4 ms·

You can find latest ipcc report (short version) here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/sy

You can find latest ipcc report (short version) here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... Please share your sources saying it's not getting worse.

simianwords 2mo ago
[flagged]
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Why would you measure the goodness of the future in GDP?
- mft_ 2mo ago
  Have you tried to satisfy your open-minded curiosity on this question? A simple Google search brings up: https://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/ https://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/ A couple of excerpts from the front page, without even registering to access the full report: 1.1.5 Heat-related mortality Failure to curb the warming effects of climate change has seen the rate of heat-related deaths surge 23% since the 1990s, to 546,000 a year. 1.2.1 Wildfires The risk of wildfires is growing: 2024 saw a record-high 154,000 estimated deaths from wildfire smoke-derived small particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5)
  - sajithdilshan 2mo ago
    One could argue that heat related deaths could be due to the fact that there are more old people alive right now compared to any point in time in human history due to high life expectancy and they are the most vulnerable to heatwaves. Had the percentage of younger population been higher, the numbers would have been different. Also in a way it’s Karma, that older population is the one that lived their lives like there’s no future and thought that climate change is a problem for younger generations and now they would be the first to die like flies
    - mft_ 2mo ago
      So... having given two contradictory opinions, which one are you settling on?
      - sajithdilshan 2mo ago
        I would let Mother Nature take its course and bring balance. After all you reap what you sow
        simianwords 2mo ago
        this is one of the worst positions to take and accepting no agency in the process.. and making out "nature" to be some mysterious persona that has a balancing effect for some reason
- Jansemon 2mo ago
  What do you mean, "nowhere does it say that things get worse overall"? Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress (to say it mildly) and failing!? Do you really believe, that the way humans are using resources and polluting everything, doesn't have any negative impact? And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)? And your OECD study: doesn't it specifically talk about economic impact if climate change measures ARE being implemented (especially emission reductions)? This of course makes sense, as this would imply massive investments in technologies and sectors. This source specifically does not make a case for climate change being not as bad as predicted or that it doesn't take place. Looking at the current state of the world (especially ecosystems, which are extremely important for us), I really wonder how someone can make an argument, that it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. It is often way worse, as many things aren't really talked about in the open.
  - parineum 2mo ago
    > Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress That's anthropomorphizing. The ecosystem cannot be stressed because it has no natural/good state. > And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)? Because people predict life will eventually get worse. Your scenario is why people are making bad long term decisions (according to you) but the reason it's a bad long term choice is because it's supposed to lead to bad outcomes for humanity. GDP is a pretty decent measure of quality of life. If the climate gets worse but quality of life gets better, it's not quite the catastrophe that's often claimed. Not OP but that's the point being made. Essentially you're both talking about different things. you're saying the environment will be worse and OP is saying we'll be better off. You're also saying a worse environment will make us worse of but not backing that up with data. OP is. That data might be bad but I haven't seen you say anything that would make me doubt it but the OECD has overseen a period of immense improvement of all the measures OP is talking about. OPs argument is that climate change might kill a billion people but the energy used that creates that climate change created two billion people with better lives.

simianwords 2mo ago

[flagged]

inigyou 2mo ago
Why would you measure the goodness of the future in GDP?
mft_ 2mo ago
Have you tried to satisfy your open-minded curiosity on this question? A simple Google search brings up: https://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/ https://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/ A couple of excerpts from the front page, without even registering to access the full report: 1.1.5 Heat-related mortality Failure to curb the warming effects of climate change has seen the rate of heat-related deaths surge 23% since the 1990s, to 546,000 a year. 1.2.1 Wildfires The risk of wildfires is growing: 2024 saw a record-high 154,000 estimated deaths from wildfire smoke-derived small particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5)
- sajithdilshan 2mo ago
  One could argue that heat related deaths could be due to the fact that there are more old people alive right now compared to any point in time in human history due to high life expectancy and they are the most vulnerable to heatwaves. Had the percentage of younger population been higher, the numbers would have been different. Also in a way it’s Karma, that older population is the one that lived their lives like there’s no future and thought that climate change is a problem for younger generations and now they would be the first to die like flies
  - mft_ 2mo ago
    So... having given two contradictory opinions, which one are you settling on?
    - sajithdilshan 2mo ago
      I would let Mother Nature take its course and bring balance. After all you reap what you sow
      - simianwords 2mo ago
        this is one of the worst positions to take and accepting no agency in the process.. and making out "nature" to be some mysterious persona that has a balancing effect for some reason
Jansemon 2mo ago
What do you mean, "nowhere does it say that things get worse overall"? Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress (to say it mildly) and failing!? Do you really believe, that the way humans are using resources and polluting everything, doesn't have any negative impact? And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)? And your OECD study: doesn't it specifically talk about economic impact if climate change measures ARE being implemented (especially emission reductions)? This of course makes sense, as this would imply massive investments in technologies and sectors. This source specifically does not make a case for climate change being not as bad as predicted or that it doesn't take place. Looking at the current state of the world (especially ecosystems, which are extremely important for us), I really wonder how someone can make an argument, that it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. It is often way worse, as many things aren't really talked about in the open.
- parineum 2mo ago
  > Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress That's anthropomorphizing. The ecosystem cannot be stressed because it has no natural/good state. > And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)? Because people predict life will eventually get worse. Your scenario is why people are making bad long term decisions (according to you) but the reason it's a bad long term choice is because it's supposed to lead to bad outcomes for humanity. GDP is a pretty decent measure of quality of life. If the climate gets worse but quality of life gets better, it's not quite the catastrophe that's often claimed. Not OP but that's the point being made. Essentially you're both talking about different things. you're saying the environment will be worse and OP is saying we'll be better off. You're also saying a worse environment will make us worse of but not backing that up with data. OP is. That data might be bad but I haven't seen you say anything that would make me doubt it but the OECD has overseen a period of immense improvement of all the measures OP is talking about. OPs argument is that climate change might kill a billion people but the energy used that creates that climate change created two billion people with better lives.