• Codilingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like the optimism in major articles like this are why most people are apathetic and not worried…

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really see the optimism that you do:

      Some workings of the climate system currently — the record-low Antarctic sea ice, for example — are true anomalies that scientists can’t yet currently explain. But most are just what we would expect from a world that has continued to burn fossil fuels. While some developed countries have cut back on the use of coal, oil, and gas, global emissions have only plateaued. And unless global emissions reach zero, the planet will continue to warm.

      That’s pretty clear about where we’re at and what the choice we have is.

      • Empiricism@sustainability.masto.host
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @silence7 @Codilingus

        There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.

        1. Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)

        2. Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.

        3. Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.

        • Empiricism@sustainability.masto.host
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @silence7 @Codilingus

          1. Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they’re)

          2. Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.

          3. Doom!

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or… realizing that it’s possible to limit the damage and taking action to make that happen. It’s pretty clear that the article recognizes that it’s possible.

          • Empiricism@sustainability.masto.host
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            @silence7

            It’s actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the “trick”)

            One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.

            It’s as “easy” as informed cooperation & will. But

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

      Its a delicate balance. Too many people believe action is useless at this point, which is also untrue.

      People need to be alarmed but in a way that drives them to action.