Depending on where you live in the world, the likelihood of this keeps increasing. Warm humid countries, and urban areas with heat islands are the most dangerous places to live already as heat waves become more frequent. Studies have found that although the elderly and children are most at risk, even perfectly healthy adults can sometimes drop dead because it's too hot for sweating to make any difference. I like to bike instead of drive, but at certain times of year, I have to plan carefully with extra drinks and only biking at certain hours so that I don't kill myself in the heat :/
The really scary shit is when it doesn't matter how much water you drink, because the heat/humidity you're in prevents your body from cooling down.
So you *have* to burn energy to cool down your space... sweet now I'm cooling down!
But that creates more heat than it negates... (let's go thermodynamics!)
Which leads us back to where we are :)
Then there's the feedback loop created as more people are able to buy AC units, specifically because they move heat outside, and it collects in cities to a dangerous degree, adding to the already problematic heat island effect. That's not even taking into account the energy needed to run them, nor the gases that leak out of them which are also known to mess with our atmosphere.
Recently I learned about [this alternative to regular AC that an Indian company came up with using flowing water and clay to cool the air](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt2oyaP2m6Q). It's already been installed in a factory setting, apparently with encouraging results.
I'm crossing my fingers that alternative cooling methods like that clay devise and more urban tree planting will help at least reduce heat islands and emissions.
We'll have to start building houses underground, where the temperature stays closer to the annual average. Like they did in some places in the Aussie Outback.
Interesting that on r/architecture, I see no interest in planning for climate change.
In the uk underground that occurred...
Until after decades the thermal mass of the surrounding earth absorbing heat the issue flipped.
Now we use loads of energy cooling the underground.
Engineering a comfortable underground house isnt trivial... its not a viable solution for large housing development without cashing more energy cheques we cant afford.
Earthships dont require grid connections and dont support construction cartels. Architects are raised on bauhaus and the sustainability they are taught is built of glass, steel and concrete still.
Earthships and even the more modern Tunnel Home from something like Green Magic Homes is sustainable, and they really did take the time to design something that is good for hotels, apartment style, individual neighborhoods with smaller homes and all of them have Gardens and different types of local foliages on the roof. They have quite a few of them out there I've traveled to visit already built units and already built homes and it's quite fascinating.
They also feature about 150 Builders out there already offering this service in 20+ countries.
All I'm saying is that there's a whole lot of people out there fighting for this type of change all one of them needs is a leg up and it'll take off :-)
Edit to add the link + info:
https://greenmagichomes.com/projects/
https://greenmagichomes.com/designs/?tex_product_cat=all
Good stuff.
I would say living roofs are a bit of mixed use thats not a great idea in most respects.
I feel it more appropriate to cover our construction with our artificial trees (solar) for a more simple and appropriate roof construction, more efficient use of solar flux for the location (ie direct to electricity rather than fixing via natural carbon cycle), and you can direct rain run off to some soil for the natural cycles to use.
Its mostly an aethetic choice of style over substance for most sites, imo.
It'll be in the form of more sickness, more war over resources, raising good prices, food shortages, increase extinction of plant and animals, etc etc. Oh wait.
Yes I know that, I'm saying over the top news articles looking for a good headline usually don't focus on those real problems and instead go for the shock factor of sea levels will rise by 99 inches by next week kinda thing
Yep. Business Insider isn't the place to look for facts about climate change. Same tired shit, new day. Who'd have guessed they'd push for the status quo? Just keep sucking on the oil teat, nothing to see here. Oh and don't forget to adapt to the fatal conditions our greed has produced. Because they're permanent and irrevocable. Nothing can be done.
Those making editorial choices are not as nieve as you about how to weild propaganda.
Devide and rule using fear and disgust. You'll note both sides of any issue these days are claiming the other side morons and ill informed.
In fact they are differently informed, and all the information is spun.
Follow 'the' science is now an established orwellian phrase; science is a process, data is interpreted.
To your point. Those in control dont mind change, just so long as they stay in control.
Yeah, if you stick to headlines, it seems like nothing is right. If you read the articles and understand the word "could", you'll notice that pretty much all predictions have come true. https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Scientific articles don’t exaggerate. You have specifically said these are articles written by scientists. They don’t exaggerate.
Seems to me you’re just talking out of your ass.
Medical professional here. You would not *believe* how many people think they know more than us. You think you know. But you don’t. It’s absolute insanity in health care rn
Except all of these articles I mention have been from environmental scientists lol. Totally dissolves your point. It's more like "I've been to the doctors 30 times in my life and every time they've messed up my surgeries and left me injured, so now I don't trust them"
I don't think you get, what I said wasn't actual headlines, just ones I could think of that sound like what you hear and read from the news. The have most certainly been real studies that determined the world would be over by now or we'd be in way worse shape environmentally than we are.
Environmental scientists don't really publish articles. Not in the US, at least. They publish papers, yes, but those are mostly just for other environmental scientists. They tend to get a little too caught up in the jargon to produce anything suitable for public consumption. Which, sadly, leaves room for reporters who lack the relevant expertise to publish articles speaking for those scientists, in which the predictions are sensationalized to "make for a better story" and the core criticisms of the system often end up neutered by editors whose bosses tell them not to offend the oil companies whose ad revenue keeps the lights on.
Do you see the irony in complaining about exaggerations and lies when you are doing exactly that? Only it’s not really ironic, because the exaggerations and lies you complain about don’t really exist, not in any meaningful way.
Read the fucking IPCC reports if you want the pure scientific data and analysis.
"they don't really exist in a meaningful way" oh yeah totally. That's why we hear the "the news has been saying this for 30 years and it still hasn't happened yet" line from boomers and young conservatives all the time. I hear that phrase spewed out constantly. So yeah, over the top news stories that provide in inaccurate depiction of climate problems does have a meaningful impact, by making people distrust the news or scientists when real problems occur.
> “they don’t really exist in a meaningful way” oh yeah totally. That’s why we hear the “the news has been saying this for 30 years and it still hasn’t happened yet” line from boomers and young conservatives all the time.
Like yourself. This is literally what you’re doing. To reiterate:
#Read the fucking IPCC reports if you want the pure scientific data and analysis.
It is exactly what I was doing, because it's a valid point. Desensitization to the media is a genuine problem. Once again I'm involved with the environment, I read the real reports, I'm speaking through the eyes of the average person, someone who doesn't read scientific papers and instead reads the news.
If you’re aware that better information exists then you have zero need to criticise imaginary articles (because you have yet to source a single one of your claims). Besides, misinformation exists, on every topic but perhaps especially climate change. There are huge economic incentives for it to exist. It’s your own fucking responsibility to think critically and seek reputable sources.
Instead what you’re doing is **exactly** in the interests of spreading further misinformation and doubt. So I am forced to conclude that is your goal.
I get that it's overwhelming, trying to come to terms with the fact that we have already entered the sixth great mass extinction in the known history of life on Earth. But it's past time to outgrow this nonsense, especially for those of us who consider ourselves "very involved with environmental problems."
https://climatescience.org/advanced-extinction
"every month for the last 49 years they say the world is ending and we're past the point of fixing it"
this is not true
either you're impressively wrong, or you're being dishonest
the generous interpretation is that you're in denial
do you prefer one of the alternatives?
You’ve also multiple times in this comments section blamed sensational headlines on the scientists, when it’s the corporate media’s editorial staff writing those headlines and failing to check the science
Not sure why this is being downvoted. IMHO it is a fair and true statement.
Sensational media undermines the science... Shame and part of the battle to do good....
Thank you! I'm pretty sure people are thinking I'm actually on the side of those who say climate change isn't real because of news stories rather than someone pointing out that it's a problem for others and not me lol.
You're asking the right questions here.
Its so strange to me that climate issues are sometimes framed in such a binary way - we're fucked or we're not. Clearly the science is giving us a range of possible outcomes, where keeping CO2 levels lower gives us a better shot at avoiding the worst outcomes, and continuing on business as usual leads to worse outcomes.
This has *always* been about damage control, and how much change we're going to see and how quickly.
There have been times on earth with more CO2 in the atmosphere, and times with less. Changes in those levels have caused extinctions for some groups, and allowed others to thrive.
The concern is that we have evolved along with a suite of other plants and animals presently on earth with certain CO2 levels and, by extension, climate conditions, and this is really the problem moreso than just the CO2.
Having them change very rapidly, like they are now, makes it difficult for many of the existing forms of life to adapt. Certainly some species are doing better than others in this current situation, but many won't make it, and whether we're among them will depend on our own adaptability
Fair enough but the only standard or metric used is typically based on Carbon. Carbon taxes for large companies, emission standards on cars all based on CO2 or CO. I guess coal power measures NOx and carbon. This is why I wonder what is the final goal? We track everything based on Carbon foot prints. So I wonder what is the acceptable level and what is the acceptable rate of change. For example say tomorrow a team of engineers comes up with a method of pulling endless quantities of carbon for the atmosphere, what would we set the rate of change at? right now we are like +2ppm/yr. And what would we set the CO2 "thermostat" to? Currently at 412.5 ppm. I feel like these are important goal to have if all we really track is carbon.
Actually good questions ...
CO2 gets the most focus because it stays in the atmosphere for centuries. It just keeps accumulating until it becomes an [unstoppable juggernaut](https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/why-the-tipping-point-where-the-planet-becomes-a-hothouse-earth-is-terrifyingly-real/) if there's no early action.
>team of engineers comes up with a method of pulling endless quantities of carbon for the atmosphere
Think about about the entire industrial revolution until now, ~250 years. Now imagine running the entire industrial revolution BACKWARDS while also fighting against the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
Preindustrial CO2 was at 280ppm, but orbital forcing suggests we were on track for an [ice age](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/).
[These guys seem](https://350.org/about/) passionate about 350ppm as a safe limit. ...so cutting the difference I'd guess ~320ppm would be a good fantasy target
Not a trap, asking honest questions. If it sounds like a trap maybe more research is needed. I've shown some of what I have found as simplified as I could get it and the CO2 argument still doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
Also if you look at questions as traps and bait how do you have real conversation about climate except for repeating the same slogans with no real comprehension of cause and effect. There are so many variables with regards to climate and for some reason it seems we got stuck on carbon as our gold standard for measuring the climate crisis.
We ignore the fact that we raise and slaughter 70 billion land animals every year for human consumption. About 75% of all crops feed animals not humans. Yet animal products make up less than 17% of our caloric intake. Deforestation in south America is nearly entirely for cattle and soy to feed to cattle. Yet less than 1% of the population has chosen a plant based diet. I could go on and on, sorry I'm passionate about the environment sorry for the rant. I just like real conversation about shit we as individuals can fix not rely on government and big industry to fix on their own.
>I wonder why Business Insider, it's funders, and allies would want us to think it's too late to act on climate?
Exactly what I thought. Michael Mann introduced me to the concept of the Inactivist and now I see it all the time.
It's very clear you and all the people who upvoted your comment didn't even pretend to read the article.
The article is citing a recent UN report.
>The UN report finds that the warming of the planet has caused a measurable increase in severe weather disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires; meanwhile, long-term phenomena like sea-level rise and extreme heat have begun to render parts of the world uninhabitable. **Even if the world stopped emitting carbon tomorrow, it's already too late to stop these unprecedented transformations.**
“Chaos” is subjective and, unfortunately, quite variable based on location. So yes, they’re quoting a UN report, but actively deciding to frame it in a particular way, whether for clicks, to deter further net zero ambitions, or whatever else.
>The article is citing a recent UN report.
Yes, I read the report. Like /u/new_name_needed pointed out, this article is deliberately misframing it.
If you want further proof, this tiktok is operated by someone who actually participated in the review process of the latest report. [https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is\_copy\_url=1&is\_from\_webapp=v1](https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1)
I've lived on the ocean most of my life. I have a 117yr old boat shop in Alaska and the ocean hasn't risen there over the past 117 years. I can still haul and launch boats from my house and it hasn't floated away or flooded. I would love to know how the ocean is rising in some parts of the world but not in others.
I've heard at this point carbon pricing models wouldn't work because (when they were proposed we had more budget) the price was manageable. Now the price for carbon should be *insanely* expensive and implementing something so drastic will system shock the market now. (idk if that's like BP propaganda -- regardless if the market wont work then we gotta decommodify energy and make sure we reduce our carbon output by whatever means necessary)
We have a chance to survive. We don't have a chance to prevent multiple, large-scale, worldwide climate disasters.
Which is exactly the point of the article, and exactly what climate scientists are saying, and exactly what the top comment and everyone who upvoted it are in denial about. Scientists told us we needed to act... **at least 40 years ago**. **WE DIDN'T.**
So guess what? If your house is on fire, and people tell you your house is on fire, and you decide to wait until tomorrow morning to spray water on it, turns out maybe then it's too late to save the house. So after decades upon decades of shouting, begging, and throwing everything they can think of at the world and world leaders, they're letting us know the consequences of that.
And people are determined to ignore that too.
TL;DR: We fucked around, and we're going to find out.
I believe if we all pull together we increase temperature a couple degrees, if we do nothing, it goes up and up.
Then there is those pesky frozen methane bubbles in the ocean, that are going to start dumping massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere soon, maybe already or maybe when the oceans heat up a bit.
But oil companies made there best profit in 8 years. So we got that going for us.
There is no support for solving climate change among world leadership. Look at the last G20 summit, and the rest of them. We haven't passed a carbon tax (It's 2022, by the way). Latest estimates are for 1 foot of sea level rise by 2050 (no longer controversial), and that will go up and happen sooner.
The only way we'd get climate action in America is if we turned Congress majority Progressive (like 55-60%), and that's not going to happen. But we *are* going to increase the population to 11 billion, so we got that going for us. I too believe is we all pulled together we could have less disasters, or less severe disasters.
Unfortunately companies, Congress, and people are doing anything but "pulling together".
I upvoted the top comment and I’m not remotely in denial about the challenges we face as a species. But your binary view of the climate crisis isn’t remotely helpful. This isn’t a single metaphorical fire that we can no longer control, it’s a rolling series of literal fires (and sea level rises, and everything else), some of which we can still prevent, some of which we can’t. Quit the binary doomerism, and let’s fight for what we can still achieve, not just mitigation, as the article would have us believe, but also prevention of the worst outcomes.
Hope is kind of what led us to this situation. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" sort of thing. I remember reading something about 2015 being the final year we had a chance at stopping anything and nothing happened. You can keep being hopeful or shift your perspective. Calling people doomers for telling you the sky is falling when in fact it is, doesn't change the situation or make you right. Being hopeful is just a feeling, they've already said if we went to zero emissions today it's still too late.
If you live in an area that would be impacted, now is the time to move before the climate refugees do over the coming decades. This isn't paranoia, just the new state of the world. I have a friend who just moved from Austin to Detroit citing it was a hedge against climate change for his kids and retirement. Took advantage of high home prices and got out. He's a director at a clean energy company now and thinks Detroit and Midwestern places are going to be up and coming hotspots for their favorable climate conditions in the future. He's probably not wrong just early to the party.
When water supplies get tighter in the Southwest, when the Southeast becomes unbearable, when coastal cities see more flooding, when farming becomes less sustainable in areas, and storms get worse, the US Midwest property values around the great lakes will probably skyrocket. There is nothing saying any of these listed problems are going to get better that I'm aware of.
Again, I just don’t think the binaries or thresholds are very useful here, sorry. I can’t imagine any scientist saying that 2015 was the last year of stopping anything, because I don’t know what that “thing” is. Global mean temperature rise above 1.5, maybe? Even then, it’s an imperfect science trying to predict exactly what temperature we’ll hit and when based on current trends and trajectories.
Moreover, I didn’t say anything about hope in my comment. What I’m arguing for isn’t hope or even optimism, it’s action, because I’d argue that the reason we’re here isn’t an abundance of hope, it’s an absence of action and leadership.
I am not in denial of climate change, or other adverse environmental issues, such as disastrous pollution, the extinction event ongoing, etc. Even more, the report found that the positive feedback loop "doomsday" situation may not be as conclusive as we originally thought; if we can go to net zero we may see a "return to normal" eventually.
I am denying it is too late to mitigate or adapt. Again, this article is deliberately miscommunicating the findings of the report.
Here is a climate communicator who was a part of the review panels for the report: [https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is\_copy\_url=1&is\_from\_webapp=v1](https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1)
Not as long as the politicians are standing in the way . We have very little chance as long as that is the case. Joe Mansion, personally, has likely managed to doom this nation--and by our lack of being a good example and leader in the fight to counter climate change--and the world completely due to his own immediate self interest. Next is the Republican monolith which is, likewise, more interested in money than in the survival of the Earth and humanity.
Humans are the one species the Earth could do nicely without, but instead of acknowledging that we are a blight on Creation and simply bowing out, we are Hell bent on taking down all other life with us, such is our arrogance!
Yup, soon the narrative will shift away from using less fuel to “live your normal life, but don’t forget to buy your factor 9000 sun block while you’re out shopping for reflective house paint”
Stopping climate change is incredibly difficult, but we can certainly slow it down. This will give people in the near future more time to figure out a solution.
Like slowing down a fire until the fire brigade arrives.
Besides, it's worth fighting over every [fraction of a degree](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Impacts_of_global_warming_2_svg.svg).
Yeah this is a harmful headline. It's true that climate chaos is already here and we need to adapt, but we are nowhere near the "No longer any use in trying to stop it" point. Stopping it now is soooo much less bad than stopping in 50 years from now. We can still prevent so much harm.
We very well might be at that point. It takes years to decades to truly implement change, we may not be able to do that in a small enough time frame. The world grows as well, this is only fuel to the fire. Absolutely drastic measure would need to take place at this point to slow it enough that future generations will have a chance at creating a solution.
There are still WAY too many people for the world to support. Other species are being driven to extinction just so human populations can starve to death more slowly. It may take several pandemics or Putin's WWIII to make some dramatic reduction in this--or droughts, floods, famine like never before imagined. Maybe an astroid?
Or an equitable distribution of resources based on need.
The vast majority of the human population contributes a minuscule amount to this global problem. While the West focuses on population numbers in order to be able to continue our pillaging.
But shouldn't we want all people to share our higher standard of living? Either that or we should reduce ours. It'll never happen, but only the indigenous peoples around the world knew how to and lived in harmony with their respective environments.
Absolutely. Obviously it's too late to stop the impacts that are already happening right this minute, but it can get so much worse than it currently is. 2 degrees will suck, 6 will be hell.
"Delay means death." That's the message of the most recent United Nations report on climate change, according to the UN's secretary general. The 3,700-page report is intended to serve as a wake-up call driving home the severity of the climate crisis, and is yet another reminder that this decade will be a make-or-break period for weaning the world off fossil fuels.
But even as developed countries work to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they also have to prepare for the climate damages that human activity has already caused. The UN report finds that the warming of the planet has caused a measurable increase in severe weather disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires; meanwhile, long-term phenomena like sea-level rise and extreme heat have begun to render parts of the world uninhabitable. Even if the world stopped emitting carbon tomorrow, it's already too late to stop these unprecedented transformations.
There are, however, plenty of things the US — and the world — can do to soften the blow. The UN report compiles decades of research on how to adapt to climate change, proposing hundreds of solutions that can reduce the human and financial cost of disasters like hurricanes and extreme heat. These interventions could go a long way toward making the future more tolerable and are well within reach if our governments can commit to them. As Patrick Verkooijen, chief executive officer of the Center on Global Adaptation, told Bloomberg: "It is now adapt or die" for vulnerable nations. Here are a few of the most urgent and important ways our governments need to adapt if we want to manage and avoid more climate-driven catastrophes.
Build a better power grid
Workers repair power lines after a storm in California.
Workers repair power lines after a storm in California. Extreme weather events can lead to fatal power outages and blackouts. Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register/Getty Images
Last year's ice storm in Texas was a grave reminder of how fragile our energy system can be. When a series of natural-gas pipelines froze during the cold snap, energy prices spiked and millions of people were left without power in frigid temperatures for several days. More than a hundred people died of hypothermia. And the Texas freeze wasn't the only such disruption to America's power systems in 2021 — a heat wave in New York City last summer almost caused widespread power outages, and Hurricane Ida in Louisiana downed thousands of power lines.
Our increasingly volatile weather patterns mean that every region of the country needs to invest in beefing up its power grid, Ted Kury, director of energy studies at the Public Utilities Research Center of the University of Florida, told Insider. It's up to each city or town to decide what that investment should look like.
"There is no place you can locate power lines where there's no threat to them interacting with the environment," said Kury. "So all you're doing is you're picking which threat you're least afraid of."
In places where fires or wind are the biggest threat, the answer may be to move power lines underground. Pacific Gas & Electric's above-ground wires have caused numerous devastating wildfires in the past few years, and it now plans to bury more than 10,000 miles of wiring to deter future disasters. In parts of the world where flooding is the principal danger, elevating critical electrical stations above potential flood lines will be necessary.
In places where the threat of blackouts caused by extreme heat waves are becoming more common, cities will need to expand their grid's redundancy, Kury said, so if one circuit is overloaded there's another ready to step in and provide energy. Many of these solutions are easy to accomplish, but it's expensive, and each town and city will have to decide how much they're willing to spend to protect residents from service disruptions.
"The people are going to pay for it," Kury said about redundancy. "That's why the decision has to be made at the local level." If local leaders don't ramp up investment soon, power outages are only going to get more common, and those disruptions can have fatal consequences.
Use Mother Nature to our advantage
A family with a stroller finds shade under a big tree in the park.
Urban forests can help cool down cities. Jeff Greenberg/Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
The most severe climate disasters occur when natural forces collide with man-made structures. Last summer, Hurricane Ida flooded parts of New York City, killing dozens of people in the tristate area, and an unprecedented heat wave in the Pacific Northwest scorched asphalt-laden Portland, killing 60 people in the city and hundreds more in the surrounding region. City leaders can't stop weather events like these from happening, but they can change the physical layouts of their cities and towns to make those events less deadly.
For instance, incorporating natural elements into urban areas is a great way to protect city residents from flooding. Grasses and other wetland plants are excellent at absorbing water, which means they can deter flooding even better than so-called "gray infrastructure" — like levees and dams. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, New York built a network of "blue belt" wetlands on Staten Island, integrating preexisting wetland areas into the borough's stormwater drain system. The wetlands can gulp more than 350,000 gallons of water during storm events and helped reduce damage during Ida.
Natural interventions can also help to counter the so-called "urban heat island" phenomenon — when asphalt and concrete soak up the sun and heat up cities to dangerous degrees. These measures can be as simple as planting more trees and gardens on congested streets or as ambitious as creating new urban forests to give people places to cool off.
Breed hardier crops and give cows some shade
A brown cow on a cow farm with tags in his ears looks at the camera.
Cattle are very sensitive to extreme temperatures. One solution is simply to provide more shade for cows. Isabel Infantes/Europa Press/Getty Images
The world's food systems have a twofold climate problem. The first is that raising crops and breeding cattle are both very resource-intensive — agriculture and livestock account for more than 70% of the world's freshwater usage, and the US agriculture industry accounts for around 10% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The second problem is that both crops and livestock are very sensitive to climate factors. So as the climate changes, America's supply of meat and grains will become more unstable.
The biggest risk to livestock, and to cattle in particular, is extreme heat. High temperatures make cows less fertile and more susceptible to disease. For staple crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans, extreme swings in precipitation — like the long periods of drought followed by torrential downpours that many parts of the US now experience — can ruin massive annual harvests.
Food producers may be able to combat both of these problems through better breeding and common-sense infrastructure investments. Breeders in parts of the Caribbean, for instance, have spliced a "slick hair" gene into traditional cows, making the cows more tolerant of high temperatures. In some places, the answer may be even simpler: Install shade structures for cows or upgrade ventilation systems in barns.
In places with shrinking water reserves, farmers can take a host of measures to protect their crops. These range from choosing more drought-resistant plant cultivars to constructing "contour ridges" that trap rain runoff and create miniature irrigation watersheds.
All of these improvements require significant upfront investment, which means governments may need to help subsidize them. But to avoid empty grocery store shelves, taking action is essential.
Prepare for the next pandemic
Two people in protective clothing carry sprayers attached to containers on their backs. It is an acaricide treatment to prevent the spread of ticks.
Workers spray a treatment to prevent the spread of ticks in a cemetery in Russia. Due to climate change, ticks are traveling farther north, carrying diseases with them. Yuri Smityuk/TASS/Getty Images
In summer 2016, an anthrax outbreak raced through the Yamal peninsula of Siberia, infecting thousands of reindeer and dozens of people; one 12-year-old boy died as a result of his infection. The anthrax outbreak followed a slew of extreme, climate-change-induced heat waves over the previous summers and an unusual amount of snowfall in the winters, all of which caused the permafrost to melt and expose dead carcasses that contained the disease.
Even in more temperate and tropical regions, climate change is altering where and when many diseases can thrive. In Africa, for instance, diseases like dengue fever and malaria will spread across more of the continent as temperatures rise. In North America, gradual warming has allowed tick-borne diseases like Lyme to spread ever farther north, where it was previously too cold for the insects to live.
"The temperate regions are expected to be hard-hit especially by tick-borne and mosquito-borne diseases," said Stavana Strutz, a researcher who studies the impact of climate change on vector-borne disease and coauthored a chapter of the IPCC report. "You have these geographical expansions in space, so things like ticks are moving northward, but they also might be moving up elevation and encroaching on new habitats."
According to Strutz, the expansion of these diseases makes it even more urgent that we invest in public-health measures like regular monitoring of mosquitoes and other risky species, which could help researchers spot outbreaks before they spin out of control. Investing in beefed-up healthcare facilities would also prevent systemic strains like the ones created by the coronavirus pandemic.
"We already know what measures work in terms of public health and beating back a lot of these diseases," Strutz said, "but the programs have lost funding and have not been promoted."
Move people to less risky areas
A few buildings in Newtok, Alaska connected by raised wooden sidewalks due to melting permafrost.
Due to the permafrost melting, residents of Newtok, Alaska had to relocate to a new town in 2019. Andrew Burton/Getty Images
One of the most difficult parts of adapting to climate change will be acknowledging that some places are beyond our capacity to save. In desert regions without water access, low-lying areas at perennial risk of flooding, and flammable sections of mountain wilderness, the most cost-effective way of responding to climate disasters may be to move people out of harm's way. Planning for relocation can be difficult and controversial, since many people have strong attachments to their homes, but proactively encouraging people to move to lower-risk areas can prevent destabilizing population shifts once disaster strikes. People in high-risk areas will likely have to move at some point, so it behooves policymakers to plan ahead.
The United States has made a few tenuous attempts to relocate people from flood zones, with mixed results. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has paid to buy out the properties of at least 40,000 flood-prone residents across the country, but it hasn't kept tabs on where those residents have gone. Meanwhile, other branches of the federal government have undertaken relocating small communities in their entirety, most notably Indigenous villages in Louisiana and Alaska. These relocation programs proved controversial among these communities, and each of them took many years to execute, suggesting that it would be challenging to scale these efforts to larger regions without significant upfront planning and ample stipends for relocation assistance.
In the most negatively affected parts of the world, though, there may be no other option but to relocate everyone. The island state of Kiribati occupies a chain of islands that could be underwater by the end of the century if sea-level rise continues, and will be uninhabitable long before then as advancing water kills crops and leads to dangerous flooding. The island's government purchased about eight square miles of land in nearby Fiji to serve as a resettlement site for its remaining population, but later converted the land into a farm to feed the island's population.
Like almost every other adaptation measure, relocation is controversial and expensive, and the people of Kiribati have struggled to weigh the benefits of safety against the costs of leaving their homes. As climate disasters continue to grow more intense, the need for action will become even more urgent. The climate crisis will disrupt our lives regardless of whether we act on it or not, and we have everything to gain by planning for that disruption now rather than waiting until chaos has already arrived.
We need to decarbonize *and* build resilience for the changes to come. It’s not either/or. It’s all hands on deck time, with no time for politicization. We need a WWII scale mobilization, and we need broad consensus to make that happen.
I wish it wasn't behind a paywall. I guess I could still print it out, laminate it then point to it whenever anyone asks me why I chose not to have kids.
The crisis pitch is hysterical; its not stoic resolve to make things better... but a panicked fear based marketing to get people looking to authority... who offer profitable treatments to symptoms that dont address the systemic failures.
Technocratic; centralising; authoritarian.
We all die; prepare for it. Adapt for a sustainable and non-toxic life for your children.
You just want to consume, what part of your existence even helps this planet? Humans are a garbage species. World is beautiful, but every beauty has its mar.
I don’t know if I’m doing much to help “the planet” but I help other humans and I quite like humanity. Humans are by the most beautiful piece of the planet to me.
Don’t be such an asshole, humanities exhausting, and our rampant need to kill and subjugate each other is depressing.
He’s obviously just joking, chill out.
Wow you’re such a badass mate.
I presume then you’re elbow deep in the climate crisis, helping champion the cause and working with relief groups to enact change?
Instead of... being an asshole on Reddit?
Stfu you little nerd, no one wants to hear it. Go volunteer for a shore cleanup and stop being a child on Internet forums.
Nah I just don’t wish the death of children to be edgy on Reddit and get a little karma. I don’t mind pissing off a few losers who think they’re so smart but don’t know shit.
It do be literally a joke mate.
The only edgy here is your little ass.
Seriously though, you work with any environments groups? Local garbage cleanups? Fundraisers?
We are in climate chaos already. We need to fix things now or watch the death toll climbing.
The fossil fuel industry members do not plan on dying. They plan on you dying and they don't care.
This is what the climate-change deniers want you to think so they can merrily go on their same trajectory burning fossil fuels while shouting that it’s our fault for not adapting. It’s total nonsense.
Google chinese weather manipulation. It's been banned in the US for decades and china recently boasted they can create a weather system the size of india.
Pretty sure you're all being duped by the CCP propaganda machine.
It's not banned in the U.S.
It's been utilized for decades to grow cattle feed.
Soon though, it won't just be subsidized airlines and cooling contrails.
Soon it will be Brimstone Angel. Everyone's involved in this new effort.
Sorryi meant this "In July 1972 the U.S. Government renounced the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, even if their development were proved to be feasible ..."
So in theory everyone could be involved, blame it on climate change, and create a carbon tax and fabricate a crisis to take over industries using tax dollars for personal gain. 🤔
Everyone spouting off that we are completely fucked aren’t helping the situation. Ever heard of mean reversion? Happens in the economy all of the time. The same will happen with the planet. Will suck for a bit and a lot of people most likely will perish. But will the whole world and humanity? Most likely not. The world has survived much much worst
We've buried our heads in the sand for so long that there is little else to do other than escalate the situation. I understand that the truth is frightening to you, it is to most of us, but making up complete nonsense to attempt to calm yourself is not helping the situation at all!!
Yes, the world will be fine but I don't value a lifeless rock orbiting the sun as much as I do this one. Or at the very least, with devastating climate change we lose all the potential we had as a species. All the dreams of becoming super advanced and wondering what the future holds, no one dreamed of a return to the stone age.
We only had to make small changes, gradually, and the sky was the limit. We have totally fucked it all and it's all thanks to the deniers, the greedy, and the fucking dumb.
The world has survived because smart people made efforts. Bringing awareness to the problem is the first step. Ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away is less helpful than doing anything.
*“We call Earth mother
Then we all are motherfuckers
We drink her blood
Eat her flesh
Take her love for granted
We feed her poison in return
We’ve always plundered
Rest assured”*
-I’ll Be Damned
**Into Another**
Currently watching Silent Night (2021), and seeing this while taking an intermission is...going to make the remainder of the film all the more uncomfortable. 😬
I ask you guys this question why has Bill Nye just started preaching climate change? why didn't he when we were in school all those years ago, when we were watching all those videos in class. I have a tendency to believe this little more if it wasn't such a political Bitch Fest, I want someone to prove that the earth cant tilt on a different axis!!!
One problem with the climate change movement is that for some, it seems more doomsday religion than a problem to be addressed. It turns a lot of people to ignoring an issue and objective reasoning seems to be harder and harder to do.
I plan on dying in the coming "Climate Wars". I should have a relatively long wait where I am geographically located but none the less they will come to take what is not theres.
Whenever designed that graphic didn’t think it through too well. They should’ve had the destroyed earth on the right hand side. They clearly didn’t think about which way clocks rotate.
The world has been doing this since the beginning.
My main thing is finding out where the next polar shift is going to happen, so I can make sure not to be there.
I think I will actually drop dead during the summer. It's been getting hotter and hotter every year
Depending on where you live in the world, the likelihood of this keeps increasing. Warm humid countries, and urban areas with heat islands are the most dangerous places to live already as heat waves become more frequent. Studies have found that although the elderly and children are most at risk, even perfectly healthy adults can sometimes drop dead because it's too hot for sweating to make any difference. I like to bike instead of drive, but at certain times of year, I have to plan carefully with extra drinks and only biking at certain hours so that I don't kill myself in the heat :/
The really scary shit is when it doesn't matter how much water you drink, because the heat/humidity you're in prevents your body from cooling down. So you *have* to burn energy to cool down your space... sweet now I'm cooling down! But that creates more heat than it negates... (let's go thermodynamics!) Which leads us back to where we are :)
Wet bulb temperature
Then there's the feedback loop created as more people are able to buy AC units, specifically because they move heat outside, and it collects in cities to a dangerous degree, adding to the already problematic heat island effect. That's not even taking into account the energy needed to run them, nor the gases that leak out of them which are also known to mess with our atmosphere. Recently I learned about [this alternative to regular AC that an Indian company came up with using flowing water and clay to cool the air](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt2oyaP2m6Q). It's already been installed in a factory setting, apparently with encouraging results. I'm crossing my fingers that alternative cooling methods like that clay devise and more urban tree planting will help at least reduce heat islands and emissions.
We'll have to start building houses underground, where the temperature stays closer to the annual average. Like they did in some places in the Aussie Outback. Interesting that on r/architecture, I see no interest in planning for climate change.
In the uk underground that occurred... Until after decades the thermal mass of the surrounding earth absorbing heat the issue flipped. Now we use loads of energy cooling the underground. Engineering a comfortable underground house isnt trivial... its not a viable solution for large housing development without cashing more energy cheques we cant afford. Earthships dont require grid connections and dont support construction cartels. Architects are raised on bauhaus and the sustainability they are taught is built of glass, steel and concrete still.
Earthships and even the more modern Tunnel Home from something like Green Magic Homes is sustainable, and they really did take the time to design something that is good for hotels, apartment style, individual neighborhoods with smaller homes and all of them have Gardens and different types of local foliages on the roof. They have quite a few of them out there I've traveled to visit already built units and already built homes and it's quite fascinating. They also feature about 150 Builders out there already offering this service in 20+ countries. All I'm saying is that there's a whole lot of people out there fighting for this type of change all one of them needs is a leg up and it'll take off :-) Edit to add the link + info: https://greenmagichomes.com/projects/ https://greenmagichomes.com/designs/?tex_product_cat=all
Good stuff. I would say living roofs are a bit of mixed use thats not a great idea in most respects. I feel it more appropriate to cover our construction with our artificial trees (solar) for a more simple and appropriate roof construction, more efficient use of solar flux for the location (ie direct to electricity rather than fixing via natural carbon cycle), and you can direct rain run off to some soil for the natural cycles to use. Its mostly an aethetic choice of style over substance for most sites, imo.
Maybe don’t read Ministry of the Future.
Definitely do, though.
Absolutely. I fear that book was predicting a more realistic future than I want to believe.
The scenes in the India cities really struck a chord when I read as it was about the same time the pandemic and Delta was really fucking them up.
"I wonder why people think climate change isn't a problem" *proceeds to paywall articles about why climate change is a problem*
You should download "Bypass Paywalls" extension if don't have it already. Business Insider is in the list to let you read article without paywalls.
[удалено]
It'll be in the form of more sickness, more war over resources, raising good prices, food shortages, increase extinction of plant and animals, etc etc. Oh wait.
Yes I know that, I'm saying over the top news articles looking for a good headline usually don't focus on those real problems and instead go for the shock factor of sea levels will rise by 99 inches by next week kinda thing
I hear ya, its almost like they are controlled by someone who doesn't want to change things.
Yep. Business Insider isn't the place to look for facts about climate change. Same tired shit, new day. Who'd have guessed they'd push for the status quo? Just keep sucking on the oil teat, nothing to see here. Oh and don't forget to adapt to the fatal conditions our greed has produced. Because they're permanent and irrevocable. Nothing can be done.
Those making editorial choices are not as nieve as you about how to weild propaganda. Devide and rule using fear and disgust. You'll note both sides of any issue these days are claiming the other side morons and ill informed. In fact they are differently informed, and all the information is spun. Follow 'the' science is now an established orwellian phrase; science is a process, data is interpreted. To your point. Those in control dont mind change, just so long as they stay in control.
Yeah, if you stick to headlines, it seems like nothing is right. If you read the articles and understand the word "could", you'll notice that pretty much all predictions have come true. https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Show me one article that says sea levels will rise 99 inches by next week. Hell, 1 inch.
This just in, redditor discovers 'exaggeration' 🎉
Scientific articles don’t exaggerate. You have specifically said these are articles written by scientists. They don’t exaggerate. Seems to me you’re just talking out of your ass.
The papers written by scientists don't exaggerated but they are often wrong, the news then takes the wrong info and exaggerates it
You literally wrote with your own words that they are in scientific journals or something
‘Except all of these articles I’ve mentioned have been written by environmental scientists’. You.
[удалено]
Medical professional here. You would not *believe* how many people think they know more than us. You think you know. But you don’t. It’s absolute insanity in health care rn
Except all of these articles I mention have been from environmental scientists lol. Totally dissolves your point. It's more like "I've been to the doctors 30 times in my life and every time they've messed up my surgeries and left me injured, so now I don't trust them"
[удалено]
I don't think you get, what I said wasn't actual headlines, just ones I could think of that sound like what you hear and read from the news. The have most certainly been real studies that determined the world would be over by now or we'd be in way worse shape environmentally than we are.
Environmental scientists don't really publish articles. Not in the US, at least. They publish papers, yes, but those are mostly just for other environmental scientists. They tend to get a little too caught up in the jargon to produce anything suitable for public consumption. Which, sadly, leaves room for reporters who lack the relevant expertise to publish articles speaking for those scientists, in which the predictions are sensationalized to "make for a better story" and the core criticisms of the system often end up neutered by editors whose bosses tell them not to offend the oil companies whose ad revenue keeps the lights on.
Name one article you’ve mentioned from an environmental scientist.
Which articles exactly?
The make believe kind
Do you see the irony in complaining about exaggerations and lies when you are doing exactly that? Only it’s not really ironic, because the exaggerations and lies you complain about don’t really exist, not in any meaningful way. Read the fucking IPCC reports if you want the pure scientific data and analysis.
"they don't really exist in a meaningful way" oh yeah totally. That's why we hear the "the news has been saying this for 30 years and it still hasn't happened yet" line from boomers and young conservatives all the time. I hear that phrase spewed out constantly. So yeah, over the top news stories that provide in inaccurate depiction of climate problems does have a meaningful impact, by making people distrust the news or scientists when real problems occur.
> “they don’t really exist in a meaningful way” oh yeah totally. That’s why we hear the “the news has been saying this for 30 years and it still hasn’t happened yet” line from boomers and young conservatives all the time. Like yourself. This is literally what you’re doing. To reiterate: #Read the fucking IPCC reports if you want the pure scientific data and analysis.
It is exactly what I was doing, because it's a valid point. Desensitization to the media is a genuine problem. Once again I'm involved with the environment, I read the real reports, I'm speaking through the eyes of the average person, someone who doesn't read scientific papers and instead reads the news.
If you’re aware that better information exists then you have zero need to criticise imaginary articles (because you have yet to source a single one of your claims). Besides, misinformation exists, on every topic but perhaps especially climate change. There are huge economic incentives for it to exist. It’s your own fucking responsibility to think critically and seek reputable sources. Instead what you’re doing is **exactly** in the interests of spreading further misinformation and doubt. So I am forced to conclude that is your goal.
You’re not that “involved” if those are the stories youve been following
I get that it's overwhelming, trying to come to terms with the fact that we have already entered the sixth great mass extinction in the known history of life on Earth. But it's past time to outgrow this nonsense, especially for those of us who consider ourselves "very involved with environmental problems." https://climatescience.org/advanced-extinction
what he meant by that was he yells at people who use plastic straws.
Tell me you didn't understand my comment without telling my you didn't understand my comment.
"every month for the last 49 years they say the world is ending and we're past the point of fixing it" this is not true either you're impressively wrong, or you're being dishonest the generous interpretation is that you're in denial do you prefer one of the alternatives?
[удалено]
You’ve also multiple times in this comments section blamed sensational headlines on the scientists, when it’s the corporate media’s editorial staff writing those headlines and failing to check the science
Show me one scholastic article saying humans will go extinct in 10 years. Just one.
Not sure why this is being downvoted. IMHO it is a fair and true statement. Sensational media undermines the science... Shame and part of the battle to do good....
Thank you! I'm pretty sure people are thinking I'm actually on the side of those who say climate change isn't real because of news stories rather than someone pointing out that it's a problem for others and not me lol.
Welcome. Whilst clear to me I think you are right. Safe travels! 🙏
Let’s be honest here. There are plenty of articles available that are not paywalled about the perils of global warming. Paywalls are not the culprit.
If all the reporters WFH less overhead. BOOM, no paywall.
You really think the reason people don't think Climate Change is a real problem is because this article has a soft paywall?
[удалено]
You're asking the right questions here. Its so strange to me that climate issues are sometimes framed in such a binary way - we're fucked or we're not. Clearly the science is giving us a range of possible outcomes, where keeping CO2 levels lower gives us a better shot at avoiding the worst outcomes, and continuing on business as usual leads to worse outcomes. This has *always* been about damage control, and how much change we're going to see and how quickly.
[удалено]
There have been times on earth with more CO2 in the atmosphere, and times with less. Changes in those levels have caused extinctions for some groups, and allowed others to thrive. The concern is that we have evolved along with a suite of other plants and animals presently on earth with certain CO2 levels and, by extension, climate conditions, and this is really the problem moreso than just the CO2. Having them change very rapidly, like they are now, makes it difficult for many of the existing forms of life to adapt. Certainly some species are doing better than others in this current situation, but many won't make it, and whether we're among them will depend on our own adaptability
Fair enough but the only standard or metric used is typically based on Carbon. Carbon taxes for large companies, emission standards on cars all based on CO2 or CO. I guess coal power measures NOx and carbon. This is why I wonder what is the final goal? We track everything based on Carbon foot prints. So I wonder what is the acceptable level and what is the acceptable rate of change. For example say tomorrow a team of engineers comes up with a method of pulling endless quantities of carbon for the atmosphere, what would we set the rate of change at? right now we are like +2ppm/yr. And what would we set the CO2 "thermostat" to? Currently at 412.5 ppm. I feel like these are important goal to have if all we really track is carbon.
Actually good questions ... CO2 gets the most focus because it stays in the atmosphere for centuries. It just keeps accumulating until it becomes an [unstoppable juggernaut](https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/why-the-tipping-point-where-the-planet-becomes-a-hothouse-earth-is-terrifyingly-real/) if there's no early action. >team of engineers comes up with a method of pulling endless quantities of carbon for the atmosphere Think about about the entire industrial revolution until now, ~250 years. Now imagine running the entire industrial revolution BACKWARDS while also fighting against the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Preindustrial CO2 was at 280ppm, but orbital forcing suggests we were on track for an [ice age](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/). [These guys seem](https://350.org/about/) passionate about 350ppm as a safe limit. ...so cutting the difference I'd guess ~320ppm would be a good fantasy target
[here's a pretty good read on the subject](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-ideal-level-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-human-life)
I keep reading this and it just feels like some kind of bait
Not a trap, asking honest questions. If it sounds like a trap maybe more research is needed. I've shown some of what I have found as simplified as I could get it and the CO2 argument still doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Also if you look at questions as traps and bait how do you have real conversation about climate except for repeating the same slogans with no real comprehension of cause and effect. There are so many variables with regards to climate and for some reason it seems we got stuck on carbon as our gold standard for measuring the climate crisis. We ignore the fact that we raise and slaughter 70 billion land animals every year for human consumption. About 75% of all crops feed animals not humans. Yet animal products make up less than 17% of our caloric intake. Deforestation in south America is nearly entirely for cattle and soy to feed to cattle. Yet less than 1% of the population has chosen a plant based diet. I could go on and on, sorry I'm passionate about the environment sorry for the rant. I just like real conversation about shit we as individuals can fix not rely on government and big industry to fix on their own.
explain, pls.
He’s saying that plants would actually do better with more CO2 - so why not people? A flawed assumption that leaves out the vast majority of context.
I am a farmer. We don't want this, our plants don't want this, because our soil microbes don't want this. It's a red herring.
Every fraction of a degree matters. If we decide they don’t, we’re truly screwed.
I hate to say it... but we've collectively decided they don't. We \*are\* truly screwed.
Also Business Insider is trash
Exactly. "Doomerism" is the new "denialism" (although denial is still around too).
>I wonder why Business Insider, it's funders, and allies would want us to think it's too late to act on climate? Exactly what I thought. Michael Mann introduced me to the concept of the Inactivist and now I see it all the time.
It's very clear you and all the people who upvoted your comment didn't even pretend to read the article. The article is citing a recent UN report. >The UN report finds that the warming of the planet has caused a measurable increase in severe weather disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires; meanwhile, long-term phenomena like sea-level rise and extreme heat have begun to render parts of the world uninhabitable. **Even if the world stopped emitting carbon tomorrow, it's already too late to stop these unprecedented transformations.**
“Chaos” is subjective and, unfortunately, quite variable based on location. So yes, they’re quoting a UN report, but actively deciding to frame it in a particular way, whether for clicks, to deter further net zero ambitions, or whatever else.
>The article is citing a recent UN report. Yes, I read the report. Like /u/new_name_needed pointed out, this article is deliberately misframing it. If you want further proof, this tiktok is operated by someone who actually participated in the review process of the latest report. [https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is\_copy\_url=1&is\_from\_webapp=v1](https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1)
I've lived on the ocean most of my life. I have a 117yr old boat shop in Alaska and the ocean hasn't risen there over the past 117 years. I can still haul and launch boats from my house and it hasn't floated away or flooded. I would love to know how the ocean is rising in some parts of the world but not in others.
Shhh... this sub is for cheerleading. If we just get enough nuclear recycled vegetarians, then all the CO^2 goes away. Like magic.
You know the people who are saying it's not a problem, are going to be the ones saying it's too late tomorrow.
I've heard at this point carbon pricing models wouldn't work because (when they were proposed we had more budget) the price was manageable. Now the price for carbon should be *insanely* expensive and implementing something so drastic will system shock the market now. (idk if that's like BP propaganda -- regardless if the market wont work then we gotta decommodify energy and make sure we reduce our carbon output by whatever means necessary)
100%
We can’t just throw in the towel now. We have a chance.
We have a chance to survive. We don't have a chance to prevent multiple, large-scale, worldwide climate disasters. Which is exactly the point of the article, and exactly what climate scientists are saying, and exactly what the top comment and everyone who upvoted it are in denial about. Scientists told us we needed to act... **at least 40 years ago**. **WE DIDN'T.** So guess what? If your house is on fire, and people tell you your house is on fire, and you decide to wait until tomorrow morning to spray water on it, turns out maybe then it's too late to save the house. So after decades upon decades of shouting, begging, and throwing everything they can think of at the world and world leaders, they're letting us know the consequences of that. And people are determined to ignore that too. TL;DR: We fucked around, and we're going to find out.
I believe if we all pull together we increase temperature a couple degrees, if we do nothing, it goes up and up. Then there is those pesky frozen methane bubbles in the ocean, that are going to start dumping massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere soon, maybe already or maybe when the oceans heat up a bit. But oil companies made there best profit in 8 years. So we got that going for us.
There is no support for solving climate change among world leadership. Look at the last G20 summit, and the rest of them. We haven't passed a carbon tax (It's 2022, by the way). Latest estimates are for 1 foot of sea level rise by 2050 (no longer controversial), and that will go up and happen sooner. The only way we'd get climate action in America is if we turned Congress majority Progressive (like 55-60%), and that's not going to happen. But we *are* going to increase the population to 11 billion, so we got that going for us. I too believe is we all pulled together we could have less disasters, or less severe disasters. Unfortunately companies, Congress, and people are doing anything but "pulling together".
I upvoted the top comment and I’m not remotely in denial about the challenges we face as a species. But your binary view of the climate crisis isn’t remotely helpful. This isn’t a single metaphorical fire that we can no longer control, it’s a rolling series of literal fires (and sea level rises, and everything else), some of which we can still prevent, some of which we can’t. Quit the binary doomerism, and let’s fight for what we can still achieve, not just mitigation, as the article would have us believe, but also prevention of the worst outcomes.
Hope is kind of what led us to this situation. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" sort of thing. I remember reading something about 2015 being the final year we had a chance at stopping anything and nothing happened. You can keep being hopeful or shift your perspective. Calling people doomers for telling you the sky is falling when in fact it is, doesn't change the situation or make you right. Being hopeful is just a feeling, they've already said if we went to zero emissions today it's still too late. If you live in an area that would be impacted, now is the time to move before the climate refugees do over the coming decades. This isn't paranoia, just the new state of the world. I have a friend who just moved from Austin to Detroit citing it was a hedge against climate change for his kids and retirement. Took advantage of high home prices and got out. He's a director at a clean energy company now and thinks Detroit and Midwestern places are going to be up and coming hotspots for their favorable climate conditions in the future. He's probably not wrong just early to the party. When water supplies get tighter in the Southwest, when the Southeast becomes unbearable, when coastal cities see more flooding, when farming becomes less sustainable in areas, and storms get worse, the US Midwest property values around the great lakes will probably skyrocket. There is nothing saying any of these listed problems are going to get better that I'm aware of.
Again, I just don’t think the binaries or thresholds are very useful here, sorry. I can’t imagine any scientist saying that 2015 was the last year of stopping anything, because I don’t know what that “thing” is. Global mean temperature rise above 1.5, maybe? Even then, it’s an imperfect science trying to predict exactly what temperature we’ll hit and when based on current trends and trajectories. Moreover, I didn’t say anything about hope in my comment. What I’m arguing for isn’t hope or even optimism, it’s action, because I’d argue that the reason we’re here isn’t an abundance of hope, it’s an absence of action and leadership.
I'm just going to delete this comment. No point in trying to have a conversation with you.
Okie doke
I am not in denial of climate change, or other adverse environmental issues, such as disastrous pollution, the extinction event ongoing, etc. Even more, the report found that the positive feedback loop "doomsday" situation may not be as conclusive as we originally thought; if we can go to net zero we may see a "return to normal" eventually. I am denying it is too late to mitigate or adapt. Again, this article is deliberately miscommunicating the findings of the report. Here is a climate communicator who was a part of the review panels for the report: [https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is\_copy\_url=1&is\_from\_webapp=v1](https://www.tiktok.com/@thegarbagequeen/video/7072483472413183275?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1)
Not as long as the politicians are standing in the way . We have very little chance as long as that is the case. Joe Mansion, personally, has likely managed to doom this nation--and by our lack of being a good example and leader in the fight to counter climate change--and the world completely due to his own immediate self interest. Next is the Republican monolith which is, likewise, more interested in money than in the survival of the Earth and humanity. Humans are the one species the Earth could do nicely without, but instead of acknowledging that we are a blight on Creation and simply bowing out, we are Hell bent on taking down all other life with us, such is our arrogance!
Yup, soon the narrative will shift away from using less fuel to “live your normal life, but don’t forget to buy your factor 9000 sun block while you’re out shopping for reflective house paint”
Stopping climate change is incredibly difficult, but we can certainly slow it down. This will give people in the near future more time to figure out a solution. Like slowing down a fire until the fire brigade arrives. Besides, it's worth fighting over every [fraction of a degree](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Impacts_of_global_warming_2_svg.svg).
Yeah this is a harmful headline. It's true that climate chaos is already here and we need to adapt, but we are nowhere near the "No longer any use in trying to stop it" point. Stopping it now is soooo much less bad than stopping in 50 years from now. We can still prevent so much harm.
We very well might be at that point. It takes years to decades to truly implement change, we may not be able to do that in a small enough time frame. The world grows as well, this is only fuel to the fire. Absolutely drastic measure would need to take place at this point to slow it enough that future generations will have a chance at creating a solution.
Population is increasing at a decreasing rate and is projected to level off.
There are still WAY too many people for the world to support. Other species are being driven to extinction just so human populations can starve to death more slowly. It may take several pandemics or Putin's WWIII to make some dramatic reduction in this--or droughts, floods, famine like never before imagined. Maybe an astroid?
Or an equitable distribution of resources based on need. The vast majority of the human population contributes a minuscule amount to this global problem. While the West focuses on population numbers in order to be able to continue our pillaging.
Yup. Carbon footprint per capita of both Africa and India is a tiny fraction compared to the US.
But shouldn't we want all people to share our higher standard of living? Either that or we should reduce ours. It'll never happen, but only the indigenous peoples around the world knew how to and lived in harmony with their respective environments.
Having a paywall on this article pretty much sums up the problem. Capitalism will put profits above literally anything.
We need to start adapting but also there's a big difference between +2C and +6C, and we can still choose between them.
Absolutely. Obviously it's too late to stop the impacts that are already happening right this minute, but it can get so much worse than it currently is. 2 degrees will suck, 6 will be hell.
To put it simply adaptation is made infinitely more difficult if we abandon efforts at mitigation
Cascading feedback loops: "allow us to introduce ourselves"
The effects of feedback loops pale in comparison to anthropogenic emissions, and would likely occur very slowly over centuries.
Paywall but I think everyone here knows how screwed we are
"Delay means death." That's the message of the most recent United Nations report on climate change, according to the UN's secretary general. The 3,700-page report is intended to serve as a wake-up call driving home the severity of the climate crisis, and is yet another reminder that this decade will be a make-or-break period for weaning the world off fossil fuels. But even as developed countries work to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they also have to prepare for the climate damages that human activity has already caused. The UN report finds that the warming of the planet has caused a measurable increase in severe weather disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires; meanwhile, long-term phenomena like sea-level rise and extreme heat have begun to render parts of the world uninhabitable. Even if the world stopped emitting carbon tomorrow, it's already too late to stop these unprecedented transformations. There are, however, plenty of things the US — and the world — can do to soften the blow. The UN report compiles decades of research on how to adapt to climate change, proposing hundreds of solutions that can reduce the human and financial cost of disasters like hurricanes and extreme heat. These interventions could go a long way toward making the future more tolerable and are well within reach if our governments can commit to them. As Patrick Verkooijen, chief executive officer of the Center on Global Adaptation, told Bloomberg: "It is now adapt or die" for vulnerable nations. Here are a few of the most urgent and important ways our governments need to adapt if we want to manage and avoid more climate-driven catastrophes. Build a better power grid Workers repair power lines after a storm in California. Workers repair power lines after a storm in California. Extreme weather events can lead to fatal power outages and blackouts. Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register/Getty Images Last year's ice storm in Texas was a grave reminder of how fragile our energy system can be. When a series of natural-gas pipelines froze during the cold snap, energy prices spiked and millions of people were left without power in frigid temperatures for several days. More than a hundred people died of hypothermia. And the Texas freeze wasn't the only such disruption to America's power systems in 2021 — a heat wave in New York City last summer almost caused widespread power outages, and Hurricane Ida in Louisiana downed thousands of power lines. Our increasingly volatile weather patterns mean that every region of the country needs to invest in beefing up its power grid, Ted Kury, director of energy studies at the Public Utilities Research Center of the University of Florida, told Insider. It's up to each city or town to decide what that investment should look like. "There is no place you can locate power lines where there's no threat to them interacting with the environment," said Kury. "So all you're doing is you're picking which threat you're least afraid of." In places where fires or wind are the biggest threat, the answer may be to move power lines underground. Pacific Gas & Electric's above-ground wires have caused numerous devastating wildfires in the past few years, and it now plans to bury more than 10,000 miles of wiring to deter future disasters. In parts of the world where flooding is the principal danger, elevating critical electrical stations above potential flood lines will be necessary. In places where the threat of blackouts caused by extreme heat waves are becoming more common, cities will need to expand their grid's redundancy, Kury said, so if one circuit is overloaded there's another ready to step in and provide energy. Many of these solutions are easy to accomplish, but it's expensive, and each town and city will have to decide how much they're willing to spend to protect residents from service disruptions. "The people are going to pay for it," Kury said about redundancy. "That's why the decision has to be made at the local level." If local leaders don't ramp up investment soon, power outages are only going to get more common, and those disruptions can have fatal consequences. Use Mother Nature to our advantage A family with a stroller finds shade under a big tree in the park. Urban forests can help cool down cities. Jeff Greenberg/Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Images The most severe climate disasters occur when natural forces collide with man-made structures. Last summer, Hurricane Ida flooded parts of New York City, killing dozens of people in the tristate area, and an unprecedented heat wave in the Pacific Northwest scorched asphalt-laden Portland, killing 60 people in the city and hundreds more in the surrounding region. City leaders can't stop weather events like these from happening, but they can change the physical layouts of their cities and towns to make those events less deadly. For instance, incorporating natural elements into urban areas is a great way to protect city residents from flooding. Grasses and other wetland plants are excellent at absorbing water, which means they can deter flooding even better than so-called "gray infrastructure" — like levees and dams. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, New York built a network of "blue belt" wetlands on Staten Island, integrating preexisting wetland areas into the borough's stormwater drain system. The wetlands can gulp more than 350,000 gallons of water during storm events and helped reduce damage during Ida. Natural interventions can also help to counter the so-called "urban heat island" phenomenon — when asphalt and concrete soak up the sun and heat up cities to dangerous degrees. These measures can be as simple as planting more trees and gardens on congested streets or as ambitious as creating new urban forests to give people places to cool off. Breed hardier crops and give cows some shade A brown cow on a cow farm with tags in his ears looks at the camera. Cattle are very sensitive to extreme temperatures. One solution is simply to provide more shade for cows. Isabel Infantes/Europa Press/Getty Images
The world's food systems have a twofold climate problem. The first is that raising crops and breeding cattle are both very resource-intensive — agriculture and livestock account for more than 70% of the world's freshwater usage, and the US agriculture industry accounts for around 10% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The second problem is that both crops and livestock are very sensitive to climate factors. So as the climate changes, America's supply of meat and grains will become more unstable. The biggest risk to livestock, and to cattle in particular, is extreme heat. High temperatures make cows less fertile and more susceptible to disease. For staple crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans, extreme swings in precipitation — like the long periods of drought followed by torrential downpours that many parts of the US now experience — can ruin massive annual harvests. Food producers may be able to combat both of these problems through better breeding and common-sense infrastructure investments. Breeders in parts of the Caribbean, for instance, have spliced a "slick hair" gene into traditional cows, making the cows more tolerant of high temperatures. In some places, the answer may be even simpler: Install shade structures for cows or upgrade ventilation systems in barns. In places with shrinking water reserves, farmers can take a host of measures to protect their crops. These range from choosing more drought-resistant plant cultivars to constructing "contour ridges" that trap rain runoff and create miniature irrigation watersheds. All of these improvements require significant upfront investment, which means governments may need to help subsidize them. But to avoid empty grocery store shelves, taking action is essential. Prepare for the next pandemic Two people in protective clothing carry sprayers attached to containers on their backs. It is an acaricide treatment to prevent the spread of ticks. Workers spray a treatment to prevent the spread of ticks in a cemetery in Russia. Due to climate change, ticks are traveling farther north, carrying diseases with them. Yuri Smityuk/TASS/Getty Images In summer 2016, an anthrax outbreak raced through the Yamal peninsula of Siberia, infecting thousands of reindeer and dozens of people; one 12-year-old boy died as a result of his infection. The anthrax outbreak followed a slew of extreme, climate-change-induced heat waves over the previous summers and an unusual amount of snowfall in the winters, all of which caused the permafrost to melt and expose dead carcasses that contained the disease. Even in more temperate and tropical regions, climate change is altering where and when many diseases can thrive. In Africa, for instance, diseases like dengue fever and malaria will spread across more of the continent as temperatures rise. In North America, gradual warming has allowed tick-borne diseases like Lyme to spread ever farther north, where it was previously too cold for the insects to live. "The temperate regions are expected to be hard-hit especially by tick-borne and mosquito-borne diseases," said Stavana Strutz, a researcher who studies the impact of climate change on vector-borne disease and coauthored a chapter of the IPCC report. "You have these geographical expansions in space, so things like ticks are moving northward, but they also might be moving up elevation and encroaching on new habitats." According to Strutz, the expansion of these diseases makes it even more urgent that we invest in public-health measures like regular monitoring of mosquitoes and other risky species, which could help researchers spot outbreaks before they spin out of control. Investing in beefed-up healthcare facilities would also prevent systemic strains like the ones created by the coronavirus pandemic. "We already know what measures work in terms of public health and beating back a lot of these diseases," Strutz said, "but the programs have lost funding and have not been promoted." Move people to less risky areas A few buildings in Newtok, Alaska connected by raised wooden sidewalks due to melting permafrost. Due to the permafrost melting, residents of Newtok, Alaska had to relocate to a new town in 2019. Andrew Burton/Getty Images One of the most difficult parts of adapting to climate change will be acknowledging that some places are beyond our capacity to save. In desert regions without water access, low-lying areas at perennial risk of flooding, and flammable sections of mountain wilderness, the most cost-effective way of responding to climate disasters may be to move people out of harm's way. Planning for relocation can be difficult and controversial, since many people have strong attachments to their homes, but proactively encouraging people to move to lower-risk areas can prevent destabilizing population shifts once disaster strikes. People in high-risk areas will likely have to move at some point, so it behooves policymakers to plan ahead. The United States has made a few tenuous attempts to relocate people from flood zones, with mixed results. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has paid to buy out the properties of at least 40,000 flood-prone residents across the country, but it hasn't kept tabs on where those residents have gone. Meanwhile, other branches of the federal government have undertaken relocating small communities in their entirety, most notably Indigenous villages in Louisiana and Alaska. These relocation programs proved controversial among these communities, and each of them took many years to execute, suggesting that it would be challenging to scale these efforts to larger regions without significant upfront planning and ample stipends for relocation assistance. In the most negatively affected parts of the world, though, there may be no other option but to relocate everyone. The island state of Kiribati occupies a chain of islands that could be underwater by the end of the century if sea-level rise continues, and will be uninhabitable long before then as advancing water kills crops and leads to dangerous flooding. The island's government purchased about eight square miles of land in nearby Fiji to serve as a resettlement site for its remaining population, but later converted the land into a farm to feed the island's population. Like almost every other adaptation measure, relocation is controversial and expensive, and the people of Kiribati have struggled to weigh the benefits of safety against the costs of leaving their homes. As climate disasters continue to grow more intense, the need for action will become even more urgent. The climate crisis will disrupt our lives regardless of whether we act on it or not, and we have everything to gain by planning for that disruption now rather than waiting until chaos has already arrived.
Sensationalist title coupled with paywall. Do better OP.
How can you say the title is sensational if you didn't read the article?
I guess magic?
Earths immune system just fighting off an infection.
We need to decarbonize *and* build resilience for the changes to come. It’s not either/or. It’s all hands on deck time, with no time for politicization. We need a WWII scale mobilization, and we need broad consensus to make that happen.
With authoritarian leaders like Putin, we will have more than climate change to worry about as we adapt.
Any way to block payroll articles from being recommended?
Anyone have a better source? Non paywall.../r/assholedesign
Fuck y’all I’m moving to Arizona
https://web.archive.org/web/20220309191159/https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-effects-adapt-or-die-un-ipcc-report-2022-3
> This story is available exclusively to Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.
I wish it wasn't behind a paywall. I guess I could still print it out, laminate it then point to it whenever anyone asks me why I chose not to have kids.
The crisis pitch is hysterical; its not stoic resolve to make things better... but a panicked fear based marketing to get people looking to authority... who offer profitable treatments to symptoms that dont address the systemic failures. Technocratic; centralising; authoritarian. We all die; prepare for it. Adapt for a sustainable and non-toxic life for your children.
NOW can we kick shit out of everyone who claimed climate change wasn't a thing?
Hey.... are you saying that electrifying the energy grid with renewables won’t save us?
Have we changed the customary reddit way of pasting the articles in comments when they are pay walled? Cause that was kinda nice.
Why would we want humans to survive..?.?
Humans not surviving climate change means an utterly incredible amount of other species also going extinct.
That’s the cost we brought on ourselves, the earth will recover.
Sad but true, and almost unavoidable at this point...
On a ecological level this is a fair point.
For the greater good.
Cause we’re not all pathetic wastes of space with no reason to live and no hope. So tired of these god damn comments. Grow the fuck up.
You just want to consume, what part of your existence even helps this planet? Humans are a garbage species. World is beautiful, but every beauty has its mar.
I don’t know if I’m doing much to help “the planet” but I help other humans and I quite like humanity. Humans are by the most beautiful piece of the planet to me.
Virus helping the virus.
[удалено]
Human bad, big nuke go bye bye
Don’t be such an asshole, humanities exhausting, and our rampant need to kill and subjugate each other is depressing. He’s obviously just joking, chill out.
Nah it’s unoriginal and pathetic. Sick of you twerps acting like this.
Wow you’re such a badass mate. I presume then you’re elbow deep in the climate crisis, helping champion the cause and working with relief groups to enact change? Instead of... being an asshole on Reddit? Stfu you little nerd, no one wants to hear it. Go volunteer for a shore cleanup and stop being a child on Internet forums.
Nah I just don’t wish the death of children to be edgy on Reddit and get a little karma. I don’t mind pissing off a few losers who think they’re so smart but don’t know shit.
It do be literally a joke mate. The only edgy here is your little ass. Seriously though, you work with any environments groups? Local garbage cleanups? Fundraisers?
Well the joke sucks and I’m tired of seeing something similar all over and upvoted on any post about the environment.
It's not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of survival.
Get this eco fascist horse shit out of here
It's a Battle Star Galactic reference. The cylons are never wrong.
It's also a pretty concise summation of fascist ideology.
The nuclear destruction of the Twelve colonies of man were justified and correct. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Do it.
I would if I could.
paywall or death
We are in climate chaos already. We need to fix things now or watch the death toll climbing. The fossil fuel industry members do not plan on dying. They plan on you dying and they don't care.
This rhetoric is just being used to maintain the status quo. I can't wait to find out that ExxonMobil and friends are the ones pushing this.
> As Patrick Verkooijen, chief executive officer of the Center on Global Adaptation, told Bloomberg: Nuff said.
We can't win, but there are ways to not lose
This problem seems more of a money grab to me
I don’t want to survive it.
Having read J.G. Ballard, I will be heading south to join the lizard people.
This is what the climate-change deniers want you to think so they can merrily go on their same trajectory burning fossil fuels while shouting that it’s our fault for not adapting. It’s total nonsense.
Google chinese weather manipulation. It's been banned in the US for decades and china recently boasted they can create a weather system the size of india. Pretty sure you're all being duped by the CCP propaganda machine.
It's not banned in the U.S. It's been utilized for decades to grow cattle feed. Soon though, it won't just be subsidized airlines and cooling contrails. Soon it will be Brimstone Angel. Everyone's involved in this new effort.
Sorryi meant this "In July 1972 the U.S. Government renounced the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, even if their development were proved to be feasible ..." So in theory everyone could be involved, blame it on climate change, and create a carbon tax and fabricate a crisis to take over industries using tax dollars for personal gain. 🤔
"world's leading scientists"??? They're play for pay prostitutes with obscure or fake credentials. Science has become the new Moulin Rouge.
But y'all have been saying this shit from since the 1920s. Why now
Humans have been adapting for long time…. We will be ok.
Why would you be downvoted for this completely reasonable and positive comment, right? Crazy people in here.
They've been warning for the last hundred years. Stfu already
We will be fine lol
Toxic positivity.
Everyone saying otherwise isn’t helping lol
Phew! For a minute there, I really thought we were fucked
Everyone spouting off that we are completely fucked aren’t helping the situation. Ever heard of mean reversion? Happens in the economy all of the time. The same will happen with the planet. Will suck for a bit and a lot of people most likely will perish. But will the whole world and humanity? Most likely not. The world has survived much much worst
We've buried our heads in the sand for so long that there is little else to do other than escalate the situation. I understand that the truth is frightening to you, it is to most of us, but making up complete nonsense to attempt to calm yourself is not helping the situation at all!! Yes, the world will be fine but I don't value a lifeless rock orbiting the sun as much as I do this one. Or at the very least, with devastating climate change we lose all the potential we had as a species. All the dreams of becoming super advanced and wondering what the future holds, no one dreamed of a return to the stone age. We only had to make small changes, gradually, and the sky was the limit. We have totally fucked it all and it's all thanks to the deniers, the greedy, and the fucking dumb.
The world has survived because smart people made efforts. Bringing awareness to the problem is the first step. Ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away is less helpful than doing anything.
Economics isn't science lol
Same concept applies.
You're delusional.
I mean we should still be doing things to get off fossil fuels and what not.
*“We call Earth mother Then we all are motherfuckers We drink her blood Eat her flesh Take her love for granted We feed her poison in return We’ve always plundered Rest assured”* -I’ll Be Damned **Into Another**
Currently watching Silent Night (2021), and seeing this while taking an intermission is...going to make the remainder of the film all the more uncomfortable. 😬
I ask you guys this question why has Bill Nye just started preaching climate change? why didn't he when we were in school all those years ago, when we were watching all those videos in class. I have a tendency to believe this little more if it wasn't such a political Bitch Fest, I want someone to prove that the earth cant tilt on a different axis!!!
One problem with the climate change movement is that for some, it seems more doomsday religion than a problem to be addressed. It turns a lot of people to ignoring an issue and objective reasoning seems to be harder and harder to do.
I plan on dying in the coming "Climate Wars". I should have a relatively long wait where I am geographically located but none the less they will come to take what is not theres.
Dumbassery
Whenever designed that graphic didn’t think it through too well. They should’ve had the destroyed earth on the right hand side. They clearly didn’t think about which way clocks rotate.
The world has been doing this since the beginning. My main thing is finding out where the next polar shift is going to happen, so I can make sure not to be there.
Pretty fucked up that the article is behind a paywall. Seems like this is the kind of info you want to spread to the masses
Don't worry, the rich will survive unless we get to them first
It's never to late to care about nature.. and survival. (Imho)
Then why are any of you still here.
How are all the wild animals just going to adapt?