4 ms·

As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The people in charge a either clinically retarded or willingly ignoring the problem, eit

As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The people in charge a either clinically retarded or willingly ignoring the problem, either way we're fucked, the point of no return is behind us now, this is the new normal, and it'll only get worse

csto12 3mo ago
> “the people in charge” The everyday person votes for those in charge, and the everyday person couldn’t care less.
- ZeroGravitas 3mo ago
  Everyday people are generally more pro-renewables and climate action. The politicians can be targeted with bribes by anyone affected by the transition. A classic collective action problem as described by Mancur Olson.
cbmuser 3mo ago
[flagged]
- throwaway894345 3mo ago
  Who is opposing nuclear power? Or are you trying to imply that advocating for renewables is “opposing nuclear power”?
  - GlacierFox 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  - cbg0 3mo ago
    Plenty of people oppose it, about 36% of Germany for one example https://www.dw.com/en/german-poll-majority-for-return-to-nuclear-energy/a-72139350 https://www.dw.com/en/german-poll-majority-for-return-to-nuc...
    - throwaway894345 3mo ago
      I can't tell from that article whether they're opposed to nuclear energy or whether they don't think nuclear is the best use of the money (e.g., compared with renewables).
  - toasty228 3mo ago
    The french "far" left party getting 30%+ of votes does
    - throwaway894345 3mo ago
      Are they getting 30% of votes because they oppose nuclear power? Is that the single issue for that party's supporters?
  - sobkas 3mo ago
    Water: https://www.dw.com/en/danube-water-levels-hungary-romania-cut-nuclear-output/a-78171891 https://www.dw.com/en/danube-water-levels-hungary-romania-cu...
- palata 3mo ago
  I'm not into blaming people like this. What we all need to understand is that after oil, we just won't have enough energy to maintain our current way of life. Not just energy by the way: our way of life relies on petrochemical products (from fertilisers to electronics). Solar panels need electronics, we don't know if we can build/maintain them at scale without computers that need petrochemical products. So we need as much as we can of everything. Both renewables and nuclear.
andsoitis 3mo ago
> As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The people in charge a either clinically retarded or willingly ignoring the problem, The "people in charge" as well as the "climate experts" are generally aligned on the climate crisis, but everyone has been surprised by unexpected acceleration and the very sudden swings. Put differently, you can predict and act, according to the trend, but the sudden and unpredictable timing of these swings is a separate, and more difficult issue to navigate. For instance, can anyone predict specifically what will happen "next" and "where" and prepare to mitigate the impact?
- palata 3mo ago
  This is completely wrong. The climate experts are not surprised by this at all. We've known about it for decades. We just didn't give a shit because it was not impacting us directly. Now it's starting to impact us directly, but we still don't really give a shit. In a few weeks it will be business as usual. It will get worse every year, and we will be more and more willing to do something as it gets worse. But we will have fewer and fewer resources to do it, and less stuff to save (once a forest disappears, you as a human won't see it come back in your lifetime).
  - andsoitis 3mo ago
    [flagged]
- toasty228 3mo ago
  > but everyone has been surprised by unexpected acceleration and the very sudden swings It's been predicted for decades, in multiple reports, over and over and over and over again... No excuses > can anyone predict specifically what will happen "next" and "where" and prepare to mitigate the impact? Something bad, duh? And reduce emissions, duh? The things people have been predicting and advocating for during the past like 50 years at that point. Are we still debating these details lol?
  - andsoitis 3mo ago
    [dead]
palata 3mo ago
Agreed that the people in charge do nothing and don't understand the problem. However, the people in charge (e.g. in France) are elected by the people, and therefore represent it. Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis? The French people is likely to elect them next year. It's too easy to vote for people who don't give a shit about the climate crisis, and then blame them. > either way we're fucked, the point of no return is behind us now The faster and the harder we react, the more we save. Fires are a good example: because many trees are burning now (therefore they are already dead) and many trees will burn (because the fire won't magically stop), it's worth fighting to preserve as much as we can. Saying "we won't get those dead trees back, so we may as well let the rest of the forest burn" is counter-productive. We need to act now. And not by electing morons and then blaming them for being morons.
- andsoitis 3mo ago
  > We need to act now. What does this look like, precisely, in practice?
  - toasty228 3mo ago
    Find the closest maths teacher with a polish last name and ask them
  - adrianN 3mo ago
    The people here maintain a list of things: https://drawdown.org/explorer https://drawdown.org/explorer Chiefly we need to replace fossil fuels with electricity from carbon free sources and electrify transportation, heating, and industry.
    - andsoitis 3mo ago
      > Chiefly we need to replace fossil fuels with electricity from carbon free sources and electrify transportation, heating, and industry. That's happening. For instance, China now generates less than half its energy from coal for the first time, as reported earlier today: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-generates-less-than-half-its-electricity-coal-first-time-2026-07-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-generates-less...
nancyminusone 3mo ago
In some ways I wonder if these timescales are "beyond comprehension" for most people. You can tell people the temperature will go up in 20 years, but you can't make them feel what it will be like. In the same way you can tell a 10 year old what it's like to be age 35 but they don't get it, and I've heard what it's like to be age 80 but I don't really know and won't for some time.
- ifwinterco 3mo ago
  Arguably it's rational (though selfish) to think like this. Life is short, there's no point freezing and living off leaves for the next few decades when you'll be old in the blink of an eye anyway
  - palata 3mo ago
    > Arguably it's rational (though selfish) to think like this. Is it? We are not talking about screwing the climate for the people who will come in 200 years, right? In the last decades we have been saying "if we don't change the trend, your children will most likely die because of the climate change". Is it rational to be 30 and not care about the fact that we will be screwed long before we reach the age of retirement?
  - dfxm12 3mo ago
    Setting aside the fact that I want to leave things in a good place for my kids, neighbors' kids, nieces, nephews and all their friends... Setting aside the fact that even if I was so selfish to care about my personal legacy, I'd want the world around long enough to learn about it... there's no point freezing and living off leaves for the next few decades I don't think the ask here is so unreasonable. It's disingenuous to frame it this way.
- cbg0 3mo ago
  I think we've gotten to the point where the question can be asked looking back, not forward: think back to your childhood and how much things have changed since then? If you've lived long enough you can notice these things. I used to have snow for weeks each winter in my city and now if I get 2-3 days of snow a year it's unusual. Extreme weather events where it rains in one day as much as in one month have become a recurring event to the point we're re-planning sewage systems around these things.
pengaru 3mo ago
Politicians are selling to their audiences, there's no more truth in their words than any other sales/marketing scheme. Of course we're fucked.
tuco86 3mo ago
I always find it interesting when politicians mention temperature target goals.. what are you still talking about, it's done. We now need to worry about the hundreds of millions of people that are neither asylum migrants or economic migrant but survival migrants. The real discussion will become how we keep those out very soon. And since there are no good solutions from the "good" people who ignored everything and got us into this mess it will be the bad people giving us the only remaining "solution": violence.
- palata 3mo ago
  > what are you still talking about, it's done It's not. The climate will warm as much as we emit CO2. Sure, the CO2 that we have already emitted won't leave. We've passed 1.5C, that won't come back in our lifetime. But the more we emit, the worse it will get. To keep what we have now, we have to stop emitting entirely, right now. > We now need to worry about the hundreds of millions of people We need to worry about the problems that are coming from the CO2 we have already emitted, that's true. But we also need to worry a lot about the fact that we are making it worse every single day. We are not reducing our CO2 emissions, we are increasing them right now. Are you worried about hundreds of millions of refugees? The way it's going, we'll reach 4C. It means that billions of people will have to move. I don't think we can still use the concept of "refugee" when its entire countries that need to move because their part of the world has become so hot that humans cannot survive outside without life support (that's what will happen to billions of people with 4C). At this point, it's entire countries moving with their military, it's just global war.
  - tuco86 3mo ago
    hundreds of millions of people coming to europe (i didn't mention) is still lowballing on purpose. sure it's billions, but not all will go to one place was my thinking here. you are talking reason, you are in the wrong timeline buddy. i'm talking about what we will chose as a society, i feel we can't help ourselves. You can convince a person (me certainly) that we should stop immediately (or very very short time frame). But most people have experienced their entire lifetime of propaganda and fallacious arguments that words and reason have lost all meaning. We are still getting cooked so slowly that people will only see unrelated incidents for a long time. World War(s) 3 is what the survivors will call it.
throw0101d 3mo ago
> As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The oil companies in the 1970s for one: * https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063
dismalaf 3mo ago
It's a prisoners dilemma. No country can risk de-growth or not develop because some countries either DGAF or actively want climate change to happen (Russia) and will gladly take advantage of anyone who lets their guard down. The only way climate change stops is with a technological solution.

csto12 3mo ago

> “the people in charge” The everyday person votes for those in charge, and the everyday person couldn’t care less.

ZeroGravitas 3mo ago
Everyday people are generally more pro-renewables and climate action. The politicians can be targeted with bribes by anyone affected by the transition. A classic collective action problem as described by Mancur Olson.

cbmuser 3mo ago

[flagged]

throwaway894345 3mo ago
Who is opposing nuclear power? Or are you trying to imply that advocating for renewables is “opposing nuclear power”?
- GlacierFox 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- cbg0 3mo ago
  Plenty of people oppose it, about 36% of Germany for one example https://www.dw.com/en/german-poll-majority-for-return-to-nuclear-energy/a-72139350 https://www.dw.com/en/german-poll-majority-for-return-to-nuc...
  - throwaway894345 3mo ago
    I can't tell from that article whether they're opposed to nuclear energy or whether they don't think nuclear is the best use of the money (e.g., compared with renewables).
- toasty228 3mo ago
  The french "far" left party getting 30%+ of votes does
  - throwaway894345 3mo ago
    Are they getting 30% of votes because they oppose nuclear power? Is that the single issue for that party's supporters?
- sobkas 3mo ago
  Water: https://www.dw.com/en/danube-water-levels-hungary-romania-cut-nuclear-output/a-78171891 https://www.dw.com/en/danube-water-levels-hungary-romania-cu...
palata 3mo ago
I'm not into blaming people like this. What we all need to understand is that after oil, we just won't have enough energy to maintain our current way of life. Not just energy by the way: our way of life relies on petrochemical products (from fertilisers to electronics). Solar panels need electronics, we don't know if we can build/maintain them at scale without computers that need petrochemical products. So we need as much as we can of everything. Both renewables and nuclear.

andsoitis 3mo ago

> As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The people in charge a either clinically retarded or willingly ignoring the problem, The "people in charge" as well as the "climate experts" are generally aligned on the climate crisis, but everyone has been surprised by unexpected acceleration and the very sudden swings. Put differently, you can predict and act, according to the trend, but the sudden and unpredictable timing of these swings is a separate, and more difficult issue to navigate. For instance, can anyone predict specifically what will happen "next" and "where" and prepare to mitigate the impact?

palata 3mo ago
This is completely wrong. The climate experts are not surprised by this at all. We've known about it for decades. We just didn't give a shit because it was not impacting us directly. Now it's starting to impact us directly, but we still don't really give a shit. In a few weeks it will be business as usual. It will get worse every year, and we will be more and more willing to do something as it gets worse. But we will have fewer and fewer resources to do it, and less stuff to save (once a forest disappears, you as a human won't see it come back in your lifetime).
- andsoitis 3mo ago
  [flagged]
toasty228 3mo ago
> but everyone has been surprised by unexpected acceleration and the very sudden swings It's been predicted for decades, in multiple reports, over and over and over and over again... No excuses > can anyone predict specifically what will happen "next" and "where" and prepare to mitigate the impact? Something bad, duh? And reduce emissions, duh? The things people have been predicting and advocating for during the past like 50 years at that point. Are we still debating these details lol?
- andsoitis 3mo ago
  [dead]

palata 3mo ago

Agreed that the people in charge do nothing and don't understand the problem. However, the people in charge (e.g. in France) are elected by the people, and therefore represent it. Do you think that the far-right will care more about the climate crisis? The French people is likely to elect them next year. It's too easy to vote for people who don't give a shit about the climate crisis, and then blame them. > either way we're fucked, the point of no return is behind us now The faster and the harder we react, the more we save. Fires are a good example: because many trees are burning now (therefore they are already dead) and many trees will burn (because the fire won't magically stop), it's worth fighting to preserve as much as we can. Saying "we won't get those dead trees back, so we may as well let the rest of the forest burn" is counter-productive. We need to act now. And not by electing morons and then blaming them for being morons.

andsoitis 3mo ago
> We need to act now. What does this look like, precisely, in practice?
- toasty228 3mo ago
  Find the closest maths teacher with a polish last name and ask them
- adrianN 3mo ago
  The people here maintain a list of things: https://drawdown.org/explorer https://drawdown.org/explorer Chiefly we need to replace fossil fuels with electricity from carbon free sources and electrify transportation, heating, and industry.
  - andsoitis 3mo ago
    > Chiefly we need to replace fossil fuels with electricity from carbon free sources and electrify transportation, heating, and industry. That's happening. For instance, China now generates less than half its energy from coal for the first time, as reported earlier today: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-generates-less-than-half-its-electricity-coal-first-time-2026-07-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-generates-less...

nancyminusone 3mo ago

In some ways I wonder if these timescales are "beyond comprehension" for most people. You can tell people the temperature will go up in 20 years, but you can't make them feel what it will be like. In the same way you can tell a 10 year old what it's like to be age 35 but they don't get it, and I've heard what it's like to be age 80 but I don't really know and won't for some time.

ifwinterco 3mo ago
Arguably it's rational (though selfish) to think like this. Life is short, there's no point freezing and living off leaves for the next few decades when you'll be old in the blink of an eye anyway
- palata 3mo ago
  > Arguably it's rational (though selfish) to think like this. Is it? We are not talking about screwing the climate for the people who will come in 200 years, right? In the last decades we have been saying "if we don't change the trend, your children will most likely die because of the climate change". Is it rational to be 30 and not care about the fact that we will be screwed long before we reach the age of retirement?
- dfxm12 3mo ago
  Setting aside the fact that I want to leave things in a good place for my kids, neighbors' kids, nieces, nephews and all their friends... Setting aside the fact that even if I was so selfish to care about my personal legacy, I'd want the world around long enough to learn about it... there's no point freezing and living off leaves for the next few decades I don't think the ask here is so unreasonable. It's disingenuous to frame it this way.
cbg0 3mo ago
I think we've gotten to the point where the question can be asked looking back, not forward: think back to your childhood and how much things have changed since then? If you've lived long enough you can notice these things. I used to have snow for weeks each winter in my city and now if I get 2-3 days of snow a year it's unusual. Extreme weather events where it rains in one day as much as in one month have become a recurring event to the point we're re-planning sewage systems around these things.

pengaru 3mo ago

Politicians are selling to their audiences, there's no more truth in their words than any other sales/marketing scheme. Of course we're fucked.

tuco86 3mo ago

I always find it interesting when politicians mention temperature target goals.. what are you still talking about, it's done. We now need to worry about the hundreds of millions of people that are neither asylum migrants or economic migrant but survival migrants. The real discussion will become how we keep those out very soon. And since there are no good solutions from the "good" people who ignored everything and got us into this mess it will be the bad people giving us the only remaining "solution": violence.

palata 3mo ago
> what are you still talking about, it's done It's not. The climate will warm as much as we emit CO2. Sure, the CO2 that we have already emitted won't leave. We've passed 1.5C, that won't come back in our lifetime. But the more we emit, the worse it will get. To keep what we have now, we have to stop emitting entirely, right now. > We now need to worry about the hundreds of millions of people We need to worry about the problems that are coming from the CO2 we have already emitted, that's true. But we also need to worry a lot about the fact that we are making it worse every single day. We are not reducing our CO2 emissions, we are increasing them right now. Are you worried about hundreds of millions of refugees? The way it's going, we'll reach 4C. It means that billions of people will have to move. I don't think we can still use the concept of "refugee" when its entire countries that need to move because their part of the world has become so hot that humans cannot survive outside without life support (that's what will happen to billions of people with 4C). At this point, it's entire countries moving with their military, it's just global war.
- tuco86 3mo ago
  hundreds of millions of people coming to europe (i didn't mention) is still lowballing on purpose. sure it's billions, but not all will go to one place was my thinking here. you are talking reason, you are in the wrong timeline buddy. i'm talking about what we will chose as a society, i feel we can't help ourselves. You can convince a person (me certainly) that we should stop immediately (or very very short time frame). But most people have experienced their entire lifetime of propaganda and fallacious arguments that words and reason have lost all meaning. We are still getting cooked so slowly that people will only see unrelated incidents for a long time. World War(s) 3 is what the survivors will call it.

throw0101d 3mo ago

> As Macron said in 2023: "Who could have predicted the climate crisis?" The oil companies in the 1970s for one: * https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

dismalaf 3mo ago

It's a prisoners dilemma. No country can risk de-growth or not develop because some countries either DGAF or actively want climate change to happen (Russia) and will gladly take advantage of anyone who lets their guard down. The only way climate change stops is with a technological solution.