5 ms·

Different stories, same culprit everytime.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
It will frustrate me until the day I die the sheer NUMBER of problems directly attributable to human-caused climate change and how every government damn near world-wide simply refuses to do anything. We know the fucking problem, we know the fucking solution, and we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything.
- mhb 1y ago
  Wouldn't it still be a problem if it wasn't human-caused?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    Sure, but that's not what's happening.
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    It is human caused. It simply is. We have decades of research all saying the exact same thing, some of which was funded directly by the energy industry trying desperately to prove it's not. It is. This is not a debate anymore, if you disagree, you either don't understand or don't want to understand and neither of those is my or anyone else's problem to solve. You're wrong.
    - mhb 1y ago
      Why is it important to you what the cause is? Don't you think it is important to do something about it even if it wasn't human-caused? Should we only solve problems that we cause? It looks like you have a few similarly confused commenters who think this is relevant to addressing the problem. It's a mystery why you want to derail the discussion to a debate about the cause rather than how to fix it. Maybe you're trying to say that understanding the cause is relevant to the solution, but if you are, you need to say it a lot more clearly.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        The thing about human-caused things is humans can choose to stop doing the causal things. The set of potential solutions would be quite different if the cause wasn't humans. Might even be impossible. But we have quite a lot of evidence that we have been affecting the climate pretty substantially since the beginning of industrialization and increasingly so since, so it makes sense to work on the human causes.
        lisbbb 1y ago
        I disagree. I think if we stop using oil and gas, we fall into a new dark ages pretty fast and half or more of all humans will die. Is that what you intend?
        Sabinus 1y ago
        We have more options than just (instantly) stop using oil and gas and those options would have been far more easy to implement had we been doing them for the last 50 years instead of arguing about if climate change is happening, and now, if humans have caused climate change. These other options require resources and time to implement, and the political capital required to make that happen has been and will be increased because of the aforementioned 'debates'.
      - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
        > Why is it important to you what the cause is? Because trapping us in this endless debate of what the "real" cause is has been the go-to strategy for the oil and gas industry, where no matter how many times it is bloody proven, they hem and haw and say "well we need more evidence" but they aren't like, not selling gasoline anymore until we know it's safe are they? They just keep doing exactly what we're pretty damned sure is killing the planet, while endlessly debating whether it is or not.
        mhb 1y ago
        Why do you care what they say? Shouldn't your response be that it doesn't matter who caused it; we need to fix it regardless. Why do you want to have that argument?
    - lisbbb 1y ago
      It will always be up for debate, though. That's the thing--unless you are an absolutist, you will understand that scientific inquiry is a never-ending process and that all the "it's settled science" people don't seem to understand that at one time humans thought the earth was the center of the universe and that applying leeches to people helped remove the "ill humours" they were suffering form. All of that was also "settled science." Until it wasn't.
      - vel0city 1y ago
        People are still debating if the Earth is round. You might think your spherical, heliocentric ideas are "settled science". Until it isn't.
  - mc32 1y ago
    Warming and cooling would and will happen with people or without people -that's fact. The issue that many people have is about "when" it's happening. It upsets those that it's happening now as induced by people's activities and not by natural cycles or natural causes (eruptions, new species producing/emitting GHGs, etc.)
    - insane_dreamer 1y ago
      It’s not just about when, it’s about the _rate_ at which it is happening. That’s the destructive factor.
  - awjlogan 1y ago
    The two big differences are 1) the rate of change (a huge amount higher than most planetary systems) and 2) that we have a large and growing population dependent on the many services our planet provides at a stable temperature. Of course, completely neglecting the rest of the natural world.
  - AngryData 1y ago
    Sure but there aren't many things that change the climate nearly so quickly, and even when they do like with volcanoes, the effects are dissipate over time. Meanwhile we have no expectation of stopping producing carbon dioxide and other pollutants continuously within anybody living's lifetime and likely far beyond.
- dec0dedab0de 1y ago
  Wait, we know the solution? What is it?
  - nosignono 1y ago
    Stop burning fossil fuels, build infrastructure to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Extract the minimum number of fossil fuels necessary to serve non-fuel uses. The solution is not easy. But it is known.
    - coldpie 1y ago
      > The solution is not easy. But it is known. It's definitely not easy, but it's not even particularly hard, either. The solutions are there and ready to go. Everything we need to do to solve it has been done before[1]. We have done and continue to do many more difficult things than solve climate change. The only difference between the hard things we are doing, and solving climate change, is the latter would make the ludicrously-wealthy very slightly less wealthy, instead of very slightly more. That's it. That's the whole debate. That's what we're burning the planet for. [1] With the exception of carbon capture, which is only necessary now because we wasted so long doing nothing.
    - dec0dedab0de 1y ago
      But would that reverse our current problems?
      - vel0city 1y ago
        Just because we should have started something 30+ years ago isn't a reason to not do it today. I should have started going to the gym before, I'd be healthier today. I guess I'll just never go to the gym. I should have been eating heather food before I got diabetes and high blood pressure. I guess I'll just keep having a terrible diet. Same kind of logic.
      - nosignono 1y ago
        Would reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reverse current problems? On it's own, it would start to, yes. It would reduce global temperatures, reduce weather irregularities, begin to cool the globe back down. But we'd then have to move on to other things like deforestation, overfishing, water conflicts, plastics, etc. It's not a panacea, but it would reverse course on a pretty significant root cause.
- colonCapitalDee 1y ago
  I share your frustration, but I think you're blaming the wrong group. The median voter simply does not care about climate change, and is not willing to shoulder any of the short-term costs necessary to address it. They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness".
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    The culture war bullshit you're referencing is a propaganda effort on the part of corporate media to manufacture outrage around policies their funding organizations and figures disagree with, namely the promotion of clean energy and weaning us off fossil fuels and cars more generally. You aren't wrong but that block of ill-informed voters didn't simply manifest from the ether. It was created for a purpose and it's working.
  - coldpie 1y ago
    > They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness". None of that has to change to solve climate change, so that's good news for those voters. If you think those changes are necessary, you are being lied to. The bad news for them is that not solving climate change will make their gas, food, housing, and healthcare prices skyrocket. The choice for most voters is like deciding whether to spend $0 now, or $10,000 later. Choose wisely...
- yongjik 1y ago
  > we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything. This is at best an oversimplification, and at worse another convenient lie we tell ourselves because then we ("the never rich enough!") can feel righteous anger about nothing happening, while not being responsible for it. Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    > Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices. This is at best an oversimplification, and frankly, it feels like a pretty deliberate one. Yes, the Yellow Vest protests began because of a proposed fuel tax by Emanuel Macron, which was set to directly impact lower income/rural voters. Which it would, because wealthier people in metro areas don't drive nearly as much. The movement evolved over time to incorporate many rural vs. city conflicts, things like lack of government services in non-populous areas, low minimum wages, and overall income inequality and all the social ills that follow it. People weren't upset that gas was getting more expensive: they were upset that it was becoming unaffordable in areas in which buying it is not optional. You simply cannot live in the rural areas of any western country without a car. Period. Paragraph. The infrastructure demands a vehicle or you cannot get around. So when people are already struggling and ostensibly green-minded ideas like gas taxes are proposed, with no alternatives for them besides driving: yes, they get pissed off. Measures like these have been protested far and wide because of things exactly like this, because governments keep trying to offset the costs of green policy on working class voters who are already struggling, because their donors are the wealthy elites who don't want to pay for it despite being eminently able to. And worse still these results are then used to say "see, people don't REALLY want to save the planet" when it's quite bluntly obvious, to me anyway, that what people don't want to do is..... starve.
  - 1y ago
zosima 1y ago
Different stories, same funding agencies. Or at least same global goals for the funding agencies.

It will frustrate me until the day I die the sheer NUMBER of problems directly attributable to human-caused climate change and how every government damn near world-wide simply refuses to do anything. We know the fucking problem, we know the fucking solution, and we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything.

mhb 1y ago
Wouldn't it still be a problem if it wasn't human-caused?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  Sure, but that's not what's happening.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  It is human caused. It simply is. We have decades of research all saying the exact same thing, some of which was funded directly by the energy industry trying desperately to prove it's not. It is. This is not a debate anymore, if you disagree, you either don't understand or don't want to understand and neither of those is my or anyone else's problem to solve. You're wrong.
  - mhb 1y ago
    Why is it important to you what the cause is? Don't you think it is important to do something about it even if it wasn't human-caused? Should we only solve problems that we cause? It looks like you have a few similarly confused commenters who think this is relevant to addressing the problem. It's a mystery why you want to derail the discussion to a debate about the cause rather than how to fix it. Maybe you're trying to say that understanding the cause is relevant to the solution, but if you are, you need to say it a lot more clearly.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      The thing about human-caused things is humans can choose to stop doing the causal things. The set of potential solutions would be quite different if the cause wasn't humans. Might even be impossible. But we have quite a lot of evidence that we have been affecting the climate pretty substantially since the beginning of industrialization and increasingly so since, so it makes sense to work on the human causes.
      - lisbbb 1y ago
        I disagree. I think if we stop using oil and gas, we fall into a new dark ages pretty fast and half or more of all humans will die. Is that what you intend?
        Sabinus 1y ago
        We have more options than just (instantly) stop using oil and gas and those options would have been far more easy to implement had we been doing them for the last 50 years instead of arguing about if climate change is happening, and now, if humans have caused climate change. These other options require resources and time to implement, and the political capital required to make that happen has been and will be increased because of the aforementioned 'debates'.
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      > Why is it important to you what the cause is? Because trapping us in this endless debate of what the "real" cause is has been the go-to strategy for the oil and gas industry, where no matter how many times it is bloody proven, they hem and haw and say "well we need more evidence" but they aren't like, not selling gasoline anymore until we know it's safe are they? They just keep doing exactly what we're pretty damned sure is killing the planet, while endlessly debating whether it is or not.
      - mhb 1y ago
        Why do you care what they say? Shouldn't your response be that it doesn't matter who caused it; we need to fix it regardless. Why do you want to have that argument?
  - lisbbb 1y ago
    It will always be up for debate, though. That's the thing--unless you are an absolutist, you will understand that scientific inquiry is a never-ending process and that all the "it's settled science" people don't seem to understand that at one time humans thought the earth was the center of the universe and that applying leeches to people helped remove the "ill humours" they were suffering form. All of that was also "settled science." Until it wasn't.
    - vel0city 1y ago
      People are still debating if the Earth is round. You might think your spherical, heliocentric ideas are "settled science". Until it isn't.
- mc32 1y ago
  Warming and cooling would and will happen with people or without people -that's fact. The issue that many people have is about "when" it's happening. It upsets those that it's happening now as induced by people's activities and not by natural cycles or natural causes (eruptions, new species producing/emitting GHGs, etc.)
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    It’s not just about when, it’s about the _rate_ at which it is happening. That’s the destructive factor.
- awjlogan 1y ago
  The two big differences are 1) the rate of change (a huge amount higher than most planetary systems) and 2) that we have a large and growing population dependent on the many services our planet provides at a stable temperature. Of course, completely neglecting the rest of the natural world.
- AngryData 1y ago
  Sure but there aren't many things that change the climate nearly so quickly, and even when they do like with volcanoes, the effects are dissipate over time. Meanwhile we have no expectation of stopping producing carbon dioxide and other pollutants continuously within anybody living's lifetime and likely far beyond.
dec0dedab0de 1y ago
Wait, we know the solution? What is it?
- nosignono 1y ago
  Stop burning fossil fuels, build infrastructure to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Extract the minimum number of fossil fuels necessary to serve non-fuel uses. The solution is not easy. But it is known.
  - coldpie 1y ago
    > The solution is not easy. But it is known. It's definitely not easy, but it's not even particularly hard, either. The solutions are there and ready to go. Everything we need to do to solve it has been done before[1]. We have done and continue to do many more difficult things than solve climate change. The only difference between the hard things we are doing, and solving climate change, is the latter would make the ludicrously-wealthy very slightly less wealthy, instead of very slightly more. That's it. That's the whole debate. That's what we're burning the planet for. [1] With the exception of carbon capture, which is only necessary now because we wasted so long doing nothing.
  - dec0dedab0de 1y ago
    But would that reverse our current problems?
    - vel0city 1y ago
      Just because we should have started something 30+ years ago isn't a reason to not do it today. I should have started going to the gym before, I'd be healthier today. I guess I'll just never go to the gym. I should have been eating heather food before I got diabetes and high blood pressure. I guess I'll just keep having a terrible diet. Same kind of logic.
    - nosignono 1y ago
      Would reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reverse current problems? On it's own, it would start to, yes. It would reduce global temperatures, reduce weather irregularities, begin to cool the globe back down. But we'd then have to move on to other things like deforestation, overfishing, water conflicts, plastics, etc. It's not a panacea, but it would reverse course on a pretty significant root cause.
colonCapitalDee 1y ago
I share your frustration, but I think you're blaming the wrong group. The median voter simply does not care about climate change, and is not willing to shoulder any of the short-term costs necessary to address it. They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness".
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  The culture war bullshit you're referencing is a propaganda effort on the part of corporate media to manufacture outrage around policies their funding organizations and figures disagree with, namely the promotion of clean energy and weaning us off fossil fuels and cars more generally. You aren't wrong but that block of ill-informed voters didn't simply manifest from the ether. It was created for a purpose and it's working.
- coldpie 1y ago
  > They'd rather have cheap gas for their car, not have to look at fields of solar panels, and signal their opposition to "wokeness". None of that has to change to solve climate change, so that's good news for those voters. If you think those changes are necessary, you are being lied to. The bad news for them is that not solving climate change will make their gas, food, housing, and healthcare prices skyrocket. The choice for most voters is like deciding whether to spend $0 now, or $10,000 later. Choose wisely...
yongjik 1y ago
> we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything. This is at best an oversimplification, and at worse another convenient lie we tell ourselves because then we ("the never rich enough!") can feel righteous anger about nothing happening, while not being responsible for it. Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  > Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices. This is at best an oversimplification, and frankly, it feels like a pretty deliberate one. Yes, the Yellow Vest protests began because of a proposed fuel tax by Emanuel Macron, which was set to directly impact lower income/rural voters. Which it would, because wealthier people in metro areas don't drive nearly as much. The movement evolved over time to incorporate many rural vs. city conflicts, things like lack of government services in non-populous areas, low minimum wages, and overall income inequality and all the social ills that follow it. People weren't upset that gas was getting more expensive: they were upset that it was becoming unaffordable in areas in which buying it is not optional. You simply cannot live in the rural areas of any western country without a car. Period. Paragraph. The infrastructure demands a vehicle or you cannot get around. So when people are already struggling and ostensibly green-minded ideas like gas taxes are proposed, with no alternatives for them besides driving: yes, they get pissed off. Measures like these have been protested far and wide because of things exactly like this, because governments keep trying to offset the costs of green policy on working class voters who are already struggling, because their donors are the wealthy elites who don't want to pay for it despite being eminently able to. And worse still these results are then used to say "see, people don't REALLY want to save the planet" when it's quite bluntly obvious, to me anyway, that what people don't want to do is..... starve.
- 1y ago

zosima 1y ago

Different stories, same funding agencies. Or at least same global goals for the funding agencies.