this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
782 points (98.6% liked)

World News

57368 readers
2033 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] filister@lemmy.world 3 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the problem with global warming is that it happens very slowly over time. Scientists were warning us of the impacts of global warming for at least a decade but we have somehow prioritized the short term gains and now we and our children will bear the fruits of our negligence.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 42 minutes ago* (last edited 40 minutes ago)

Scientists were warning us of the impacts of global warming for at least a decade

They've been warning us with some urgency since at least the 1970s. There were concerns published about it in the late 19th century. By the early 1990s the warnings were loud and clear for everyone to hear.

[–] gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

so just to put this in context: we're having a doubling of installed solar capacity around every 3 years. currently we have 3% of total energy supply from solar energy. so it will take maybe another 15 years to get close to 100% renewable energy (if we assume that exponential growth continues). source: ourworldindata (go to website and hover over solar energy to see numbers)

so we'll end up in 2040 with roughly ... let me do the math ... 1.6°C total temperature difference compared to 1970 in 2040?

[–] textik@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Not to detract from your point, but assuming that exponential growth continues is one of the classic statistical blunders.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Sorry, solar panels are woke and uh kill birds or something. BANNED.

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Do you think burning more coal would help?

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 55 minutes ago

Needs more data centers

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 20 points 5 hours ago

During the late 1970's, ExxonMobil scientists predicted global warming would accelerate with use of fossil fuels. They were shockingly accurate and the f'ed up weather patterns are the result. Keep buying and driving gas guzzlers.

[–] DigiHippie@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

Drill baby drill.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 33 points 8 hours ago

Crypto farming, feeding the ai bubble, large scale wars of aggression, commuters replacing cars with trucks, buying throwaway junk has never been easier. That's the relatively new completely unnecessary hubris that I can think off atm. These should be the low hanging fruits to just not do, but apparently we're going to continue doing them anyways. If we can't address the low hanging fruits, then tackling the harder challenges will remain a pipe dream until it's too late. Climate stability is fucked, and we're in for a rough ride.

[–] Stonewyvvern@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

That's my bad...I was super gassy the other week. I'll back on the beans and onions.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 21 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

We can't even stop a rise in fascism, an incredibly stupid thing, across the globe. We don't stand a chance against global warming. We're cooked.

[–] gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago

we can't even stop a rise in fascism because we lack the tools to do so, most importantly we lack the tool of understanding. we don't even understand what fascism is or why people follow it, thus we stand no chance of tackling the problem at its root. if you really want to combat fascism, you have to understand it first.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

We've done more in the last five years to curb fossil fuel consumption than at an point in human history.

From a massive pivot to renewable energy to our Green-Centric foreign policy of blowing up Nordstrem II, embargoing Venezuela, and shutting down the Straight of Hormuz, we are absolutely turning a corner on future fossil fuel consumption.

Donald Trump may go down in history as the most climate friendly leader in our generation. A hundred thousand Greenpeace activists could not have achieved in their lifetime what he's done in less than two terms as president.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Fossil fuel consumption hasn't actually gone down. All the renewable sources have come on top of energy from nonrenewable ones

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago

Fossil fuel consumption hasn’t actually gone down.

Hasn't it? We've cut shipped supplies by around 20% and prices have jumped into the $100/bbl range.

More. But enough?

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 1 points 4 hours ago

Those billionaire yachts aren't going to fuel themselves!

[–] vinsombra@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago

Hilariously, you are right. It certainly wasn't his intention to do so, but it is happening. Strangely aligned with China spending like crazy to pivot to a green energy super-supplier. End of an era, although no one will admit it yet.

[–] Godric@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago

Goes outside

Ah shit, no way!

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 15 points 13 hours ago
[–] bobbbu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (21 children)

There is some hope if we chip at it as much as we can. No action is too small:

  • less travelling. Life is fun near home. Happiness isn't tied to an airplane and a beach far away
  • eat less animals. You ll get used to whatever diet in a few weeks. It doesnt have to be vegan or nothing. Also, beans are delicious:)
  • bamboo toilet paper. Grows fast, renewable.
  • plant bushes, trees. Look up local resilient species. I've been planting everywhere I can. You can call your local municipality, they have regreening programs.
  • buy less stuff. Available tech is already good enough.
  • vote with your wallet. This is the only real power we have over corporations, imo. Lots of great easy to repair brands. Fair trade, etc.

If we convince ourselves we are screwed, we ll give up. Be the hero of your own story. YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET IT 100% RIGHT. Any improvement is improvement. We all live different lives, and the economy is hard on alot of us.

I believe:)

[–] moodwrench@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

No way.. billionaires with yachts and private planes releasing more carbon in an afternoon then I use in a lifetime and I'M the one you think should wipe his ass with bamboo.. get the fuck out of here. Eat the rich then tell me I'm not doing enough because I eat a burger and use proper toilet paper

[–] LandBasedDaveyJones@lemmy.today 4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

No. Just no.

This is not an "individual action will solve this" case anymore. WE can't do jack about it, individually. If we get the corporations to stop doing harm, and the rich cut down traveling in their superjets, maybe then. But some schmuck driving a Toyota corolla a few hundred miles on a vacation, or taking a commercial passenger jet on a vacation with 100-some-odd people isn't the problem here.

Significant parts of the global climate usage are directly tied to individual actions. 12% is consumer car driving alone. So yes, the schmuck driving a Toyota Corolla is making a significant impact. The sooner you realize that the better, we need action on both corporation and end users.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Every single person is part of the problem. Some more, some less. Corporations do not harm the environment because they are inherently bad. They do it because people (all of them!) love stuff.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 18 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Individual action was a myth designed by FF companies to shift responsibility

[–] ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

This is true but individual action is still necessary. Just because it's important that we hold corporations and the wealthy accountable and curb industrialized pollution doesn't mean that the average person isn't needing to make significant changes. We can't both maintain a consumer mindset and abdicate individual responsibility while also demanding sweeping societal changes.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

We can't both maintain a consumer mindset and abdicate individual responsibility while also demanding sweeping societal changes.

And you think it's the "demanding sweeping societal changes" that has to go?

Maybe we need to start with the individualism and "consumer mindset"?

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

We can consume the wealthy and abdicate them of the responsibility of carrying on and also demand change. Especially if we consume them while they're still alive, as a mob, and do it with dull forks.

The survivors will be far more willing to listen.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago

less travelling

Lol. I don't think anyone reading this is going to stop the minimal traveling they do in the short breaks from The Grind that they get while dipshit rich people are yachting and jetting all over the planet. And they shouldn't. Average people shouldn't have to give up any travelling whatsoever because their budgets prevent them from doing enough to actually cause significant harm anyway. We need to use force to make the real culprits adjust their habits.

Other than that I fully agree.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

vote with your wallet

"I don't think I'll super size it after all", I saw as I drive past the MegaCity One GigaChad data center.

[–] forkDestroyer@infosec.pub 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

bamboo toilet paper. Grows fast, renewable

The bidet gang would like a word with you.

(Seriously though: I agree that every action counts, but I also think that, even if the majority of the population followed that list perfectly, the globalized corporate structure would still be operating in such a way that the personal impact wouldn't be noticeable. When agriculture produces more than what's sold, they have no issue dumping the items that don't sell into the ground. Clothing outlets will shred unsold merch instead of giving it away. The waste is built into the system and a structural change is needed NOW if we are to survive.)

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

If there was a decline in consumption of climate harming products, large enough that these companies could see it in thier financial reports, I cant believe it wouldnt have any effect on the market.

Youre points are valid, and I agree with them, but if a majority wanted to (ideally, and I dont think they will) I think "voting with our wallet" would work, it is simple, but not practical because humans seem to love convience.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Correct. Convenience is just too important. Also status symbols because people just want to be seen as big/successful/important/.... regardless if that damages things.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 21 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (11 children)

and yes, more putting the onus on us, when all of our individual yearly pollution barely amounts to a day of pollution released by average industry.

You know it was industrial propaganda that started the whole personal responsibility thing to begin with right? to shift blame away from themselves and onto you and me.

I mean, yeah, you can make yourself feel good by reducing, but its doing fuckall compared to industrial release.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 18 points 14 hours ago (7 children)

I understand the sentiment, but doesn't "the industry" essentially produce things that are for "us", even if indirectly?

Factories don't exist for their own sake, they exist to make an end product for people. So if you want to change that, we do need to consume less, like the parent you replied to said.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›