31–40 of 211 posts
I hate when such (great) articles end with "we have a lot to do". Please give at least a couple of examples of a constructive action. "Write to your government", "Support this NGO". Do not loose the moment of attention you have just won.
> This massive lie can best be summed up as “when it comes to climate change... we have more time.” This time we have no more time but 25 years ago when we had no more time it was true? Or we've never had more time?
its always a problem and its slow moving enough and cumulative enough that it will always be better to fix it sooner but the real dangers are many years off.
when the jet stream collapses overnight then we'll be forced to deal with it
I hate when such (great) articles end with "we have a lot to do". Please give at least a couple of examples of a constructive action. "Write to your government", "Support this NGO". Do not loose the moment of attention you have just won.
Just in case you miss it: The author of the post, Adam McKay, "is the Academy Award-winning director of The Big Short, Vice, and Don’t Look Up and the founder of Yellow Dot Studios."
It's quite striking to note how media coverage of climate change and pollution have gone down so much. I remember in the 90's it was very much in the popular mileu. What's more we are living through an actual green revolution. Solar power and batteries have never been so cheap - and still promising to get cheaper and better with sodium ion batteries.
> This massive lie can best be summed up as “when it comes to climate change... we have more time.” This time we have no more time but 25 years ago when we had no more time it was true? Or we've never had more time?
Limiting temperature change by every additional 0.1°C is still worthwhile from a human welfare perspective. In that sense it is never to late. We can always do something to limit the damage. It’s just that it gets harder and harder and some damage becomes irreversible at a certain point. Had we done more 25 years ago it would all have been cheaper, easier and led to less damage overall. That doesn’t mean doing someth…
At this point I’m not sure what to do about it. I already live a low-ish carbon life. I barely ever fly. Only drive when I need to. Try and use items that are non-plastic where feasible. I don’t buy extra clothes. It’s at the point where I wish it were solvable, but I don’t believe it is, so I can’t afford to think about it. Maybe people better than me can, and good luck to them.
It's not at all about individual action. This scale of problem requires policy intervention and investment at national levels, and inter-governmental coordination internationally. The big, meaningful wins come from things like stopping the use of coal, not signing-off on new oil and gas exploration, tax-incentives and disincentives, grid work, fining polluters. We instinctively frame this as an individual problem, th…
Eight excruciating paragraphs before the author stops rambling and gets to their thesis. So much fluff.
The climate change part raises some good points, but why gourds?