• Optional@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My family: We should save the planet!

    Me: great, let’s all eat less meat!

    My family: . . . No

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Greenpeace: we should save the planet!

      Me: great, let’s build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels

      Greenpeace: …No

        • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And if we started building them a decade ago we would have them now. We need to start building them now, because it’s only gonna be worse in 10 years.

          • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            By then it will be too late, especially considering the extra CO2 that building them will create with no electricity provided at all

            • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is hilariously naive. The world is gonna keep turning either way. People aren’t just gonna suddenly all up and disappear. And the climate isn’t like a thing where you reach a certain point and you just give up. We can lessen how bad things will be. Making nuclear now is the right choice, so that in 10 years we can cut as many polluting forms of energy as we can.

              • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’d rather spend $10 billion on renewables that would start coming online almost immediately than lock that money up in a plant that won’t start recouping the carbon debt from its construction in a decade.

                • Aux@lemmy.worldBannedBanned from community
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Renewables don’t work and produce too much waste.

            • Aux@lemmy.worldBannedBanned from community
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yet another reason to invest most resources into nuclear worldwide.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Greenpeace advocated for this back in the 1970s and that’s why we have an enormous wind and solar industry today. The Greenpeace lobby was just too damned powerful.

          • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The reason we didn’t build any reactors after the 1970s is a combination of nuclear disarmament and slow return on investment, not Greenpeace. If Greenpeace had that much power they would have been able to shut down the oil and gas industry, too.

    • egeres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have decreased my meat consumption to about a third than it used to be in recent years. I’m not qualified to do an in-depth study about all the ramifications of the CO2 emissions, but agriculture being just about 11.2% of all emissions sounds like eating less cow won’t cut it to “save ourselves”

      I have a hunch that shit will hit the fan and there will be a massive reduction in CO2 emissions because of a supply chain failure. Third world countries produce the vast majority of “low manufacturing complexity” products, which will be made even more unsustainable if those regions become a scorched earth. That, coupled with a lesser incentive to travel due to an adverse climatic situation, and a trend in population decrease due to an overall quality of life degradation, will really be the reason why we will reduce emissions, simply because things stop working and become unsustainable

      Either way, I don’t think it’s possible to really predict the future and even less so in such a complex society where technology might be a game changer all of the sudden, so my opinion is not really that valid. Even educated estimates using proper statistics/data cannot guess the implications of new wars, AI, new scientific breakthroughs etc

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Welcome to Pakistan, we have:

    • drunken COAS with nukes
    • smog
    • the hot
    • fresh fruit
    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you, but it’s not the SUVs that are causing the problem, it’s the fucking corporations that contribute over 80% of the harmful emissions.

      But fuck SUVs and big ass trucks.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I start to wonder if corporate executives themselves arent responsible for this myth that the meaningful bulk of emissions comes from them. So consumers can feel guilt free about buying these gas guzzling chunkers, after all their choices dont have any meaningful effect on emissions.

        But no, corporate headquarters doesnt have a giant smokestack spewing out those corporate emissions you hear about. Those emissions are coming from…SUV tailpipes! Transportation is the highest emissions sector in the US, and personal vehicles make up the bulk of those emissions, especially trucks and SUVs.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s not the SUVs that are causing the problem, it’s the fucking corporations

        The corporations are the ones that block mass transit infrastructure and extract subsidies for increasingly oversized vehicles. American car companies basically don’t bother making sedans anymore.

        I don’t think there’s a bright line between the two problems. More SUVs = Corporate profit $$$ = More lobbying = No Mass Transit = More SUVs

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do this corporations do to cause 80% of emissions? Just burn it for fun?

        No. They make products and services that people buy. Making out people play no part in this doesn’t help anyone.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Just burn it for fun?

          The degree to which businesses prioritize political patronage over economic efficiency can’t be overstated. From Shitcoins to Big Box Retailers, we expend enormous amounts of carbon in pursuit of flights of fancy.

          And all those private jets and helicopters out to remote ecologically preserved vacation spots could definitely be defined as “burning fossil fuels for fun”.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    50C is near OSHA’s max limit to touch safe zones which is 60C. At 60C, no matter how many seconds, you will get burnt. At 50C you can hold an object for a few seconds safely.

  • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Oh… if only the scientists had warned us something like this could happen…

    Oh… wait…

    Well, if only the scientists had done something bigger and been louder to get everyone’s attention, like saying global warming is bad and self-immolating in a public place to try to warn people we’re all about to die…

    Oh… wait…

    Well, don’t worry, the magic sky gods will all take us to paradise once it gets too hot, and they lived happily ever after, the end, Yay! 🎈 🎉

  • CptEnder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Genuinely curious. Is it safer to stay inside without AC or go outside in shade? Isn’t the ambient air temperature still too dangerous in the shade?

    Anyway whoever starts selling AC to Europe is going to print money.

    • PiousAgnostic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I lived in Phoenix Arizona where 52 C was the peak of the summer heat. I’m not sure how one would have a regular life without AC. Sleeping in that type of heat is very hard.

      I had a truck with no AC and driving around with the windows open was like opening a convection oven door and letting the fan blow on you.

      • CptEnder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I lived in Paris and no one had it besides commercial buildings. But with climate change causing higher temperatures across the region, I think AC modifications of some sort will become the norm. My friend in Spain recently got AC after one summer he had to stay with his friend in Denmark because his house became unlivable. Like it would’ve killed his cat it was so hot inside.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t worry Pakistan Greenpeace banned nuclear power and brought back coal, that will save you from the ravages of global warming

  • PanArab@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Higher temperatures have been recorded last year but I think the heat is starting earlier this year?

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    125° F that’s above boiling temperature in Flaffenfeit!!! But boiling what is the question? Probably somebody’s temper.