Wait wait wait, you're telling me all the money that was gained not fixing problems was short-sighted? You're telling me there's downsides?
Why haven't people been talking about this for 20 years!!!
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
72 points (98.6% liked)
Climate
8752 readers
404 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Fuck growth, that's what got us into this mess.
Won't somebody please think of the productivity?
You're joking, but unfortunately this is the only logic some people respond to.
For some yes, but others will only start behaving responsibly when it impacts their bottom line. Until then it will mean nothing to them. They will hear it, and read about it, but they'll ignore it.
I do, that's why I work public sector. I work well because it's going to make someone else's life easier
I like not paying high prices for food though.
Oh no not the productivity
people are suffering, but it’s more important that the line is not increasing, peasants!
Didn’t some economist joker get a Nobel prize for saying the climate disaster wouldn’t cause much economic harm?
He did. By assuming that damage was proportional to the fraction of the economy that a given sector represents. Which is an ok representation at very small amounts of warming. But when temperatures rise, the fact that the agriculture sector was, say, 3% of the economy, doesn't mean that damage is only 3% when the amount of food goes to zero.
I guess because the economy is made up, whereas the climate disaster is not.