194
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 43 points 1 year ago

That is the way humans have always been and it is not just the USA. I will be dead before the worst affects hit is the justification many think but few are willing to express. Around the world ground water is being used at rates that are thousands of time faster than replenishment.

When the water runs out, mass starvation will soon begin.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

But it's not everyone, not always. In Europe we started sustainable forest management in the 18th century, so for at least a couple hundred of years people are acting differently. Why?

[-] ButtDrugs@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah but it started after Europe was basically logged to the ground for wood or agriculture.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Or a big drop in animal agriculture and biofuels

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That will also happen but it will not stop the hunger.

Food exports will dry up as countries hold their food for their own people (See: India's ban on rice exports) and the countries that cannot feed their own populations will implode.

The Arab spring started as protests over a jump in food prices.

[-] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

To think that getting rid of those two things is a silver bullet is naive.

People like to shit on animal agriculture. However, you have to consider that only about 3% of the earth’s entire surface is suitable for agriculture, and even less to grow most of the crops we eat. Animals can be raised on land that’s not suitable for crops. It spreads out where we use our water, which is a good thing. Animal agriculture also gives us a plethora of goods besides just meat, and again, it’s goods from land that otherwise we cannot farm.

As with all things in life, there are better and worse ways to go about it, but animal agriculture isn’t ruining the planet in itself.

Secondly, the problem with biofuels is it should be replaced with nuclear, and getting hungry isn’t going to change that, a lot of people are just going to die from starvation and violence directly caused by starvation.

[-] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Animal agriculture is not ruining the planet itself, yes.

But

Animal Agriculture emits nearly 60% of greenhouse gases from food production.

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

What proportion of total co2 emissions stem from food production?

[-] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

About 30% of global co2 emissions come from food production.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] neanderthal@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Let's stop to think about this. The US is farming water intensive crops in the desert. Iowa and surrounding states, some of the best farmland in the world, grows a shitload of corn to make ethanol to add to ICE engine fuel. The energy return on investment is minimal and ethanol trashes small engines that usually aren't designed to run on it.

We could stop farming in the desert and use our premier farm land to grow food instead of for making low quality ICE fuel. We should be phasing out ICE engines as much as possible anyway, so we can get a double whammy here.

[-] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I’m not disagreeing with that at all.

[-] Nicenightforawalk@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

I’m about to read the article but commenting first to take a guess somehow nestlé is involved

[-] aeternum@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

what humans use PAILS in comparisson to what the animals we eat use. Stop eating animals!

[-] RadicalCandour@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago

I can understand why you’re getting downvoted. People don’t want to stop eating animals. I know I don’t. But we really should. You’re right, it’s horrible for the planet. I for one am looking forward to the lab grown meat future.

[-] mrpants@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

Why even lab grown? I've eaten burgers from vegan shops that I prefer to meat ones. They're meatier and tastier than every other meat based burger in their price range.

Of course not every restaurant is this good yet but I have a feeling it'll outpace the rate of lab grown meat availability.

[-] RadicalCandour@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago

Why even lab grown? Because people will not give up meat. Humans want fat and muscle protein without the cruelty and waste.
I’m all for vegan options as well. I love me a well made vegan burger.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

That's because there isn't one.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 11 points 1 year ago

It is this very thought that prevents reform.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] RadicalCandour@startrek.website 17 points 1 year ago

I’m not sure if this report mentions it but I remember reading recently that we’ve pumped so much ground water out of the earth, it’s affected the tilt of the fucking planet. Man we are a shithole species.

[-] Domille@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

We are an invasive species for the entire planet...

[-] gnygnygny@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Extracting groundwatee in the death valley in order to make a golf is the most insane example

[-] exohuman@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

We need nuclear power stations all along the coast converting sea water into fresh water.

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

And a string of nuclear power stations to pump the water where it needs to be...

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And small nuclear power generators to power all the maintenance cars and trucks.

[-] Kittenstix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Don't forget the nuclear powered, air conditioned suits! Might as well make them bullet 'proof' while we're at it.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You joke, but we actually do need desalination plants — starting yesterday. Water will be the new oil soon.

[-] exohuman@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, we definitely do. We are already seeing the result of not thinking ahead in the southwest. I’m not really joking about the plants. We need nuclear plants to provide the clean energy to desalinate on the levels we need to sustain agriculture and cities without contributing to global warming.

[-] tgirod@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

... or maybe switch to a less water intensive form of agriculture ?

Edit : I mean, how sustaining a wasteful practice with a huge wasteful infrastructure is progress ?

[-] exohuman@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

We can and should do both.

[-] tgirod@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe we should, but I'm not sure we can - because one (nuclear + desalination) acts as a disincentive to the other (actually chaning practice).

Also, building a nuclear reactor takes a lot of time (do we have it ?), changing agricultural practices can start right now and scale progressively.

[-] tgirod@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Just to be sure this is sarcasm, right ?

[-] toothpicks@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

And then we can pour the nuclear waste back into the sea! Just kidding 😂 I'm not anti-nuclear

[-] Kittenstix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hopefully by then Nevada is a barren wasteland uninhabited by nimbys so we can get the Yucca Mountain project started.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

American companies and local governments implementing unsustainable projects that will only face consequences once they're gone?

They would never!

[-] Sharpiemarker@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

There isn't much of one

[-] Scrongle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
194 points (97.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5244 readers
140 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS