This one bugs me so much. Like I'm not even aiming for full veganism. Just... less meat.
No.
"But I like it!" Irrelevant to the problem.
"Other people are worse". Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
"Other people are worse". Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
I wouldn't say irrelevant to the problem... Most of the stuff we as individuals can do, amount to trying to put out a tire fire by clapping... Even millions of us won't make almost any difference, specially when you have 10 assholes who, instead of clapping are actively pouring gas on the fire
I'm 100% on board with the clapping... But I'm not kidding myselft that we are going to save ourselves until we eliminate the firebugs
Even that alone is enough to make a quite decent impact.
that image is based on poore-nemecek 2018 which has terrible methodology.
Hm. I would be interested to learn why, exactly. If it has terrible methodology, why is it constantly referenced and why hasn't a better one been done since then?
Or is there a better one that nobody just uses?
And how should the data look, because most of every other source I can find also agrees that beef is the worst (or possibly on the second spot after lamb) as it comes to CO2 per kg.
the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don't think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop "seconds"; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn't credited to cattle, it's counted against their total water use.
that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?
Greenpeace: we should save the planet!
Me: great, let's build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels
Greenpeace: ....No
Too late. Somewhere so sunny can get a lot of solor quickly. Building nuclear power plants takes time and releases a lot of CO2. Batteries and solor now now. Cheapest power too.
Only too late because Greenpeace stopped it for decades. Hope you have a plan for your solar waste. Cheapest because you just let China throw it away for you.
Cheapest because the fuel is for free. Waste plan should be recycling.
Go ahead and show me your solar recycling plant. I want to see it. Must have a carbon footprint lower than nuclear or you lose.
You as also don't want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it's expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.
I know it's a new area. I am involved with it. Now show me the one that has a lower carbon footprint today. Including batteries btw no cheating
That's part of the issue with nuclear, it's not today. It's a decade to do, power coal in the mean time, pouring concrete which also cause a load of CO2. When it's finally running, it's clean, but expensive. In the mean time you could have solar running 8 years and it is cheaper to power and install. Nuclear is going to struggle to compete. Until fusion, but even that, if it ever comes, might not be cheap enough compared. Cheap, fast and clean wins.
Thanks for admitting you have nothing with a lower carbon footprint today. It was very big of you.
As I said, if you want to start today, solar is without doubt the way to go. If you are dealing in decades, and much more money, nuclear becomes an option. But in the time building it, you're poluting and it's not clear it's even cleaner long run discounting that, let alone including it.
Those nuclear power plants won't come online for a decade at least. It's better to spend the money on renewables and storage.
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.
By then it will be too late, especially considering the extra CO2 that building them will create with no electricity provided at all
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.
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.
Renewables don't work and produce too much waste.
Yet another reason to invest most resources into nuclear worldwide.
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.
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.
Greenpeace: …No
Senator Greenpeace and President Sierra Club made Westinghouse bankrupt itself trying to build the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia.
Everything is a joke to you so no surprise that would be your standard.
Well, according to kissmyOSfeddit, we don’t even need to eat less meat. We can sous-vide it on the sidewalk now! Sounds like a serious win-win to me.
It's the raising of the animals before they're slaughtered that's the problem, not the cooking after they're dead.
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
Hey look, that FO stage of FAFO is well underway. Hold onto your butts people, there's going to be some serious self punishment for our generations of polluting the world for personal convenience and money.
It will be felt most by those least responsible.
Very much so. It's completely unjust and we (me included) have been beyond wasteful in spending the Co2 (and other climate altering materials) irresponsibly for far too long.
The poor and low-polluting people of the world are being punished for the actions of the wealthy and highly polluting.
So very true. The vast majority of the climate damage has come from the US, China, and Europe, but more equatorial regions are going to be crushed by the heat for an unknown time. The cost to humanity is likely going to be beyond anything our models have projected.
If they haven't yet, they need to start emigrating north ASAP before the borders start shutting down (and they will).
And the disgusting irony that the ones being punished are the younger generation. I'm GenX. I apologize to my kids profusely for the mess I had a hand in making. It's not getting fixed until it gets a lot worse. I'm scared for the future.
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.
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.
Transportation is number two (by quite a bit) but don’t forget that Transportation of goods is also part of transportation.
Not saying we shouldn’t give up the SUVs, just that maybe we should use less power and heat with something cleaner as well.
Definite agree with the core of what you're saying, though for US and EU (and to a lesser degree "High income countries"), the numbers are quite close, as clean grid energy is significantly outpacing electric vehicle adoption (and EVs rely on a clean grid to be clean).
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
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.
It's not just "they make products and services that people buy", it's that "they maximize their personal profit at the expense of people and the environment".
It's easy but reductive to blame consumers for consuming, when it's worth noting that biodegradable packaging costs more than plastics that will never break down, so corporations will choose cheap plastic over environmentally friendly packaging 99.9% of the time.
The incentives are wrong. Instead of maximizing profit we need to ensure that profit is not maximized at the expense of sustainability, at the expense of pollution, and at the expense of the entire future of our planet.
That's a government issue.
E.g. a carbon tax will solve a lot of problems, or a tax on waste like plastic. It is very very unpopular with the public though so the government can't put it in place for fear of being voted out.
That's... Really passing the buck though.
Nothing is stopping corporations from doing The Right Thing right now except their own desire not for profit, but for maximized profit at all costs. Dare I say it, but if a company can't make a profit without creating harm, it doesn't deserve to make a profit.
The us government has said corporations are legally required to maximise profit for the shareholders.
Again government issue.
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".
I find it fascinated.. one side of their mouth, they're hating corporations. Other side, they're praising the product(s) they buy from said corporations. If any of these so called, "combatants of climate change" were true to their beliefs, they'd go find a piece of wilderness and live in it.
Hottest I've ever been in is 114f iirc in a dry heat. It was brutal like "you can feel moisture evaporating out of your eyes", I felt like just sitting around I couldn't drink water as fast as I was losing it. 125 is bonkers
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.
But also keep in mind that it's usually air temperature being measured, with surface temperatures being even worse than that!
50C is near 60C
Nnno...
You know how 0C is far from 60C but you can easily experience 0C in a winter? Well check it out, 50C is closer to 60C by about 50C difference from 0C. This 50C tends to be near 60C when compared to 0C and really 49 other whole numbers of degrees Celsius! An infinity of numbers if you add decimal places.
That's a very... interesting way to think about it.
Don't worry Pakistan Greenpeace banned nuclear power and brought back coal, that will save you from the ravages of global warming
Greenpeace banned nuclear power and brought back coal
Decades of nuclear non-proliferation policy at the UN driven by fear of rogue states using the weapons to terrorize civilians
Billions spent on media campaigns to influence fossil fuel policies
You know that small American-based environmental organization that did a few high profile stunts back in the 1970s? They did this.
lol what... when and where did Greenpeace ban nuclear power and how did they get the authority to do so
Decades of lawsuits and lobbying
hahahaha yeah dude the Greenpeace lobby is so stronk
They just criminalized golden rice so yes.
it's incredible that you can communicate with us from another universe
Just from South East Asia.
oh yeah that makes sense. i hear Greenpeace has total control in SEA particularly. formidable lot
Not going to address the golden rice?
no? feel free to provide sources to literally anything you said.
Higher temperatures have been recorded last year but I think the heat is starting earlier this year?
Texas had its hottest May in recorded history this year. I have to assume we're not the only ones.
And yet the UK is cold AF this year...
Shifted jetstream will do that. But while the UK gets an unseasonably cold summer, Alaska is under a historic heat wave. Not enough cold air to go around.
Jetstream? :)
Anecdotal, but high temps certainly stared early around here. 92 in May FFS.
Hats off to delivery people, soldiers, guards, roadside sellers for not dying in this heat apocalypse
Best keep the hats on, eh
Hm, strange. I wonder if there's anything we can do about it?
Nope. The shareholders are in needing of a 5th yacht
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! 🎈 🎉
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.
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.
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?
Humidity is a big factor, if humidity is low then evaporative cooling (e.g. sweating) is quite effective. Even more so in a breeze.
Ahhh yeah good point. So somewhere like Pakistan probably has low humidity I'm guessing. Otherwise I feel like being outside at all could be extremely dangerous.
Is AC not common in Europe?
I've never had AC at home, and that's also the case for most people I know. I live in the south of France.
80-90°F during August. I'd want to have AC for those temps.
Meh, if your house is built correctly, it is not needed. And you also get used to it.
I just use a fan during the night, which does the job without having to use so much electricity.
Depends on the country. A few years ago, there was a heat wave that provoked over 10 deaths in France, while Spain barely registered any despite suffering even harsher temperatures. This is because most homes in Spain have AC, but French ones usually don't. I would expect this to change in the following decade.
In southern parts of Europe maybe. But in Germany for example they are really rare.
Only in public buildings. We never needed AC with out relatively mild temperature, good insulation and it was seen as a waste of electricity.
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.
Sure hope we don't get temperatures like this over water for any prolonged period...
What does that mean over water. What can happen
that will hit the limit of your body's ability to cool itself. a person could die by just being in that weather long enough.
...if there is no way to cool externally, with water for example
Which doesn't work if the air is already saturated. Water cools by evaporating. If the air can't hold any more water, it can't evaporate and cool. I mean, external cold water I suppose, but if you have actively cooled water, we're probably not in a heat crisis situation.
🔥🥵
Heck.i work in those temps for 12 hours a pop. Couldnt stand it 24 hrs a day
We need these engineers and doctors in Europe and English speaking countries asap.
125° F that's above boiling temperature in Flaffenfeit!!! But boiling what is the question? Probably somebody's temper.
That’s a common misunderstanding.
125°F means it is 25% hotter than 100% too hot.
So 125° F is like saying it's WAY TOO HOT!
Thank you, I think I'm beginning to understand Flaffenfeit better now.
It's a bit like measuring in yards, but they never say whether it's front yards or back yards, which is quite significant IMO. But even a hundred yards isn't very far, so I guess they must have some pretty funny small yards over there.
It’s nearly the boiling point of Acetone
And that means that using nail polish remover in weather like that is going to be annoying. That stuff evaporates very easily as it is, but in weather like that it’s all gone as soon as you open the bottle.
My family: We should save the planet!
Me: great, let’s all eat less meat!
My family: . . . No
This one bugs me so much. Like I'm not even aiming for full veganism. Just... less meat.
No.
"But I like it!" Irrelevant to the problem.
"Other people are worse". Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
I wouldn't say irrelevant to the problem... Most of the stuff we as individuals can do, amount to trying to put out a tire fire by clapping... Even millions of us won't make almost any difference, specially when you have 10 assholes who, instead of clapping are actively pouring gas on the fire
I'm 100% on board with the clapping... But I'm not kidding myselft that we are going to save ourselves until we eliminate the firebugs
First step: just eat less beef.
Even that alone is enough to make a quite decent impact.
that image is based on poore-nemecek 2018 which has terrible methodology.
Hm. I would be interested to learn why, exactly. If it has terrible methodology, why is it constantly referenced and why hasn't a better one been done since then?
Or is there a better one that nobody just uses?
And how should the data look, because most of every other source I can find also agrees that beef is the worst (or possibly on the second spot after lamb) as it comes to CO2 per kg.
the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don't think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop "seconds"; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn't credited to cattle, it's counted against their total water use.
that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?
Greenpeace: we should save the planet!
Me: great, let's build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels
Greenpeace: ....No
Too late. Somewhere so sunny can get a lot of solor quickly. Building nuclear power plants takes time and releases a lot of CO2. Batteries and solor now now. Cheapest power too.
Only too late because Greenpeace stopped it for decades. Hope you have a plan for your solar waste. Cheapest because you just let China throw it away for you.
Cheapest because the fuel is for free. Waste plan should be recycling.
Go ahead and show me your solar recycling plant. I want to see it. Must have a carbon footprint lower than nuclear or you lose.
It's a new area, but there are companies : https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/
Life cycle comparing isn't as simple as your thinking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421506002758 Happy to look if you have a unbiased source for life cycle emissions comparison.
But costs and time is a no brainer: https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/solar-vs-nuclear/
You as also don't want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it's expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.
I know it's a new area. I am involved with it. Now show me the one that has a lower carbon footprint today. Including batteries btw no cheating
That's part of the issue with nuclear, it's not today. It's a decade to do, power coal in the mean time, pouring concrete which also cause a load of CO2. When it's finally running, it's clean, but expensive. In the mean time you could have solar running 8 years and it is cheaper to power and install. Nuclear is going to struggle to compete. Until fusion, but even that, if it ever comes, might not be cheap enough compared. Cheap, fast and clean wins.
Thanks for admitting you have nothing with a lower carbon footprint today. It was very big of you.
As I said, if you want to start today, solar is without doubt the way to go. If you are dealing in decades, and much more money, nuclear becomes an option. But in the time building it, you're poluting and it's not clear it's even cleaner long run discounting that, let alone including it.
As a bonus, solar is safer too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
So nuclear just isn't the choice to make in 2024.
God victory is so sweet.
Those nuclear power plants won't come online for a decade at least. It's better to spend the money on renewables and storage.
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.
By then it will be too late, especially considering the extra CO2 that building them will create with no electricity provided at all
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.
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.
Renewables don't work and produce too much waste.
Yet another reason to invest most resources into nuclear worldwide.
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.
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.
Senator Greenpeace and President Sierra Club made Westinghouse bankrupt itself trying to build the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia.
Meanwhile nobody ask who is blazing a trail into the modern nuclear age
It's China! (Said like Trump saying China)
Ghina
nuclear clowns are the least funny
Everything is a joke to you so no surprise that would be your standard.
Well, according to kissmyOSfeddit, we don’t even need to eat less meat. We can sous-vide it on the sidewalk now! Sounds like a serious win-win to me.
It's the raising of the animals before they're slaughtered that's the problem, not the cooking after they're dead.
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
Hey look, that FO stage of FAFO is well underway. Hold onto your butts people, there's going to be some serious self punishment for our generations of polluting the world for personal convenience and money.
It will be felt most by those least responsible.
Very much so. It's completely unjust and we (me included) have been beyond wasteful in spending the Co2 (and other climate altering materials) irresponsibly for far too long.
The poor and low-polluting people of the world are being punished for the actions of the wealthy and highly polluting.
So very true. The vast majority of the climate damage has come from the US, China, and Europe, but more equatorial regions are going to be crushed by the heat for an unknown time. The cost to humanity is likely going to be beyond anything our models have projected.
If they haven't yet, they need to start emigrating north ASAP before the borders start shutting down (and they will).
And the disgusting irony that the ones being punished are the younger generation. I'm GenX. I apologize to my kids profusely for the mess I had a hand in making. It's not getting fixed until it gets a lot worse. I'm scared for the future.
Welcome to Pakistan, we have:
mmm fruit
mum nukes
That was a risky click
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
street massage
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Let me get a couple smog and a mango actually hold the smog
You forgot preying/raping culture like in India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMp2wm0VMUs
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=NMp2wm0VMUs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Nah, more SUVs
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.
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.
Actually, it’s electricity and heating:
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Transportation is number two (by quite a bit) but don’t forget that Transportation of goods is also part of transportation.
Not saying we shouldn’t give up the SUVs, just that maybe we should use less power and heat with something cleaner as well.
Definite agree with the core of what you're saying, though for US and EU (and to a lesser degree "High income countries"), the numbers are quite close, as clean grid energy is significantly outpacing electric vehicle adoption (and EVs rely on a clean grid to be clean).
I did say in the US. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
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
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.
It's not just "they make products and services that people buy", it's that "they maximize their personal profit at the expense of people and the environment".
It's easy but reductive to blame consumers for consuming, when it's worth noting that biodegradable packaging costs more than plastics that will never break down, so corporations will choose cheap plastic over environmentally friendly packaging 99.9% of the time.
The incentives are wrong. Instead of maximizing profit we need to ensure that profit is not maximized at the expense of sustainability, at the expense of pollution, and at the expense of the entire future of our planet.
That's a government issue.
E.g. a carbon tax will solve a lot of problems, or a tax on waste like plastic. It is very very unpopular with the public though so the government can't put it in place for fear of being voted out.
That's... Really passing the buck though.
Nothing is stopping corporations from doing The Right Thing right now except their own desire not for profit, but for maximized profit at all costs. Dare I say it, but if a company can't make a profit without creating harm, it doesn't deserve to make a profit.
The us government has said corporations are legally required to maximise profit for the shareholders.
Again government issue.
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".
I find it fascinated.. one side of their mouth, they're hating corporations. Other side, they're praising the product(s) they buy from said corporations. If any of these so called, "combatants of climate change" were true to their beliefs, they'd go find a piece of wilderness and live in it.
I mean like, duh?
I mean yes, but no.
Try corporate factories and industrial farms.
nah, try transportation and personal vehicles https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
That's one hell of a grouping. I'd wager that the majority of that is commercial and factory bullshit.
Nope, majority is personal vehicles https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Hottest I've ever been in is 114f iirc in a dry heat. It was brutal like "you can feel moisture evaporating out of your eyes", I felt like just sitting around I couldn't drink water as fast as I was losing it. 125 is bonkers
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.
But also keep in mind that it's usually air temperature being measured, with surface temperatures being even worse than that!
Nnno...
You know how 0C is far from 60C but you can easily experience 0C in a winter? Well check it out, 50C is closer to 60C by about 50C difference from 0C. This 50C tends to be near 60C when compared to 0C and really 49 other whole numbers of degrees Celsius! An infinity of numbers if you add decimal places.
That's a very... interesting way to think about it.
Don't worry Pakistan Greenpeace banned nuclear power and brought back coal, that will save you from the ravages of global warming
Centuries of colonial rule
Decades of military dictatorship
Enormous domestic fossil fuels and chemicals industry (see: Pakistan's fuel oil exports surge to record high on muted domestic demand )
Decades of nuclear non-proliferation policy at the UN driven by fear of rogue states using the weapons to terrorize civilians
Billions spent on media campaigns to influence fossil fuel policies
You know that small American-based environmental organization that did a few high profile stunts back in the 1970s? They did this.
lol what... when and where did Greenpeace ban nuclear power and how did they get the authority to do so
Decades of lawsuits and lobbying
hahahaha yeah dude the Greenpeace lobby is so stronk
They just criminalized golden rice so yes.
it's incredible that you can communicate with us from another universe
Just from South East Asia.
oh yeah that makes sense. i hear Greenpeace has total control in SEA particularly. formidable lot
Not going to address the golden rice?
no? feel free to provide sources to literally anything you said.
Higher temperatures have been recorded last year but I think the heat is starting earlier this year?
Texas had its hottest May in recorded history this year. I have to assume we're not the only ones.
And yet the UK is cold AF this year...
Shifted jetstream will do that. But while the UK gets an unseasonably cold summer, Alaska is under a historic heat wave. Not enough cold air to go around.
Jetstream? :)
Anecdotal, but high temps certainly stared early around here. 92 in May FFS.
Hats off to delivery people, soldiers, guards, roadside sellers for not dying in this heat apocalypse
Best keep the hats on, eh
Hm, strange. I wonder if there's anything we can do about it?
Nope. The shareholders are in needing of a 5th yacht
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! 🎈 🎉
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.
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.
Humidity is a big factor, if humidity is low then evaporative cooling (e.g. sweating) is quite effective. Even more so in a breeze.
Ahhh yeah good point. So somewhere like Pakistan probably has low humidity I'm guessing. Otherwise I feel like being outside at all could be extremely dangerous.
Is AC not common in Europe?
I've never had AC at home, and that's also the case for most people I know. I live in the south of France.
80-90°F during August. I'd want to have AC for those temps.
Meh, if your house is built correctly, it is not needed. And you also get used to it.
I just use a fan during the night, which does the job without having to use so much electricity.
Depends on the country. A few years ago, there was a heat wave that provoked over 10 deaths in France, while Spain barely registered any despite suffering even harsher temperatures. This is because most homes in Spain have AC, but French ones usually don't. I would expect this to change in the following decade.
In southern parts of Europe maybe. But in Germany for example they are really rare.
Only in public buildings. We never needed AC with out relatively mild temperature, good insulation and it was seen as a waste of electricity.
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.
Sure hope we don't get temperatures like this over water for any prolonged period...
What does that mean over water. What can happen
that will hit the limit of your body's ability to cool itself. a person could die by just being in that weather long enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature?wprov=sfla1
Jesus
...if there is no way to cool externally, with water for example
Which doesn't work if the air is already saturated. Water cools by evaporating. If the air can't hold any more water, it can't evaporate and cool. I mean, external cold water I suppose, but if you have actively cooled water, we're probably not in a heat crisis situation.
🔥🥵
Heck.i work in those temps for 12 hours a pop. Couldnt stand it 24 hrs a day
We need these engineers and doctors in Europe and English speaking countries asap.
125° F that's above boiling temperature in Flaffenfeit!!! But boiling what is the question? Probably somebody's temper.
That’s a common misunderstanding.
125°F means it is 25% hotter than 100% too hot.
So 125° F is like saying it's WAY TOO HOT! Thank you, I think I'm beginning to understand Flaffenfeit better now.
It's a bit like measuring in yards, but they never say whether it's front yards or back yards, which is quite significant IMO. But even a hundred yards isn't very far, so I guess they must have some pretty funny small yards over there.
It’s nearly the boiling point of Acetone
And that means that using nail polish remover in weather like that is going to be annoying. That stuff evaporates very easily as it is, but in weather like that it’s all gone as soon as you open the bottle.