no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
19 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
[–] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Nonono, I have a better idea : change nothing and lets just capture it!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    If we stopped cold turkey today I was under the impression it's gonna get even worse anyways from lag time of the consequences of what we've already polluted. Smoke for the rest of my summer days, correct me if I'm wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    When COVID hit and everyone did the stay at home thing we felt the effects almost instantly. Waterways cleared up and air quality improved significantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I remember this but I also don't know if/how it will affect heat wave and ice caps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    but I also don't know if/how it will affect heat wave and ice caps.

    Yes, there will be a lag to see those impacts improve. Years long. Probably multiple decades.

    But that's always going to be the case. And the longger the damage is allowed to compound, the longer it will take for the system to recover once we eventually stop fucking it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    If we stopped burning oil today, entirely, worldwide, the environment should stabilize around temperatures in about 10 years. That'd be a start. That figure also assumes the arctic permafrost hasn't thawed far enough to keep pushing temps itself.

    But yes I've read timelines of 100+ years to see real improvement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    That figure also assumes the arctic permafrost hasn't thawed far enough to keep pushing temps itself.

    That figure would be making a very incorrect assumption.

    Wait until summer 2027, then no one will be able to deny this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago

    Wish you were wrong.

    It's depressing how few people know that. Like you think it's bad, it's going to get worse your whole life even if we stop everything today, now.

    I think it's maybe too scary of a verified truth for many people to even register. Like most people's brains are protecting them by blocking them from understanding it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, it's a sunk cost, we may as well just keep destroying the habitabilty of the planet since we've come this far, we ain't no quitters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    It would be a bit like stopping smoking. We'd see some improvements almost straight away, as someone mentioned, look back at the covid lockdowns, but there would also be slower responding, longer term, benefits. The sooner we start, the sooner we get there, and you might not have smoky summers for the rest of your days.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago*

    Marlaina “Melania” Danielle Smith enters the chat wearing a Fort McMurray t-shirt holding a can of gasoline

    Did someone say the magic word to summon me?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Literal jet engines being built and guzzling fuel to power more AI datacenters because the existing electrical grid cannot power them and their existing city and towns of people.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    That would be great, thirty years ago

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 8 comments in c/collapse@sopuli.xyz view that post
    [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    Sadly, 21st century billionaires would rather keep getting richer than leave a legacy, even for their own children.

    It really lends credence to the argument that extreme wealth accumulation is a behavioral health problem.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Do those scientists mean stop insulting fossil fuels because I have some pretty sick burns for petrol fart-huffers

  • source
  • [+] -15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Suddenly stopping using fossil fuels will certainly free you from nasty smoke. Dead people don't need to breathe.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't get what you're trying to say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    For starters, about half of all people alive today are thanks to air nitrogen fixation. The Haber-Bosch process is driven by natural gas, methane. Food is produced with diesel and fossil energy in general. Up to 10 fossil energy calories for one food calory. The longterm carrying capacity of the planetary ecosystem post-fossil is less than a billion, about 100 million.

    So, suddenly stopping consuming fossil fuels will cause lots of people to die, in unpleasant ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, increased temperatures and drought certainly aren't helping, but I think the bigger cause of the wildfire smoke would probably be burning trees, not burning oil.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    The thing is, Mr. Hat, that stopping fossil fuel consumption would at least greatly and suddenly reduce pollution level; which would in turn overall reduce heat, and diminish the quantity of natural disasters. You have to make your brain work a little- if a leaf falls onto your head it is not only because it had to happen, but because you were there at that time, the wind was how it was, the tree too, and that particular leaf was detached maybe cuz not enough water or ill or autumn

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/climate@slrpnk.net view that post
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Already done pretty much all that I realistically can.

  • source