445
submitted 7 months ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 112 points 7 months ago

The one boundary that is not threatened is atmospheric ozone, after action to phase out destructive chemicals in recent decades led to the ozone hole shrinking

So we can do it when we need to.

[-] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 81 points 7 months ago

I remember when the hole in the ozone was something we were all worried about. I remember the news segments and the magazine covers and the protests.

I don’t remember the massive coordinated media campaigns running into the tens of billions of dollars. I don’t remember an entire political party simultaneously saying there’s no ozone hole and that the ozone hole is actually good for us. I don’t remember rednecks standing in rows on Texas highways shooting AquaNet into the air to own the libs.

We used to be able to do it. Nixon founded the EPA. There was a general consensus that had a role in reducing pollution and disease. The republicans fought against establishing social security, saying that old people should support themselves and anything else would turn the US literally communist.

We’ve lost even that much.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nixon may have been the guy in charge when we realized we needed the EPA, but let's not pretend he was some champion for the environment.

He vetoed the Clean Water Act for fuck sake.

And from what I understand, the only reason we were able to shift away from CFCs (main pollutant destroying the ozone) was because the alternative was comparable in price, if not cheaper.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I don’t remember the massive coordinated media campaigns running into the tens of billions of dollars. I don’t remember an entire political party simultaneously saying there’s no ozone hole and that the ozone hole is actually good for us. I don’t remember rednecks standing in rows on Texas highways shooting AquaNet into the air to own the libs.

I honestly think it's because the sacrifice and change to switch off aerosols was so small and the fossil fuel industry is much less niche and much more powerful. It took much more to get the world off of leaded gasoline and even that was a pretty small change versus the huge shift off of fossil fuels which would have to take place to fix this.

We're going to make ourselves extinct because we're addicted to going vroom vroom. There's still "car enthusiasts" out there, and people who like to roll coal. And celebrities buying private jets.

Also, it ties into everything: heating, cooling, electricity.... We're fucked.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Basically this. It was a small ask to not use aerosols for everything. We're OK with doing things to help the world and people at large when it doesn't directly affect us that much.

It's one thing to ask people to not use their hairspray so much. It's a whole other thing to say "hey we need to switch away from gasoline engines and cars entirely."

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 14 points 7 months ago

I feel like I still see people complain about modern refrigerants being less good because environmentalists banning the old ones on rare occasions.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Slwh47696@lemmy.world 86 points 7 months ago

Enjoy the next 10 or so years everyone, they'll likely be the last normal years of your lives.

[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

Normal? It's already weird.

[-] Comment105@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago

Weird is nothing compared to what we're headed for.

[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Sure, but weird is not normal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] communix@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 7 months ago

Here in Canada the wildfires got so bad this summer that the smoke was drifting into provinces that didn’t even have wildfires. It was legitimately difficult to breath or just be outside and downright dangerous if you were elderly or had health complications related to breathing. It’s already not normal, corporations just willingly ignore it.

[-] nrezcm@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

The smoke was all over the eastern US too.

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago

I had a few hazy days down here in chicago.

[-] Slwh47696@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah I live in Canada too, in Ontario. There were a couple days where my city had the worst air quality in the world. It was a crazy summer.

[-] angelsomething@lemmy.one 77 points 7 months ago
[-] uwe@lemmy.world 43 points 7 months ago

I'm going to be a dad in a few weeks. 🥲 (Feel free to dunk on me with the inevitable 'why?'s, and 'did you live under a rock?' I can't feel any worse anymore anyway 🤗)

[-] fred-kowalski@artemis.camp 60 points 7 months ago

I chose not to have kids. You can have my carbon offset.

Individual guilt for systemic problems plays well to the elites (ultra-wealthy). Unless you’re a billionaire. Then I want my offset back.

[-] spiderjuzce@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 7 months ago

I also don't have kids so have my carbon offset as well

[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

I also don't have kids but I'm keeping my carbon offset to my damn self.

[-] Azal@pawb.social 10 points 7 months ago
[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 months ago

I'll take that axe if it improves my carbon offset

[-] Kill_joy@kbin.social 20 points 7 months ago

Mine is 7 months old now. I felt the same. Just wait, you'll likely feel that it was the best thing you ever did. Your kid may be the one to drive some positive change. Just do the best you can and give yourself some grace.

[-] theonetruejason@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

Yes everyone should use this logic. Your kid might be the one, have 10 to increase your odds!

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] June@lemm.ee 14 points 7 months ago

Good luck to you and yours. I sincerely hope we’re wrong about how bad we think it’s going to get in the next 50 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Human problems have human solutions.

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, it just takes time for the economics to shake out.

Plenty of jobs in a clean economy as well.

[-] Bonehead@kbin.social 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

...it just takes time...

Yeah, that's the thing the scientists are saying we're running out of though.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago

I thought you said you are going to be dead in a few weeks. Then I reread it, and still pretty much think the same.

[-] penguin@sh.itjust.works 13 points 7 months ago

Meh, humanity is getting what it deserves. We literally did this to ourselves.

[-] TwoGems@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

*Corporations and billionaires did this

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

**With a large amount of consent from the governed.

[-] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 months ago

Maybe the country with the most imprisoned people per capita should not have that claim

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 27 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The broken boundaries mean the systems have been driven far from the safe and stable state that existed from the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, to the start of the industrial revolution.

Prof Johan Rockström, the then director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre who led the team that developed the boundaries framework, said: “Science and the world at large are really concerned over all the extreme climate events hitting societies across the planet.

The boundary for biosphere integrity, which includes the healthy functioning of ecosystems, was broken in the late 19th century, the researchers said, as destruction of the natural world decimated wildlife.

These are vital for life but excessive use of fertilisers mean many waters are heavily polluted by these nutrients, which can lead to algal blooms and ocean dead zones.

Prof Simon Lewis, at University College London and not part of the study team, said: “This is a strikingly gloomy update on an already alarming picture.

A separate initiative to define the end of the Holocene and the start of a new age dominated by human activities moved forward in July, when scientists chose a Canadian lake as the site to represent the beginning of the Anthropocene.


The original article contains 1,201 words, the summary contains 203 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Krompus@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago
[-] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The planetary boundaries are not irreversible tipping points beyond which sudden and serious deterioration occurs, the scientists said. Instead, they are points after which the risks of fundamental changes in the Earth’s physical, biological and chemical life support systems rise significantly.

...

Phasing out fossil fuel burning and ending destructive farming are the key actions required.

[-] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

In other words, we're all gonna die.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Nonono, spontaneously in the near future all humanity will reject greed and gluttony to begin working together, optimizing resource use, and minimizing global impact to levels the geological and biological systems can cope with.

/exhalepowerfuldrugs

[-] icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Is there a way to stop it, like which are the most poluting factories, where are they and how do we turn them of and how do we make sure they are never turned on again?

[-] dynamo@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago

pretty sure we're past the point of no return (or points), but i'd be up for some heavy vandalism

[-] icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

So... where?

[-] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

The source of the most greenhouse gas emissions by far is power and heating. Switching to renewables is the answer. Like, yesterday. For ecological diversity, agriculture has to become sustainable and deforestation has to stop.
For air pollution, we need to ditch our cars.
For ground and water pollution, we need to ditch plastics. These are all just the biggest factors, starting points really. And they all intermingle and affect each other.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
445 points (98.7% liked)

World News

36398 readers
2922 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS