*edited to correct conversion in title

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really think this narrative is counterproductive. It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun. They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.

      No corporation is going to choose more environmentally friendly practices out of the goodness of their own hearts unless those practices are cheaper. And given that that is very rarely the case, we have to look at things like carbon taxes to actually price in the externalities of climate damage. But that is going to increase the prices of some goods, and that requires a level of political will that has proven very difficult to come by. “Just make corporations pay” to fix things, whether that’s a carbon tax or taxes on oil company executive pay or dividends or whatever else the proposal may be is always going to mean “increase prices to compensate for climate-related externalities”.

      That doesn’t necessarily mean that all costs of addressing climate change must directly fall on consumers; government subsidies to reduce the costs of environmentally sustainable practices can also be extremely beneficial. But ultimately, this is a problem that we’ve all created, and we’re all going to have to be part of solving it. Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes and No. Yes, it’s not only corporations and we must act ourselves.

        No, it’s the rules that set the game. Corporations play within the rules. Politics is owning and can change the rules. The society and corporations will follow accordingly. If we really want to change we can. Look what happened during Covid. In retrospect, some insane rules (eg Germany kids not allowed to enter playgrounds. Kids couldn’t play to save the elderly). However, society obeyed to those rules.

        It’s not us, it’s the rules that must change. In my view this should be the priority.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Blaming the public over corporations is the #1 reason why we are in this mess in the first place. For decades, the narrative has been “it’s your fault and you need to change your habits”. It is a pointless and useless narrative because nobody is going to actively change anything like that until they are forced to. Even when we make moderate, easy efforts to do stuff like recycling, the recycling companies bitch and moan about how they can’t ship this shit off to China to let them do the work, and then throw away most of it, anyway. We PAY recycling companies to recycle this shit and they can’t be bothered to figure out how to recycle it. We PAY THEM to take away materials to use in new products, not the other way around.

        In every aspect of people’s lives, you will find that corporations use up 90% of the resources that the general public use because corporations deal in economies-of-scale far bigger than anything a person or even a country can do. Corporations have been pushing the “blame the public” narrative to shift focus away from the decades of abuse they will continue to inflict on the planet. Corporation shit all over everything, and they will continue to do so in the name of profit. That is exactly what they are designed to do.

        It takes governmental effort and regulations against the corporations to stop this sort of thing. They do it for clean water, and CFCs, and automotive design, and architecture, and many many other things. Why? Because a minority group of people who are struggling to make a living is never going to have enough power and clout as a large corporation or a government.

  • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    In North Carolina, we had a “winter that wasn’t” and now we have a summer of “surface of the sun” heat. Triple digit heat index every day last week. Good luck getting the locals to admit that climate change is real though. At this point I think some of them are actually starting to see the truth, but it just pisses them off and they dig in to denial even harder, because if there’s one thing they can’t do it’s admit they were wrong.

    • bumbo_jumbo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When I mentioned the hot weather forecast to my super libertarian crazy father in law, he was went off on a tangent on how the government is controlling the weather and causing all of this on purpose 🤦

      • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I had to stop going to my favorite Saturday morning breakfast restaurant for pretty much the same reason. They were ranting about how all the wildfires up here were lit by the government in order to put out enough smoke to block out the sun so our crops would fail. Then everyone would rely on the government for food and they could purge the people they didn’t want around.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly I will never forgive people who STILL continue to deny climate change is happening and refuse to legilslate on it.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At this point Don’t Look Up is a documentary. I honestly cannot imagine what it’s like to he a climate scientist who actively studies this, only to have some fox news watching crazy uncle parroting cherry-picked data, thinking they somehow know better than global scientific consensus. I imagine some at this point may be going, “fuck it. Let it burn.” And honestly, I can’t blame them.

      • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The response I’ve heard to this, which I tend to agree with, is that even if it’s not completely stopped, maybe some action will mean it won’t be as bad. 120F is bad, maybe instead of throwing up our hands and letting it get to 140F, we can head it off at 130F. Still not good, but better than the alternative. And for each bit we avoid, we get a lot of additional livable area. If we start seeing migrations of people, that extra land is going matter a lot.

  • dynamicperson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where I stay these temperatures can be quite normal in summer. I’m now just worried that a hot summer’s day here will now go from 45 to 55. I’ve felt 50 before. It’s not fun. But besides that, I think of the implications for the agricultural sector. Good luck my European friends. I’ll report back in our summer.

    • johnlobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      where are you? desert country? if mine have that temp, there would be so many dead people.

      • mhz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Humidity level does matter, a 50c in a dry weather is pretty hot, but not as hot as how people accustomed to high humidity level make it sound.

    • 8275232@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the lack of sure conditioning in Europe that makes it especially brutal.

      Sure, there are hotter climates but they are usually more prepared with AC. Certainly not always, I know.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        AC doesnt help construction or farm workers, doesnt help against wildfires and also not against drought.

        The economy and society asba whole arent prepared for these temperatures. We would need a cultural shift even in northern Europe, where siestas need to become normal. Too bad if you would need to commute 2h back and forth for your siesta break.

      • nexusband@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, we. While some are of the impression, that climate change is only because of a select few, it’s because every single one of us consumers is to blame as well.

        We have the option to buy climate friendly stuff, lots of times it’s just more expensive or maybe a little bit inconvenient. Also, why does one need the next new iPhone after owning the last one for just over a year? Why do we have to eat Avocados in some cases a few times a day, that are shipped around the world and need heaps of water to grow? Same as Bananas or Strawberries in Winter…the list is very long. Same as plastic free vegetables - “the cucumber has a brown spot? Nope, not getting that, I demand it’s spotless!” So companies wrap them in plastic.

        If there’s demand, companies will fulfill that demand, if there’s no demand, companies stop doing that shit, because it doesn’t make any money. Every single one of us is responsible in some way or another, even if the percentage is very miniscule.

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I just wanted to say, this is a very good comment.

          When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.

          There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:

          • Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.

          • Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.

          As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.

          Sorry for typing some much at you since you’re basically making the same point already, but I just felt like adding on.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was so hoping that crap like this, FAFO, and the other weak sauce bullshit wouldn’t make it over here. I was stupid for even hoping that.

        • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not about being goofy. It’s about repeating the same damn thing for the millionth time. It gets annoying and adds no value to the conversation.

          • The_Nostromo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s what I really disliked about what reddit had become. A post with 500+ comments and having to scroll through the same fucking comment over and over again because everyone thinks they’re so fucking clever but didn’t bother to read any of the comments and see that a dozen other schmucks have made the exact same comment.

  • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It´s called climate change and this is just the beginning. Scientists have warned us for decades now but humanity chose to ignore that until it was too late. Now you can see the consequences of that fatal ignorance. Humanity is fucked thanks to the greedy people who own the industry and the corrupt politicians who never properly regulated them. Enjoy!

    And please everyone keep in mind: Donald Trump Thinks Global Warming Will Only Lead to 'Slightly More Seafront Property

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

      Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.

      When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

      I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

      That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level.

      • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a average temperature. Sure there have always been single days with extra high temperatures… but not every day for multiple weeks.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Finally instead of glueing together entities you don’t understand in text, as neural nets may do, you use the only argument available to your kind. I’m satisfied by this conversation finally.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level

        Is exactly what’s wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda…brown.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.

          You see, “neanderthal” is a metaphor, it doesn’t mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In my case I’m using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your “shouldn’t use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it” argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.

            It relies on a false assumption that progress can’t be achieved because anything that’s good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what’s currently destroying the planet.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, I’ll write it even simpler.

              What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not that I didn’t understand you the first time. It’s that you were and are wrong in a way typical of both paid and unpaid status quo apologists.

                • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah. No, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that spending more energy produced the “dirty” way is worse than spending less.

                  Though if somebody disagrees with this two times, trying again makes little sense.

                  I don’t see how much in common does the linked article have with this subject.

              • Chunk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your argument is clear. There’s an opportunity cost to Green.

                What you’re missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.

                But you have 2 flaws in your logic.

                1. we aren’t in that situation right now and I’d like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there’s a snowball effect you’re ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!

                2. Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they’re up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.

                • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. The indication of this is distorted by subsidies for green. And “we” here ignores most of the planet.

                  It’s good that it’s begun.

                  1. Is it better than nuclear?
  • NextinHKRY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m Italian myself. The issue with this heat is that it’s humid too, I live in the riviera and we’ve had constant 35-37°C weather with high humidity for a week now

    • Kajo@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What RH% were you reaching? In the UK we have been spared the high heat (for now, it will probably come later) but we had 70%+ and it’s not nice that high as everything feels damp.

      • Lore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just spent a week in Sorrento (South West Italy), we could not handle the outdoor weather of 35-38C + 70-80% humidity for more than an hour tops.

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think climate change is happening far sooner than scientists could have predicted. We focus on increased global average temperatures but I think that we are going to have insanely hot summers sooner. We’re fucked.

    • andrei_chiffa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, no - it’s just as scientists predicted. In the worst-case “no-mitigation” scenario and with attempts from them to explain that +2 global will likely be +10 in peak temperature increase over land (read US, Europe, Asia). As in, both mean and std will increase, but without ocean’s mitigation over land.

      Fucked is not the correct word - there is a +50 predicted before the end of decade in Strasbourg, where I am from. There is not a single building built there made to resist that kind of temperatures, nor a single tree or crop that could stand that for a day.

      And it’s a relatively “safe” area as far as long-term projections go…

      • Clbull@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fucked is not the correct word - there is a +50 predicted before the end of decade in Strasbourg, where I am from. There is not a single building built there made to resist that kind of temperatures, nor a single tree or crop that could stand that for a day.

        And it’s a relatively “safe” area as far as long-term projections go…

        I would love to read the source on this, not because I think it’s bullshit but because that is pretty fucking alarming.

    • Sarcastik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need to guess. It was less than 3 months ago where scientists (on nearly every news/publication outlet that wasn’t denying climate change) said we are going to blow by the 1.5C estimate we used as a threshold in our models.

      Climate change is already happening exponentially now.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the problem is when you show them the projections people would say “you’re just being alarmist, clearly you have an agenda”

      So the messaging has been consistently toned down in the hopes people would listen.

      They’ve been warning about water scarcity for decades, I think most people accept it’s going to be a thing. Tell them this is going to happen in their country, this decade? Most won’t believe you.

      Doesn’t matter that it’s already at the breaking point, and that we have still growing populations that are already rationing water from sources that aren’t just down due to drought. There’s aquifers that would take centuries to fill back up to where they were decades ago

      Scientists told us “your grandchildren will be screwed”, then “think of the world you’re leaving your children”… Well this generation, they’re not saying “you’re screwed”, because people aren’t ready to hear that

      • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        People don’t want to have to worry or deal with reality so they simply choose to believe otherwise.

        Why do you think we still have rampant religion infecting the world.

      • narp@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe it’s more about already being able to see the results of climate change.

        Rivers drying out, ice sheets and glaciers melting, oceans heating up, desertification, water shortages, etc.

        And with everything it seems like we’re “nearly” at a breaking point. Cities running completely out of water, crops failing because of the heat or forests dying or burning, etc.

        At least it feels like we’re not that far away from a really bad time than anticipated.

  • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What suprises me the most when watching news on this. You will see people in Rome getting interviewed in the middle of a plaza in the burning sun. And there are many walking outside. I would crawl into a cool cellar and only come out at night.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everything is fine, the earth simply won’t be habitable for humans. The Earth will spin on without us when we inevitably allow industry to destroy humanity by making earth uninhabitable by human life.

    It’s what we deserve for being so stupid as to see this happening and doing nothing about it to stop it or slow it down. There’s plenty of climate change advocates which are almost always drowned out by the chorus of companies and climate deniers who believe propaganda over science.

    • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      We will take a large chunk of the planets life with us. I don’t think we can destroy it all however, the planet will get to intelligent life eventually.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think we can destroy it all

        Oh, I’m sure we can engineer something to that end.

    • Nelots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You make it sound like humans are the only ones affected by climate change. Sea turtles, elephants, polar bears, pandas, there’s a fuck load of animals we’re directly killing off. Everything is most certainly not fine, even if you don’t give a single shit about innocent human lives.

      • billytheid@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How many insects do you remember seeing around stadium lights as a kid? Look now. We will not last another two generations

        • dlok@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I remember when I passed my test the mid 00’s if I did a long motorway journey my bumper and windscreen would be an insect graveyard… now it’s next to nothing.

    • irkli@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. That’s simplistic and wrong. Huge swaths of the planet will remain nicely habitable. But large swaths won’t, and disease increase and economic failures will make things very terrible.

      But this “all gonna die” stuff is dumb and wrong. Sorry.

      • PizzasDontWearCapes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Once we have nations fighting for water resources (tied directly to food production) it wouldn’t take long before the entire population is at risk

        Ontario’s great lakes have been threatened with receding volume, pollution, and mass algae blooms that show how fragile even that massive resource is

        Ground water across the globe has been mass polluted and drained to nothing in large areas.

        We are a lot more vulnerable than it seems

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It won’t matter if a small area is still habitable. The resolution of 7 billion people trying to fit into a space that fits a fraction of the population will end the species.

        It took less than 1% of the population of Europe moving around to nearly break the EU. Watch what happens when it’s 10 to 20% of everyone everywhere.

        • Hup!@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Will end the current age of civilization? Most definitely.

          Will it end organized societies as we know them? Probably?

          Will the human beings go extinct? Probably not. Its not crazy to think that we’d face a bottleneck of only a few hundred million humans or less. But there are people all across the economic and geographic spectrum who are prepping. The rich will survive at their polar fortresses. The poorer will survive underground, or at high altitudes.

  • krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t worry guys, everything is fine. We just need to [redacted] and this will all go back to normal in no time.

    • killernova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      More like over 200 years ago. There was a french female scientist that discovered the greenhouse effect before John Tyndall but I forgot her name and I’m at work rn, can’t search for it.

    • alcamtar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah they were predicting an ice age. And technically we’re still in an ice age, so the planet has to get warmer to reach it’s natural balance point. But it could also get cooler, because we’re in an interglacial period. If we don’t want continental glaciation maybe we should be thankful that the planet’s warming and not cooling.