• Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    1 year ago

    The one boundary that is not threatened is atmospheric ozone, after action to phase out destructive chemicals in recent decades led to the ozone hole shrinking

    So we can do it when we need to.

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember when the hole in the ozone was something we were all worried about. I remember the news segments and the magazine covers and the protests.

      I don’t remember the massive coordinated media campaigns running into the tens of billions of dollars. I don’t remember an entire political party simultaneously saying there’s no ozone hole and that the ozone hole is actually good for us. I don’t remember rednecks standing in rows on Texas highways shooting AquaNet into the air to own the libs.

      We used to be able to do it. Nixon founded the EPA. There was a general consensus that had a role in reducing pollution and disease. The republicans fought against establishing social security, saying that old people should support themselves and anything else would turn the US literally communist.

      We’ve lost even that much.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nixon may have been the guy in charge when we realized we needed the EPA, but let’s not pretend he was some champion for the environment.

        He vetoed the Clean Water Act for fuck sake.

        And from what I understand, the only reason we were able to shift away from CFCs (main pollutant destroying the ozone) was because the alternative was comparable in price, if not cheaper.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t remember the massive coordinated media campaigns running into the tens of billions of dollars. I don’t remember an entire political party simultaneously saying there’s no ozone hole and that the ozone hole is actually good for us. I don’t remember rednecks standing in rows on Texas highways shooting AquaNet into the air to own the libs.

        I honestly think it’s because the sacrifice and change to switch off aerosols was so small and the fossil fuel industry is much less niche and much more powerful. It took much more to get the world off of leaded gasoline and even that was a pretty small change versus the huge shift off of fossil fuels which would have to take place to fix this.

        We’re going to make ourselves extinct because we’re addicted to going vroom vroom. There’s still “car enthusiasts” out there, and people who like to roll coal. And celebrities buying private jets.

        Also, it ties into everything: heating, cooling, electricity… We’re fucked.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Basically this. It was a small ask to not use aerosols for everything. We’re OK with doing things to help the world and people at large when it doesn’t directly affect us that much.

          It’s one thing to ask people to not use their hairspray so much. It’s a whole other thing to say “hey we need to switch away from gasoline engines and cars entirely.”

      • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like I still see people complain about modern refrigerants being less good because environmentalists banning the old ones on rare occasions.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Having replaced an air conditioner recently, the complaint seems to be “We can’t get the old refrigerant so once our current supply is gone a lot of old units that still work fine are going to have to be replaced.”

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can do it when billionaires aren’t profiting from not doing it. The switch away from CFCs didn’t hurt anyone’s profits too badly.

  • Slwh47696@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    1 year ago

    Enjoy the next 10 or so years everyone, they’ll likely be the last normal years of your lives.

    • uwe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to be a dad in a few weeks. 🥲 (Feel free to dunk on me with the inevitable 'why?'s, and ‘did you live under a rock?’ I can’t feel any worse anymore anyway 🤗)

      • fred-kowalski@artemis.camp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        1 year ago

        I chose not to have kids. You can have my carbon offset.

        Individual guilt for systemic problems plays well to the elites (ultra-wealthy). Unless you’re a billionaire. Then I want my offset back.

      • Kill_joy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mine is 7 months old now. I felt the same. Just wait, you’ll likely feel that it was the best thing you ever did. Your kid may be the one to drive some positive change. Just do the best you can and give yourself some grace.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Realistically, 10 probably would spread your resources too thin, if you want each to excel enough to be part of the solution.

            3-5 though, that’s a good range.

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

                No I understood the sarcasm, and responded as the “straight foil”

                It’s the style of humor of Tommy Lee Jones’s character in Men In Black.

      • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Human problems have human solutions.

        Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, it just takes time for the economics to shake out.

        Plenty of jobs in a clean economy as well.

      • June@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good luck to you and yours. I sincerely hope we’re wrong about how bad we think it’s going to get in the next 50 years.

          • zbyte64
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe the country with the most imprisoned people per capita should not have that claim

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

              Our participation rates are abysmal. We can say all we like about how voting is too hard or whatever but every thread about US politics has multiple people in it encouraging people not to bother voting.

              Not voting = mostly I’m a-ok with things as is, or I don’t care

              That’s pretty close to consent IMO, and then there’s the actual voters who continually vote for rich assholes who don’t give a shit about them and promise to only make it harder on poor people and easier for the rich and people vote for them in droves because of that or despite of that.

              Fuck man look at the mayor of New York.

              We’re all about the economy in this country. Even people pretending to be environmentalists have debated with me about “well, you can’t just outlaw coal” or “we can’t just rush off of cars”. It’s all about the economy and making things easier for business people in this country to the point where the two major parties are now the business party and the business blowjobs and hookers party.

              While you’re mentioning incarceration, they vote for that too. We love harsh penalties for poor people and “criminals” and vote so hard for them that Democrats have to have a biannual contest with Republicans about who is most willing to fellate the police and give them more budget for urban tanks.

              It all seems wrong and bizarre to me, but sit an American voter down and you’ll be surprised just how many of them hold these opinions or at least some of them and continually vote for this crap.

              • zbyte64
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So people don’t vote because they are convinced it doesn’t have an impact, and you’re saying that’s consent? Nah. Us not being on the streets is more akin to consent.

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

                  I think both are indicative of consent.

                  Gotta say even though I’m pretty cynical I love and support recent labor movement advances.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The broken boundaries mean the systems have been driven far from the safe and stable state that existed from the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, to the start of the industrial revolution.

    Prof Johan Rockström, the then director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre who led the team that developed the boundaries framework, said: “Science and the world at large are really concerned over all the extreme climate events hitting societies across the planet.

    The boundary for biosphere integrity, which includes the healthy functioning of ecosystems, was broken in the late 19th century, the researchers said, as destruction of the natural world decimated wildlife.

    These are vital for life but excessive use of fertilisers mean many waters are heavily polluted by these nutrients, which can lead to algal blooms and ocean dead zones.

    Prof Simon Lewis, at University College London and not part of the study team, said: “This is a strikingly gloomy update on an already alarming picture.

    A separate initiative to define the end of the Holocene and the start of a new age dominated by human activities moved forward in July, when scientists chose a Canadian lake as the site to represent the beginning of the Anthropocene.


    The original article contains 1,201 words, the summary contains 203 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The planetary boundaries are not irreversible tipping points beyond which sudden and serious deterioration occurs, the scientists said. Instead, they are points after which the risks of fundamental changes in the Earth’s physical, biological and chemical life support systems rise significantly.

    Phasing out fossil fuel burning and ending destructive farming are the key actions required.

      • jcit878@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        its frustrating working for a company that promotes itself as progressive and has net zero targets well beyond what is legislated, but they also force an arbitrary number of office days for “reasons”

    • Dynamo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      pretty sure we’re past the point of no return (or points), but i’d be up for some heavy vandalism

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The source of the most greenhouse gas emissions by far is power and heating. Switching to renewables is the answer. Like, yesterday. For ecological diversity, agriculture has to become sustainable and deforestation has to stop.
      For air pollution, we need to ditch our cars.
      For ground and water pollution, we need to ditch plastics. These are all just the biggest factors, starting points really. And they all intermingle and affect each other.