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

The assholes causing it happen to own all the media outlets, and will be the last to die from it

Because the solution is not something we can throw money at and expect a fast cure. Even cancer has the hope of a treatment that works in months to years. Climate change requires changing nearly everything about how we generate energy and requires us to find novel ways to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. This latter bit can have money thrown at it, but without the former it's pointless. It'd be a cancer treatment while the patient huffs burning asbestos.

The difficulty in treating coupled with the fact that climate change is a slow process that wreaks havoc over years to decades means the short-term-focused economies and markets largely try to adapt to long-term changes instead of solving the issues. When you're only concerned with a few fiscal quarters at a time, why would you think on the scale of decades?

Why isn't this the top news story around the world?

Because that would require looking up.

Because the overrich and the elected politicians they fund are clueless enough to think they'll survive this and tackling the change would impact the economy that keeps them overrich. Since that group pretty much control the media, this doesn't make the news.

Even better: they're getting more and more agressive with climate activists.

There’s still money to be made by exploiting nature!

Too many of our modern conveniences rely on fossil fuels or fossil fuel derivatives for us to even make a dent against climate change without reverting back to a pre industrial revolution era. You should read Fossil Capital by Andreas Malm on how the fossil fuel industry is intrinsically linked to the history of capitalism.

The prevalence of petroleum derived fertilizers and pesticides that are essential to grow the large amount of the worldwide animal and plant food supplies and also products are one of the reasons I don't think we can feasibly solve this problem without causing mass famine and war (itself a massive contributor to the climate crisis).

One has only to look at how reliant we are on fossil fuels in fertilizers alone to see that the goal of cutting carbon emissions in any meaningful way is highly likely to be insurmountable without also incurring mass death due to famine.

Many people who are conscientious about their own personal practices and how they relate to the environment still don't understand the scope of the problem imho. The smart phone or computer you and I are utilizing to communicate right now, the server it is being run on, think carefully about it.

Sure, all could be powered by solar, wind, or some other renewable energy source, but what about the CO² emitted in the manufacturing process? The cities where the factories are located which produce these computer parts and other engineering marvels are some of the most polluted places on Earth, and the process by which they are created requires fossil fuel to be possible, and indeed, the production of these devices accounts for emitting more CO² than the energy it will use during its lifetime.

What alternative packaging solutions do you have for the massive and powerful beverage industry where the convenience of disposability is a deal breaking feature that the lobbyists representing said industry will fight to have it never addressed meaningfully by governmental bodies?

How do you convince people not only to insist on veganism, but also on organics AND most important to every aspect of our modern capitalist lifestyles, turn a profit from it?

My simple answer is you can't. Environmentalism isn't compatible with modern day capitalism, and I'd argue isn't compatible with modern life. These technologies have simultaneously trapped and freed people in different ways, but tech has made it so our lives are no longer solely determined by a might makes right life, and rather has more to do with utilizing said technologies to concentrate power in the hands of those that solely wish to keep the status quo going for just the next 3 months (quarterly income reports to stock holders).

By eliminating the technological boons that fossil fuels have made possible, it is likely that the expansion of human rights, that only came into conversation after new technologies made it possible to not solely rely on the strongest and most powerful among us, will recede.

Either we solve climate change, and after suffering mass deaths from famine due to the lack of fossil fuel dependant crops, and then go back to a preindustrial era lifestyle, with all the societal implications that entails (the subjugation of women, minorities, and the disenfranchised, as well as the return of blatant human slavery).

Or we don't, and honestly probably end up in a more nightmarish situation. The mass deaths in this alternative scenario won't be from famine, but from war, and those wars (powered by fossil fuel) will cause the effects of climate change to last longer and possibly that will send us into runaway climate change, in which case we won't survive at all.

I know which nightmare I'd prefer, and which nightmare is likely to happen, but either way, we're not in for a good time.

Get ready for the greatest tragedy mankind has ever bore witness to. Drink plenty of water, cuz at best you'll be dehydrated from all the tears.

So why isn't the media covering this all day every day? Cuz they secretly know it's probably not solvable, that pointing this out would likely tank their ratings, and ultimately we're all just partying at the end of the world. Not to mention making money is easier than cleaning up this inherited mess.

If everyone accepts that the world is ending, economies everywhere will collapse. So they keep us as distracted as possible to ensure their private jets can continue to fly.

Probably because most people already know this by now.

it is important to note that climate models consistently underpredict the probability of extreme events (7), so the expected impact of climate change on future heatwaves may be biased too low.

This is the scariest part. It seems like all the models have been wrong so far. We really need to take back control of our planet out of the hands of the politicians, oligarchs, and CEOs. It's the only way we'll actually be able to make a difference. It's time to clean house and that needs to start from the top

Because none of these articles explain to the reader what exactly they should do to minimise this problem and how much exactly they stand to gain and lose from doing it. People are only interested in obtaining useful (aka actionable) information.

Because this being a headline in inconvenient for The Rich.

I guess we found the Great Filter

Because Elon is making the space ships for the people who control the news.

• It's not all the earth, nor all the time, even in future projections. The jet-set, who also control news media, fly for holidays and live in air-con, both of which make the problem worse. Dubai even has ski-slopes.
• 'News' over-emphasises 'breaking' surprise events, drowns gradually evolving statistics - boiling frogs. Maybe learn to comment on 'news' events with equivalent numbers due to climate change impacts?
• Exaggeration and blaming other groups just lead to fatalistic doom. Although temperatures rose in the last decade, the projections for end of century fell due to policies, although not enough it's important to emphasise that we still have choices.

Because Mark Andreessen says that sort of talk is just holding us back.