this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
655 points (95.7% liked)

World News

38255 readers
2261 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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

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


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

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

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 114 points 11 months ago (14 children)

The people responsible don’t care. They will be perfectly fine letting the rest of us die. They’ll only start giving a shit once cheap labor starts getting hard to come by.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 85 points 11 months ago (9 children)

This rule is actually "an order of magnitude best estimate", which means it's more of a range, somewhere between 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1000 tons of carbon burned.

That leaves a lot of room for scenarios even more dire than the one outlined here.

"When climate scientists run their models and then report on them, everybody leans toward being conservative, because no one wants to sound like Doctor Doom," explains Pierce.

"We've done that here too and it still doesn't look good."

Translation: 10 billion people will die.

2nd translation: Almost everyone will die.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

My wild ass guess is humanity will eventually die back to, at best, bronze age population levels.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So what you're saying is... we are going to enter a dark age... and we could use a Foundation to lessen it's impact on humanity?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 11 months ago (4 children)

It's OK, they're just billion poorest people.

/S

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (5 children)

This is literally how rich people will take this.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)

You joke, but that is how a lot of people feel about it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In Europe over 60,000 people died in 2022 due to heatwaves.

People are blind to these deaths because they're not being taken out by a single devastating event, but rather a series of small events the people brush off as "they were going to die anyway".

It's one of the reasons I've not, and will not have children. This is getting exponentially worse and I couldn't image the horror that our future will face.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

... meanwhile we're compensating people who built $10m houses on cliff tops, who then cut down the trees securing the cliff edge, and are now finding out that cliffs erode, and their houses are failing into the sea.

... we're exempting farmers from paying the actual costs of their carbon emissions while they pollute or water ways with reckless abandon. It's only the poor fuckers down stream who'll get sick and die.

... While we still argue if old and sick people should die of COVID so that fashion shops can still hock their tat manufactured halfway around the world and shipped here on ships that burn the shittiest fuel available.

I have had kids, and lament the world I'm giving to them.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 11 months ago

I wish I could be an optimist, too.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This article is bogus. It doesn't even mention the power or thoughts and prayers once!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Well that's fine because I have a wizard what installs programs for me

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 11 months ago (5 children)

There are some real disgusting people here. Anyone who thinks that the solution to climate change is to kill a lot of humans should consider going first.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Give me a quick, painless & easy way out and I take it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

Lol the top comment after this is "me first"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

ecofascism baybeee

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

Yeah. The problem is how we use our resources.

Anyone who thinks we're overpopulated immediately gets written off as an idiot in my mind. They just don't know the world they were born into.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 11 months ago (17 children)

It only took 250 years since the industrial revolution to utterly doom our world.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Oh, our world will be fine, it's not the Earth's first mass extinction event. We - and a lot of flora and fauna we depend on - are really fucked though.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 11 months ago (8 children)

Nature knows how to solve this problem.

[–] [email protected] 70 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This issue is that nature is going to start with the people who contribute the least to the issue.

If only the people contributing the most could actually feel the pressure.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 months ago

And those who contribute the least to this issue are also likely the ones who want it fixed the most.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Is the earth is getting a fever to kill the viruses that are infecting it?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (17 children)

I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.

Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yup. The same people who deny science start paying attention once their own money becomes involved.

In Florida, the issue is rising sea levels. If you look at one of those interactive maps showing the effects of a rising sea level, you’ll notice that all of southern Florida is at risk of major flooding.

In California, wildfires are the problem. As the atmosphere gets warmer and rainfall becomes unreliable, forests get drier. Fires will become bigger, spread faster, and be even more frequent.

Neither state will be a profitable place for home insurance companies.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago

Get in line.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

"1 billion people on track to die"... I guess we're doing an empirical test of the trolley problem.

We have a choice between inconveniencing some people (especially some very rich people); vs saving billions of lives by switching tracks. And apparently the empirical choice is to equivocate and delay so that we stay on the path of death and ruin. ... It isn't the solution I would have chosen personally.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

There is quite a lot of extra discussion regarding the 1000-ton rule in the artual report itself (link can ne found in the article). Here are some excerpts:

it is likely more than 300 million (“likely best case”) and less than 3 billion (“likely worst case”) will die as a result of AGW of 2 °C.

A more recent attempt at quantifying future deaths in connection with specific amounts of carbon was published by Bressler [69]. Coining an economically oriented term “mortality cost of carbon”, he claimed that “for every 4434 metric tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere beyond the 2020 rate of emissions, one person globally will die prematurely from the increased temperature”. His predictions were confined to deaths from extreme heat when wet-bulb temperature exceeds skin temperature (35 °C).

Some interesting stuff in there.

I would've added more but holy shit the mdpi.com mobile website is atrocious to copy stuff from. It keeps throwing me at the end of the entire article, highlighting everything.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago

And with your help we can make sure that that number includes those that need to die.

load more comments
view more: next ›