At the moment, lemmy is not great with comment integrity. If somebody deletes a comment (mod or the user themselves), the entire chain basically gets nuked.
So it looks like a conservative got embarrassed that they were supporting a white supremacist killer, and deleted their comments. Or maybe they got banned.
What big oil does is 100% irrelevant.
Everything you brought up is a oil lobby talking point.
Until we CAN replace them, we can’t, it’s that simple
Anybody who tells you the climate situation is simple is lying to you.
Taking things we absolutely need and fucking up life as we know it doesn’t change that
We don’t need to fuck things up, at least for now.
if you know of a way to do just that, without that end effect, I’m all ears.
Fine, I’ll respond to your initial comment.
Oh, definitely make sure to leave and make it even more of an echo chamber then.
You’re really helping.
Given that your response to “we need to do fix this as quickly as possible” is a 3 paragraph doomerism rant, it sounds like there isn’t anything that I could possibly say to change your mind.
You aren’t immune to propaganda, and evidently that especially goes for oil lobby propaganda.
I got time to waste. I only ever come here when I have time I need to kill.
Many people today believe the world is overpopulated and that we are running out of natural resources.
the increasingly popular notion that the growing global population will eventually overutilize our planet’s finite resources.
contrary to the Malthusian claims of contemporary leftists and climate alarmists, population growth and resource scarcity do not share a causal relationship.
The entire article is based off of this idea. But it is not the main concern environmentalists have with overpopulation.
The main concern is that population is tied to greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and damaging consumption. Every person born will lead to a lifetime’s worth of greenhouse gasses, water and air pollution, and contribution towards habitat loss.
They fundamentally do not understand environmentalist concerns, that’s the factual issue with the article. The rest of it is grossly misleading:
The more people there are, the more opportunities there are for education, collaboration, and innovation that can benefit everyone.
Here they try to correlate population with solutions to consumption growth.
Take sand for example. Our sand consumption is positively correlated with population growth, yet this article would have you believe the reverse. It’s simply not true, more people is leading to more sand consumption, which brings habitat destruction.
the median quality of life across the globe has dramatically improved over the past few centuries, in no small part due to human ingenuity.
The quality of life for the humans in the Wall-e universe has markedly improved.
Measuring quality of life in no way measures the damage of overpopulation.
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed,
Another grossly misleading statement on the article’s part. While matter can’t be created or destroyed, it can be (effectively) irreparably altered such that it is not ever usable again.
He points to the Simon Abundance Index, a measure of the relationship between population growth and the abundance of 50 basic commodities, to make his case.
Then there is shit like this, comparing population to market availability. It ignores that the market is not a measure for environmental damage, or the depletion rates of resources.
Recall the 2015 Paris Climate Accords in which nearly 200 nations and the European Union nominally committed their economies to reducing dependency on fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions while incentivizing investment in inefficient means of energy production.
This is misleading because the efficiency of green energy sources is that they don’t destroy the planet. And they completely fail to understand that.
prominent Democrat politicians suggesting Americans should have fewer children are further iterations of this ethos — save the future by not building it.
Having fewer children doesn’t mean there would be no future. Having fewer children is one of the easiest ways we can reduce green house gas emissions.
“Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
Holy fuck you have misplaced priorities. And this article isn’t even factually correct.
The sane approach is to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as humanly possible.
Meanwhile republicans are too busy defending the EPA, giving more subsidies to the oil industry, and spreading climate disinformation.
Our grandchildren won’t have a habitable world if we don’t do something about it. If you didn’t like people being “extreme” over this, then we should have done something about it half a century ago when the oil industry learned it was a problem.
Scientists have been predicting the end of the world coming very soon for many decades now, t
You seem like you’re out of the loop, because that is an incredibly simplified and incorrect statement.
Scientists have been predicting that global temperatures would sharply rise due to fossil fuel use, and they have. We are currently passing the 1.5°c threshold.
They’ve been predicting that forest fires, hurricanes, storms, flooding, etc would get significantly worse, and they have.
They’re clearly not making shit up:
And you seem to be missing the fact that all of this is dependent on fossil fuel use and policy, neither of which are easy to predict. So the best that can be offered in terms of predictions is explaining what will happen with the current status quo. And the current status quo will lead to billions dead, with billions of migrants.
Do you know where those migrants will try to come? They’re gonna try and come here. You conservatives are always complaining about people showing up on the border. And it’s only going to get worse the longer conservatives ignore the science. Over the next few decades, don’t go complaining it’s the fault of progressives that they’re millions of people try to cross the border because their homes were made uninhabitable.
At least the Bible thumpers are consistent.
Is that a joke?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
The scientists move the goalposts everytime it doesn’t happen.
Name one time this has happened.
There’s also no shortage of scientists that disagree with them the whole time.
Lmao
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Set realistic goals and expectations about what we can do as a society to combat climate
That’s what they’re doing.
Being realistic, we need massive changes to avoid everything from going to shit. For decades the free market has failed to solve the problem, we need more than just thoughts and prayers.
We need to end fossil fuel subsidies and instead give that money towards renewable. And we need to do it yesterday.
without trying to scare the average Joe into thinking that the gas-fueled car they drive to work in is going to cause the world to spontaneously combust
This is a strawman.
That is in no way accurate. Bible thumper don’t bring scientific evidence to the table, whereas scientists do.
What should they instead do, completely ignore the crisis? How is that responsible?
Homelander is the type to side with oil.
it reads like whataboutism.
If you have problems with me saying ‘Isreal’s crimes are wrong’ without clarification about Hamas being bad as well then you should have first had problems with the guy saying “Hamas attacked Israel in the bloodiest assault in history”, implying everything Isreal is doing is morally permissible.
They clearly have a regard for civilian casualties.
People who bomb civilian areas do not care about civilians casualties.
And you inserted your own pro-Hamas
Saying that Isreal shouldn’t be killing civilians and doing ethnic cleansing is not pro-Hamas.
Neither party should be doing those things.
You can be against the Israeli government’s war crimes AND against Hamas’ war crimes.
I am.
Try it, having principals instead of an agenda is freeing and might feel good to you.
Perhaps you could try not assuming the worst out of people you don’t know.
When I say “indiscriminate” I mean “disregard for civilian casualties” not “random bombings”.
Please keep insulting me. I’m becoming so convinced you’re right.
But you Hamas supporters
I don’t support Hamas.
and only care about Palestine because they’re brown
No, I’m just against ethnic cleansing, which is what Isreal is currently doing and getting billions of dollars in support for.
Isreal shouldn’t be doing ethnic cleansing, nor should Hamas.
Your white guilt is so fucking lame 😂
It’s really a sign of intelligence to assume things of people you don’t know and have only ever spoken to on the internet.
Hamas doing something horrible doesn’t make it OK to starve the entirety of Gaza
https://investors.yum.com/news-events/financial-releases/news-details/2023/Yum-Brands-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results-and-Increases-Dividend/default.aspx
They are just greedy. They have the money, but giving the money to the rich is evidently more important.
https://cwa-union.org/stock-buybacks-hurt-workers