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

7750 readers

493 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:

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

156

The end of 2025 must be the end of the inane rule of climate ‘optimism’ | The world missed its opportunity to prevent climate change. We need to focus our resources on adapting to it. (www.resilience.org)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We were supposed to have gone net zero by now: that was XR’s central demand, when we formed it, seven years ago. Can we all please at last acknowledge and take seriously the utter failure to do so? Only such acknowledgement will prevent us from continuing collectively to basically ignore the increasingly pressing need to actually focus resources on a strategy beginning with climate adaptation. We should admit that widely-mandated climate optimism has been actively harmful to the needful acknowledgement of reality – and to the active collective self-protection that we now desperately need to get serious about making happen.

[...]

Here at the end of 2025, we are already living with the consequences of delay. Flooding, heatwaves, droughts and wildfires are no longer rare events; they are becoming features of normal life. And in some cases – look at California, or Sri Lanka, or (closer to home) at the many floodplains that have been and will be built on – the consequences of their not being taken seriously enough as our new never-normal have been deeply disastrous, or indeed very deadly. The idea that we can still prevent at source very serious damage is an illusion. What we can do is reduce harm, protect the most vulnerable and adapt in ways that for starters do not worsen the problem.

This is the moment to prioritise resilience at every level — from reinforcing critical infrastructure to strengthening the social fabric of communities on the frontline of climate impacts, from learning from how global South frontline communities have already been practising transformative adaptation to shared inner work turning climate despair into climate courage.

I'm not sure how much I agree with this, but I certainly found it thought-provoking.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There will be adaptation either way. It's still lame to shift agenda to "subsidizing adaptation" to support it getting even worse. Our current adaptation path

Pay higher insurance fees for your property (including rental cost) or be homeless.
Declare those fleeing drought and other warming related inhability invaders to get political consensus on subsidizing fosil fuels more.
Every fire and hurricane is more proof of climate alarmist space lasers and chemtrails false flag agenda.

See. No need to worry about there not being an adapting strategy. The part about cutting forest fire mitigation and FEMA budgets doesn't quite make sense, except for boosting insurance premiums.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Adaptation was not defined. It could mean have the world's rich accomodate the world's poor, but our failure point has been poltiically that we could not sacrifice just the rich oil company's extortionist profit power to reduce our energy costs in addition to future sustainability expenses/compromises. How can that broader failure of direct immediate social benefit translate into future political support for social sacrifice for humanist purposes.

A side note, the only policy that was ever going to, or will ever, stop global warming is a carbon/GHG tax with the proceeds paid to citizens/residents as a dividend. Demonic warmongering for losing wars, along with the divisiveness it invites for inflation and attacks against the economy, with more oligarchist and zionist supremacism as the winning solution is necessary to make you more miserable, and in your misery, lose all concern for human sustainability while consumed with anxiety over your near term future.

Back to adaptation, perhaps a politically relevant class is relatively wealthy residents of Phoenix. Should "we" give them free homes somewhere that is not an abomination to humanity? Compared to trucking desalinated water into Phoenix for 200 years, digging them a canal from the Great lakes would be a bargain. Florida coastal home owners vote in what is sometimes a swing state... should we build them a sea wall for entire state?

Surely, with electric bills set to soar 300% because we politically require all the AI datacenters to bring skynet surveilance state that ensures skynet support (or China wins), cannot tolerate an extra 10% electricity increase to subsidize the poor's access to AC, since Skynet will make the poor unneeded anyway.

The problem with supporting adaptation, is that you give the politically relevant classes a lifeline to support continued climate terrorism. The lifeline being that they will get bailed out after we are finishing arguing about who deserves to survive/be bailed out.

The other issue with adaptation, is that it financially costs less to mitigate worsening than it does spending on ever increasing adaptation. Even if you win political support for the stupid option, it is still smarter/cheaper to mitigate instead.