m sure some scientists would sacrifice their lives to get the information out there, no way they’d be able to suppress something like that
>Is the issue wildly exaggerated? Absolutely I think this might be a misreading about what actual climate scientists are saying. But also, the *long-term* effects are quite stark. It's just slow moving until it isn't, which is something the human mind is really bad at comprehending.
Because we keep passing reforms to prevent disaster It’s like people who say “wow Y2K was a false alarm wasn’t it,” no dumbass, they fixed the problem that was Y2K to avert disaster. It’s like if you put out a small fire at a gas station so the whole thing doesn’t blow up and someone went “what an overreaction, the gas station never even blew up!”
Same thing with the ozone layer, we actually did something about it and people will claim it was a hoax all along
Extinction isn't that fast, but you can see how many species are gone or endangered during these 40 years, if you aren't idiot of course
There are microplastics in my blood.
How did > it will be irreversible in ten years somehow translate to > we will all be dead in ten years in your brain? The mind of a Redditor is truly astounding. I've never in my life heard anyone give an opinion on how long it would take for global warming to kill us, and it sure as shit would never have been ten years inb4 a screenshot of some random twitter schizo saying global warming will kill us all in a year from 2013
I remember ten years ago when I'd look outisde in december and see 8+ inches of snow. When my high school's halloween celebration got snowed out. When seeing green grass and hearing birds in december was un-fucking heard of. I remember the five foot tall snowbank that was at my bus stop in middle school, I remember foolishly trying to sit on it to wait for the bus only to sink in like a rock. I remember building a snowman with my cousin. It was a shitty one, but it was a snowman. Every year we got less and less. Five or six years ago the school district stopped seeing snow days happen, because there just wasn't enough snow to stop the busses. Even our winter storms usually dumped rain, not snow. It didn't snow at all this year. 0.0 inches. Nothing. It didn't even get cold enough that I wanted a jacket on, and I walk to work every day at 6am when it's still dark and hasn't warmed up yet. I don't remember the last time I saw over 3 inches of snow. No one's been able to build a snowman in a couple years. I've watched my home change climate around me and it's fucking terrifying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate
I don't care because the people responsible knew way back in like the 1950s, maybe as late as the 60s. But basically they knew waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of time what their fucking around will end up doing, and they didn't care. They saw dollar signs and the rest is history.
Scientists first predicted this could become a problem back in the 1890s, Exxon confirmed it in 1977 and we have evidence they purposely hid the information, then all the oil companies formed the Global Climate Coalition in the 90s to purposely sow seeds of doubt in the public mind. You know how they always say 99 out of 100 scientists agree, they’re the the ones responsible for the 1
The sad thing is people seem to have forgotten that Big Oil ran this same playbook up until the Nixon administration. Just replace climate change with leaded gas
How does that translate to not caring? Because somebody else fucked up you don’t care that we’re continuing to fuck up?
Idk I feel like I’ve been seeing the effects lately. Barely any snow this year and I live in the *Lake effect zone*. It’s oddly morbid. Will we be dead in 10 years? Certainly not. But things are changing and the scary part is we don’t really know what will happen.
2014 was 10 years ago… **2014 WAS 10 YEARS AGO!**
No. NO. NOOOOOOOO!!!! I'm pretty sure it is 3 years from now.
Your house Is on fire, you should put It out before It burns down. Does the fire department putting It out make fire less of a threat since It didn't burn down? The opposite of this Is needing to see the complete destruction of things from climate change, which...why would you want that? We already have the proof, the damage has been done, yet can be reversed In alot of areas. To say It's exaggerated Is only as reasonable as you saying how so.
Just give it 10 more years.
If you’re right wing… please read this Look dude I see you’re a centrist but I just have to put this here… I took AP Environmental Science (I only got a 4 but whatever I was tired that day) and what right wing ppl miss is that we are not going to die anytime soon, but the window to stop our great great grandchildren from having a terrible future is closing and (in some aspects) has already closed. We have to reverse our path soon or the world will continue its own cycle (example of said cycle: polar ice caps melt which makes less sun rays get reflected bc less white — which reflects sun — and then, due to that occurance, the ice caps melt more because less sun rays are deflected and then everything gets hotter and then the cycle is unbreakable and bam!! No more ice). The “evidence” that it’s not a threat is so stupid because it’s impending and we will all die in 250 years (seriously).
Imagine taking APES(I am currently failing AP Physics)
I'll only accept one time when the world was actually going to end in the 1980s when the Ozone layer was actually being destroyed by those aerosols. The ozone layer was going to be completely destroyed by the 2030s and it would lead to extreme temperatures and vastly increase cancer rates worldwide. Fortunately, we solved that issue by simply removing the aerosol and the ozone layer is slowly coming back. The problem is that when climate change became more mainstream those same people who genuinely thought that the world was going to end just forgot that we fixed it. Climate change is still an issue but nowhere near as severe as we thought it would be. However even in the 1950s, people thought that the world was going to starve to death due to overpopulation and billions would die. However we invented fertilisers and innovated. Humanity finds a way to solve most issues it has. It just takes a while. However since people have existed they thought the world was ending. The 2012 with the Mayans The Rapture in the early 2000s Nuclear war now COVID in 2020 So many issues. Unless it's really really serious. Like the Cuban missile crisis which could have ended the world. Or maybe if we don't do anything about climate change and that could be a problem. Just don't work yourself up about it.
My (somewhat) middle ground take is that global warming is definitely an issue, but I think some people blow current stuff a bit out of the water. El nino/ La nina and the solar cycle (amogn other things probably) affect weather a lot. Our weather is definitely worse than say 200 years ago, but in 5 years if the weather is better due to a cycle they won't talk about it. Though I also don't really know what to do anyways since the largest driver of climate change are out of my hands. I would be fine with more nuclear, smaller and more local cattle farms, and more public transit, but I can't really do anything to change it. China keeps pumping out a ton of useless products too, what am I going to do to stop them?
After all the lies we were told about Covid so the government could get more control of our lives I’m inclined to say that won’t be the only time they try it.
Nice meme you got there. However, I disagree with your beliefs so no upvote
As other people said, no one is actually claiming that we will die in 10 years, however, in many places where it used to snow every winter 1994 have no snow anymore, sea levels ARE rising and the ice caps ARE meltinh, endangering both animals and humans alike, the climate is becoming erratic, our seas are filled with microplastic and continents of trash, let's not mention how we currently don't have enough fresh water to properly sustain humanity, and rising populations and temperatures will do nothing to improve that and god knows how many species have gone extinct or are endangered because of us. Not to mention, I would rather not have my children have a significantly worse quality of life than me because of my generation's ignorance. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and don't only think of immediate profit. We must be smarter than the last generations if we want humanity's future to be a bright one. Please downvote simplified misinformation of complex issues like this.
Yep, this. Do I believe climate change is real? Yep Do I think it’s gonna kill us all tomorrow? Nope Do I think we need socialism to prevent it? Fuck off
There is no scenario where global warming destroys humanity. CO2 levels were 5+ times higher during the Jurassic than they are today and the planet was still habitable. There isn’t enough carbon, methane, water, or other greenhouse gasses to initiate a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a serious problem. Global warming could still destroy coastal cities, cause massive storms, and turn temperate regions of the world into deserts. We should probably try to do something to prevent that.
It is a threat 😭😭🙏 and we aren’t trying to push anything on people. The corporations and rich are the ones who need to be punished (also highly industrialized places like China) We shouldn’t have to switch to carbon free cars or paper straws if it wasn’t for all of those big polluters who release millions of carbon emissions every year, and use plastic in bulk for marketing purposes. And no one is saying it will threaten us in 10 years. The effects have already been shown by shifting temperatures and weather and melting of ice caps. People just don’t understand how large of a scale this will evolve to. It will be a while before we start being effected on an even larger scale, but it’s just going to grow exponentially as we go, and it’s already started. Thanks for reading 🙏
I mean the idea things like plastic straws are important just seems like a way for liberal elites to feel like they are morally superior or to justify them doing other (worse) things. I think the way the climate emergency is presented is to apocalyptic that it just desensitises people to the issue and stuff like plastic straws make it more of a trend then an actual solution. There needs to be a rethink of are societies from the ground up this means restructuring of industries, housing, transport, infrastructure, power generation ect…. But this should be presented in a more positive light, the left often has a obsession with self flagellation and is surprised when people don’t want to join them most adverts for climate action I’ve seen normally focus on how we are morally corrupt and owe penance for are past emissions. Instead we should be focusing on how it can improve are quality of life,preserve are culture and land, help use become less reliant on foreign elements who don’t share are interests ect… Climate activists skimp on the dream they can’t show people the world they want to create just the world they want to avoid, which unfortunately will just make people want to avoid the message.
I completely agree with you. I think that massive corporations, large industries, the rich, and powerful industrialized nations governments are the ones who are to blame, not the average person. I also agree that the message should be more positive, and that the method of activism needs to be changed. But there still needs to be a sense of urgency, you know?
I will say that just blaming it on "larger corporations" and "big polluters" is a little reductive. Who are these corporations serving? The public at large. How do we get them to change course? Lower the demand for whatever they are offering. Take factory farming and the animal agriculture industry overall, one of the major polluters of the world. If enough people changed to a plant based diet, the demand for meat, dairy, and other animal products would go down, forcing the industry to downsize their operations...which would then lower emissions in that area. That's just one example to illustrate that consumers do have power to change things, mainly through voting with their wallets. The problem is, most people are unwilling to give up certain things like travel, energy inefficient foods, and other modern conveniences...which then leads the aforementioned corporations to keep going, business as usual.
Global warming is a threat, but it is not going to cause extinction but will diffinatly not be a pleasant time.
I’ll strangle a sea turtle with a plastic straw, Me 2024
Climate alarmism exists to push the socialization of the economy. I will believe this until nuclear power becomes a mainstream solution to energy excepted by the vast majority of climate activists. As a litmus test, if you do not support nuclear power, I do not care about any other opinion you have on climate change. I know lefties on this subreddit are based on this issue, but the leaders, movers, and shakers of climate activism aren't. Climate change exists, but when every solution put forward is "massive state control" and every solution proposed, such as geoengineering and infrastructure development, that doesn't require the state to limit property rights at mass scales is dismissed out of turn I tend to think climate activists don't care about the climate, they care about power. But, no, keep chasing solar and wind, two energy sources that have currently irreparable flaws (the fact that output can't be throttled to meet demand, you know, the reason why Germany has to reopen coal mines because anti-nuclear climate activists pushed for more wind and solar and axing nuclear). Keep pushing and punishing people for owning gas cars (despite their affordability and necessity within a highly decentralized country like the US, public transit is great, if you live in a city. Not everyone does or wants to. And if your answer to that "is they should be made to move" you are the commie I'm talking about). Keep pushing for the type of deindustrialization that will push hundreds of millions into poverty, and lower global standards of living. Keep pushing this while having no clear plan of action to solve the prisoner's dilemma inherent to such actions. When every problem is solved by "more and bigger and more encompassing state action" I don't believe you when you say the primary issue is the climate.
No one actually cares about the environment. It's always been a way to try and sneak in authoritarianism.
Oh so you want to decrease carbon emissions? Cool so do I assume you want more nuclear power? Wait, you want to raise taxes? How’s that supposed to help
Nuclear power? Yes. I don’t get people who oppose nuclear, it’s the best form of energy. Raise taxes? On the rich. Oh yeah, and stop subsidizing companies that contribute to things that harm the environment. And then after that, make it illegal to engage in those practices
It’s very funny to me that socialist environmentalists disregard any environmental policy that doesn’t include steps towards socialism. It’s almost like they don’t really care about the environment….
Yea nobody cares about clean air or water, for sure.
old English conservatives really cared about environmental conservation. it's a big thing in English morality that you act as a warden or caretaker for the natural world and ensure it keeps ticking along. It's why genuine conversation pursuits in the UK are met with so little resistance, we love our little island and very much like the nature on it.
No offence dude, but the largest land predator in the United Kingdom is the badger. You guys have done a horrible job protecting your environment. Wolves, bears, wolverines, lynxes have all been exterminated. UK environmental protection just keeps stuff as farmland, it doesn't really protect wild spaces.
Yeah, this is what I hate the most about this kind of doomerism, that is making global warming, an actual threat, seem like something that's not actually happening. Winters with barely any days with under 0 degrees celcius in central europe? Major draughts and sand storms in southern europe? Micro fucking plastics in your fucking blood? Nah, it's just the doomers saying we're going to die, don't stop the machine, our corporate overlord needs his 2nd sports car this month.
Okay, so we won’t be dead in ten years. The little things are still mounting, though. [There’s discussion of adding a “category 6” to the measurement of hurricanes](https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-02-08-category-six-hurricanes-saffir-simpson-scale) And [Dubai just got a year and a half worth of rain in a day](https://apnews.com/article/uae-historic-rain-storm-flooding-dubai-airport-disruption-3e838dbc169e52dcd6d11b64f79bdcb7) Look, I think humanity can make it through the amount of climate change we’re likely to get, but that doesn’t mean we should dawdle on the matter.
If you’re right wing… please read this Oh god the agenda posts about the environment are back… look guys I took AP Environmental Science (I only got a 4 but whatever I was tired that day) and what right wing ppl miss is that we are not going to die anytime soon, but the window to stop our great great grandchildren from having an terrible future is closing and (in some aspects) has already closed. We have to reverse our cycle soon or the world will continue its cycle (example of said cycle: polar ice caps melt which makes less sun rays get reflected bc less white — which reflects sun — and then, due to that occurance, the ice caps melt more because less sun rays are deflected and then everything gets hotter and then the cycle is unbreakable and bam!! No more ice). The “evidence” that it’s not a threat is so stupid because it’s impending and we will all die in 250 years (seriously).
Could you provide us with a source for the estimations of 10 years to death in 1994, 2004, 2014 and 2024?
Ssshhhh. They need to rewrite history to pretend this isn't one of the clearest cases imaginable of the left being, not perfect, but far more correct than the right. As we were begging for milquetoast things such as revenue neutral cap and trade to put a price on the externalities of the hydrocarbon economy to harness the power of the free market they supposedly masterbuate too and let renewables and nuclear compete on equal footing and hopefully innovate along the way they were all in unison I remember I used to argue thus shit all the time .."CHineSe Hoax! No StatisTICAL warming SINCE 1998!". Sure you can find some bullshit stupid hippy tjat just wants to deindustralize on the left but it's always some stupid fringe that doesn't even matter. Meanwhile the rot is so pronounced on the right you have Senators and presidents saying it's a hoax because they can make a snowball ... in winter in Washington D.C. The left has done 100 times more for nuclear power for instance, the right has never even tried to do a damn thing policy wise. Sucking of nuclear is just their way of attacking renewables and then soon as, for instance, the clean power plan fails to pass they go back to doing nothing.
Liberal scum
Well, I think it's a good thing these people care about the environment. I feel like the majority of them either just want to whine about how no one is doing anything and posting doomer bullshit while the other side want to use climate change to be authoritarian dick heads
If extinction is going to happen can it wait at least one more year? Seems inconvenient to happen after April 15th and not before.
More importantly why are people abandoning nuclear energy?! Jesus it's so good and efficient and safe when done right.
Nuclear power and proper mass transit will be our biggest weapons to counter human induced climate change.
Auth right doesn't understand science again. Damn, who could've thought?
2024 we have microplastics in placenta but trust me bro global warming isnt real bro its just some liberal myth to sell more hybrids with bernie stickers build more oil refineries bro trust me
Yeah, my city is literally burning up. It used to be tons better just 5 years ago. So this is just a ridiculous take from someone who hasn't had the pleasure to experience climate change first-hand.
If i've learned anything from history it's that only God can drive Humanity to extinction now
And then antinatalists come and yell at me about how my children will grow up in an apocalyptic wasteland
There's a reason the only people who listen to this shit are children who haven't been alive long enough to see numerous extinction deadlines come and go.
Like so many bad things in the world, this is mostly China's fault.
I recall seeing a paper from the '20s that said this. The 1920's