3 ms·

From what I read, this is not a real surprise to many Climate Scientists. Most researchers have been worried about this, but I heard due to political and insti

• Trasmatta 2y ago
  > Young people in the US need to be out protesting for their future The changes you are outlining aren't going to happen from protesting. What we need is a general strike, but there is no appetite to do that in the numbers necessary to actually make any change.
  • BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • diggan 2y ago
      > Where "strike" means some kind of domestic terrorism level interference with infrastructure. "Strike" usually means "refuse work", not some sort of violence that you seem to be advocating. It's possible to get real policy change through peaceful demonstrations, strikes and similar actions, as history will kindly remind you of.
      • BLKNSLVR 2y ago
        My point was that a strike won't be enough. Climate action has failed to gain traction for, what 30+ years? I wasn't intending to encourage personal violence, but saying that violence against infrastructure (not people) is the only way to force the level of attention necessary. I mean, the US has recently pivoted in the opposite direction. You think a strike would change the minds of those who made that decision?
        • Trasmatta 2y ago
          A general strike absolutely would. But we're nowhere near the public support for something like that to make it happen.
      • lblume 2y ago
        Do you believe this could realistically be enough pressure to sway politicians driven by corporate financial incentives? Step-by-step reform and gradual carbon reductions just aren't feasible like they have been 20 years ago. Without strong economic disruptions right now the unimaginable destruction in the future seems very likely to be disregarded in favor of short-term thinking, as illustrated perfectly not only by the current administration but also its weaker-than-ever opposition (e.g. Harris strongly advocating for fracking in 2024).
  • llamaimperative 2y ago
    Or getting young people to actually vote, which is a much, much lower bar to clear with a dramatically clearer path to results.
    • Trasmatta 2y ago
      > much, much lower bar to clear Apparently not, because people have been trying to get young people to vote for decades, and nobody has managed it. But also, gen z has been trending right. So I don't know if this would actually work.
      • lumost 2y ago
        Gen Z is in rough shape financially, much worse than millennials were. It’s a recipe for radicalization one way or the other.
      • llamaimperative 2y ago
        I must’ve missed all the successful general strikes? Trump got young men to vote in droves.
        • Trasmatta 2y ago
          Take a look at history, general strikes are very effective. But my point was that we're very far from actually having one because there isn't enough public support. People just don't care. If they did, they would have voted against Trump.
          • llamaimperative 2y ago
            > People just don't care. If they did, they would have voted against Trump. I don't think this follows at all. There are tons of variables at play in an election that make this connection way, way too noisy.
    • actualwitch 2y ago
      I don't think many people in US understand that the "voting" that will happen next is the same "voting" that happens in every dictatorship ever. "Get out and vote! Just this time. You won't have to do it anymore! Four more years, you know what? It'll be fixed"
• micromacrofoot 2y ago
  the US isn't going to save anyone, there's currently real concern about a widespread measles outbreak
  • toomuchtodo 2y ago
    China will. They’ll keep exporting clean energy systems (renewables, batteries, EVs) to the world. The transition is inevitable, but young people need to stay motivated as older folks with power keep aging out every year.
    • relaxing 2y ago
      Sadly the old folks with power started out as gullible youngsters too, and the cycle shows no sign of stopping.
  • Towaway69 2y ago
    > about a widespread measles outbreak A quick search and got this[1]: > At least 49 cases have been confirmed. Health officials — who are scrambling to get a handle on the vaccine-preventable outbreak — suspect 200 to 300 people may be infected. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/measles-outbreak-west-texas-grows-unvaccinated-rcna192163 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/measles-outbreak-...
• user982 2y ago
  > First get the US to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidiaries. And then maybe add a huge tax on the use of fossil fuels. Instructions unclear, eliminating $7500 EV tax credit and adding $1000 tax on EV purchases: https://electrek.co/2025/02/13/oil-backed-senators-introduce-bills-to-kill-7500-ev-tax-credit-add-1000-tax-on-electric-cars/ https://electrek.co/2025/02/13/oil-backed-senators-introduce...
• nemo44x 2y ago
  People are struggling and everything is expensive. The last thing people want is for energy to become more expensive which drives the cost of everything. It’s political suicide as well. What’s needed is more energy supply which drives down relative demand lowering the costs of nearly everything. Protesting or w/e doesn’t solve that problem. People struggling today don’t care about some abstract outcome. My point is this isn’t a practical political issue today outside a fringe. It can be one day. But it’s not today. You’re literally saying the strategy is to make inflation worse and make everyone worse off by making todays energy infrastructure more expensive to operate.
  • epistasis 2y ago
    Fossil fuels are more expensive than electricity. The longer we delay the transition, the more we pay for energy. So why don't we move forward with the transition? Partisan politics and mass delusion. Some people are literally so brainwashed by their politics that they can not even look up basic facts. Right now, China is most likely peaking in their fossil fuel use, according to the IEA, a very fossil fuel friendly organization: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-fuel-demand-may-have-passed-its-peak-iea-says-2025-02-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-fuel-demand-m... China is going to experience a cheaper energy system than the US for at least a decade unless we correct course. All this talk about "people are hurting" as a way to avoid the transition is actually all about extracting just a few more years of high energy prices out of the US population to benefit the fossil fuel companies.
    • nemo44x 2y ago
      The infrastructure isn’t there. We need to flood our system with fossil fuels as that’s the existing infra and it makes for cheaper food, shipping, consumer goods, etc. The input might be cheaper but the infrastructure to support it needs to be built. Solve that problem first.
      • chneu 2y ago
        Fossil fuels carry an environmental debt that you won't be repaying. Perpetuating the use of fossil fuels is basically saying "fuck you" to the next generation. Same goes for beef consumption, plastic consumption, etc. We pay artificially reduced prices now while saddling the next generation with the debt of our selfishness. Pay now or they pay later.
• nialv7 2y ago
  > I am sure by 2100 we will hit 4C I am kind of expecting 4C by 2050... given the current AI boom. Most protesting is not going to be effective (in the sense that they won't get people's attention). Effective protests will be hated by general public (e.g. Just Stop Oil). So I am very pessimistic in general.
  • whamlastxmas 2y ago
    AI is a net positive for climate change
    • pacifika 2y ago
      Based on?
      • mystified5016 2y ago
        The temperature keeps going up
    • nialv7 2y ago
      Yes, AI is going to solve all of our problems. /s
      • Towaway69 2y ago
        Amen to that.
• dageshi 2y ago
  I think it's pretty obvious that nothing meaningful is going to be done. As a species we're not willing to sacrifice enough to solve this problem and I think we're probably out of time at this point.
  • mandmandam 2y ago
    The issue isn't our species. It's our billionaires; the people who own our media and our politicians. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree we need action. Even with billions spent on propaganda, the majority of citizens believe we need action. A tiny minority of our corporate media and politicians believe we need action, and their bosses/owners are happy to fire them if they speak up too well. Look what happened to Greta once she started talking about capitalism - instant blackout on coverage. So again, this isn't a species problem. It's very much a billionaire problem, and they are not like us. Billionaires realize this, and we need to realize it as well.
    • sixothree 2y ago
      What that really implies is that media controls legislation.
      • mandmandam 2y ago
        I mean, maybe? Media stations are the first target in most coups... Cutting off alternative voices limits opposition, which is probably why Musk, Ellison, and whatever Saudi princes bought Twitter; and why TikTok was neutered. What I'm really 'implying' (ie, saying explicitly) is that we have a billionaire problem. They're strip-mining our future, and using every tool money can buy to do so. This includes the tools in the media and political class. It's blatant and in our face now, after years of being behind the scenes.
    • dageshi 2y ago
      Yeah it is. Tackling climate change would've required people to potentially change their lives, possibly drastically and in doing so likely have a lower standard of living. And they didn't want to. They don't want to drive less, they don't want to fly less, they don't want smaller houses, they may say they want to do something about climate change but only so long as it doesn't actually meaningfully effect them.
• jaredklewis 2y ago
  > That is the only way at this point to get change to happen quick enough to prevent 3C. Given the poor track record of political protests in general and the relatively weak response to climate change by governments the world over, I’m not sure why you hold out a political response as the “only” way to prevent 3c. A technological breakthrough, while unlikely, seems like a more plausible path to prevent 3c.