this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
651 points (98.4% liked)

World News

32352 readers
412 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mothringer@lemmy.world 116 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've seen the first chart in a lot of news stories, and it's a scary graph, but that second one looks positively terrifying by comparison.

[–] redhydride@lemmy.ml 69 points 1 year ago

And the Antarctic ice figure is even more severe. The trend is quite stark.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

I dunno dude.. They all just get progressively worse.

[–] MyDogLovesMe@lemmy.world 104 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The 1% truly think they are going to sit it out underground in their billion dollar bolt-holes/bunkers. It’s like thinking you’ll survive the tsunami by standing on a chair.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I honestly don't think they've really thought that far ahead.

They know they'll be better off than everyone else and I guess that's enough.

[–] swnt@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago

There are actually quite a few places where they buy bunkers - but with luxury and stuff. it's also marketed as a way of safe spot to retreat when the surface goes bad.

obviously, it's rather a big ,"we found a way to make money out of rich peoples fears and doubts" rather than actual security measures. if things really go bad, how are they going to know, that their security guards aren't going to ditch them? and if they isolate, then they cannot sustain their lifestyle in a bunker with bunker food.

[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago

And they're dragging us all down with them. That's the most pissing part.

[–] teri@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Did you consider that it might be good for humanity to lock our billionaires into bunkers? We should lock them in in order for us to survive.

The difference is marginal: just a matter on which side you place the door handles.

[–] blue_zephyr@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They will probably mostly survive. But then they'll realise that all productive and smart people are dead and their money is worthless in the new world.

[–] moonmeow@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

all their wealth is basically dependent and built on the labour of all society, they're not escaping this. They'll have more privilege to suffer less relatively to the majority of the people on this planet, but they're not escaping this

[–] unconsciousvoidling@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago

i get the sense that they cannot control their thirst for power. it's like trying to wrestle away a bottle of booze from a drunk. they'll make whatever excuses are necessary to convince themselves that this is the way it has to be and they need more.

[–] teri@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago

I suspect they might be afraid of people, not of climate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 86 points 1 year ago (2 children)

These are terrifying graphs and I don't like looking at them. Academically, I'm fully aware of the horror and threat that climate change poses, but these graphs and the massive fires really make it feel more real.

[–] moonmeow@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

that's how it goes. we're in this transformation but most people don't notice it because they experience the world and things seem to be ok (for now, or they are distracted by some other insignificant thing), and this is not even mentioning the economic and political obstacles that block any meaningful change.

I think the likely scenario is people won't seriously start to be concerned (and by serious i mean taking proactive steps across their individual and social lives) until this situation further develops and it will be a bit too late. I hope i'm wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sinkingship@sh.itjust.works 55 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It seems to get more difficult to end an article with optimisms:

But it would be wrong to call what is happening a "climate collapse" [...] we still have time to secure a liveable future for many

For many, hm.

Reminded my of another article ending on

Here is where we need to invest and make changes and innovate and not give up. We can’t just write off billions of people.

Article mentioned

[–] redhydride@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Polydextrous@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

It’s long past time we pull the best quote from a scientist just saying, “we fucking told you.”

[–] under2x@lemdit.com 9 points 1 year ago

Scientists like Michael Mann are trying very hard to not create so much panic that people give up and stop trying to end fossil fuel use. But this article is definitely panic inducing lol.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 year ago (8 children)

This is the second time in a week someone has used "tumble" to mean "occur rapidly" instead of "fall". Is this a new colloquialism or had"tumble" always had a second definition as "occur rapidly"?

[–] PrometheusG@lemmy.one 21 points 1 year ago

"Tumble" does not mean "occur rapidly" here. It means "broken". When a world record is broken, it falls or tumbles. These are climate world records, like "hottest day ever".

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] sibloure@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Does this mean we're all going to die? Like humanity will be gone without a trace? If so, how soon?

[–] Imajustlayhere@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

It will probably be a drawn out process that's hurts real bad.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

No. But many will. And we'll start seeing mass migration surges within the next decade from countries more drastically impacted.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago

No, but catastrophic collapse (over many years) is possible IMO.

As in a return to pre-industrial tech.

[–] weavejester@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No; at least, that's unlikely. But parts of the world that are currently habitable will be made inhabitable, and biodiversity will continue to fall. We'll likely see more extreme weather events, increased migration from areas that are too hot or underwater, and issues with global food supply. Coral reefs may completely disappear.

However, progress is being made, and while it's not as quick as we'd like, carbon emissions for modern economies like the US and EU are on a downward curve. In 2021 EU's carbon emissions were back to pre-1967 levels, while the US's carbon emissions were back to pre-1979 levels (Source). So there's cause for hope; the worst thing we can do is give up. Everything we do now lessens the scale of the problem in future.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] luffyuk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There's no way the climate crisis entirely wipes out humanity. However, we could be looking at a Mad Max style future.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] phil299@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have just read this entire thread and I have two observations.

1 the "tumble" discussion is unbelievably ironic as the whole public climate discussion has for years been a case of mass distraction IMO.

2 The other central discussion is dominated by someone , clearly a skeptic, and repeatably described as a troll, and although the basic assumptions taken are just factually wrong the context of the consequences discussed are more insightful that the rebuttals.

So currently the power and money is dominated by industries that do not want to change and they frustrate attempts to create meaningful global change. What change has occurred has been when money and power wish that change. Political courage will be needed to make things happen with any sort of urgency IMO

load more comments
view more: next ›