3 ms·

I'm not denying climate change, but that's... a bit hyperbolic, with a bunch of silly absolutes. Mass death everywhere? Wildlife is thriving in the Chernobyl ex

I'm not denying climate change, but that's... a bit hyperbolic, with a bunch of silly absolutes. Mass death everywhere? Wildlife is thriving in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.[1] The world has been getting greener with more plant life because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.[2] Total ecosystem collapse? Which ecosystem? Why? Again, I'm not denying any of the human impact to our climate, and I agree that many ecosystems will change, and it will be our fault, but I don't think it's productive or healthy to think of it with such bleakness. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/060418-ch... [2] https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html

_y5hn 4y ago
The greening of the planet isn't indicative of health. When water shortages and lack of snow melting dries up rivers, the land changes. Warming and acidification of the oceans hits offshore too. This is expected to be noticeable from the 2030's. Ecology needs a balance. Life overall is pretty resilient, but the changes are faster and more impactful than over millions of years. It's not like we take notice how much destruction humans do, but interesting any rationale is used to justify it, rather than address root causes. Not against optimism, just that these temporary effects obscures what's really happening.