this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
309 points (99.7% liked)

politics

23261 readers
2842 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 76 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Spoiler alert, we’re fucked. That’s what the assessment would have said at least.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Yup we doomed.

Without the US actively pursuing positive climate change policies there is very little chance this doesn't get catastrophic soon. It's already responsible for a massive amount of greenhouse gases and that will ramp up. They want this to happen, to open the NW Passage.

We passed so many points of no return already. We need every single organization and nation trying to fix this and even that won't cut it, it'll just make things take longer. Not to mention the mass extinction already ongoing. Ecosystem collapse is coming.

Let the mass starvation begin

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

They want this to happen, to open the NW Passage.

"They" being Putin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

It's more or less largely abandoned in general that is not the scientific community. Sabian made a video talking about that a while ago

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Probably not. We're still in a place where it's probably possible to end up with a civilization-supporting planet. But it requires phasing out fossil fuels. And starting now. And the oil executives who bribed Trump don't like that.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Haven’t we blown past two different “this is the end” limits previously set? And we just keep making new ones?

I dunno, it really sounds like we’re fucked.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

We are past two important points:

  • we passed the point where you would not be able to tell the difference something like 30 years ago
  • we passed the point where we likely locked in 1.5°C of warming quite recently. That's roughly where you walk into a minefield of risking major ecosystems with each additional bit of warming, and the stretch goal that small island nations wanted because it might have left them habitable.

Importantly neither point is one where we expect civilization to suddenly end.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We also haven't stopped emitting C02, not even close. Have emissions even peaked yet? Realistically, we're fucked

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

What we do in the present and future is a human decision. How bad it gets is up to us still, not something locked in by physics

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I respect your optimism, I truly hope you’re right. I don’t think we’re locked in for human extinction just yet, but we have a lot of work to do as a society to avoid that.