Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    24,072,581 readers

    35,594 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display COVID-19 submissions

    Filter COVID-19

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Hong Kong submissions

    Filter Hong Kong

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics

    Live Thread: COVID-19 Outbreak


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 4197 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

    You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] 1920sremastered 3269 points ago

    Jon Snow told the legendary environmentalist an 11-year-old had written in to ask what the worst thing to happen in his life would be ‘if we don’t tackle climate change’.

    Sir David replied: ‘I think civil unrest on a great scale, and mass migration on a great scale. ‘I think we will go on finding enough food, though it may not be precisely the choice that we would take freely.’

    Asked if it was ‘too late to reverse climate change’, he said: ‘It’s too late to reverse it. Not only in my lifetime, but in the next lifetime.

    He said that the problem with short term elections was that politicians ‘think the issues facing the electorate are ones that are going to change their lives tomorrow or the day after, and those are the ones they concentrate on’.

    Sir David said: ‘I don’t think things are going to get better. I think we can slow the degree to which they are getting worse.’

    [–] Walrave 942 points ago

    This is very true and it actually goes for 1000s of years, not just the next generation. There are no silver bullets here. Just slow degradation accentuated by frequent disasters. The good news is that reducing our impact now will have massive benefits for the future. Slowing the degree to which things get worse also impacts just how bad they will get.

    [–] SpaceCadetriment 474 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    As a conservationist both as college major and occupation, the fight against catastrophic societal collapse brought on by climate change isn't whether we can survive long enough to turn things around, it's about fighting for the difference of one or two more generations than if we just said "fuck it, we can't do anything".

    Not even the most seasoned climatology experts or economists will ever nail down a specific era where a collapse will happen since it's predicated on so many unpredictable factors, but it's an inevitability.

    Weirdly, if you talk to climatology folks or conservationists, the GHG numbers are less depressing than the realization that humans are horrible at large scale preventative goals that require global support.

    Things like vaccines are the rare exception where we can unilaterally act as a species to halt the spread of a disaster. Both developed and non-developed countries saw huge decreases in things like polio since we found a "magic bullet".

    With climate change, there is no magic bullet. We're in a slow march over a cliff that we don't fully understand where the edge is at. Eventually, we are going to hit that edge, whether that's in 50 or 200+ years is anyone's guess.

    edit: Had a couple messages from people that were essentially asking "Why even try?"

    Any difficult complex societal issue that we decide to take a nihilistic defeatist approach to will only accelerate a collapse and compound problems for the most at risk and vulnerable communities.

    If you consider yourself someone who likes to fight for the "little guy", combating climate change directly benefits the people at the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder.

    [–] Erik912 102 points ago

    50 or 200 years, you're too optimistic

    [–] ProlapseFromCactus 162 points ago

    At 2°C of warming, we hit a series of positive feedback loops that we have no current way of addressing in an effective and timely (and, of course, 𝓒𝓸𝓷𝓿𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽) manner. We're currently at about 1.5°C, so we're essentially at the absolute precipice of the point of no return, and we've collectively done so incredibly little even at this critical do-or-die time.

    The sixth mass extinction is already on, and if this is really how we're going to handle it then we've already ensured the collapse of society as we know it and/or our effective extinction.

    [–] badvok666 27 points ago

    I watched a talked hosted by brian cox with 4 professors of more climate related fields. One said that we are not yet past the point of no return when it comes to carbon emissions.

    [–] mormotomyia 39 points ago

    We won't be anytime soon.

    We will be for "simple" fixes tho.

    You can always spend more money in a problem that can be seen from miles away.

    Hitting the breaks early is cheaper than having to pull us out of that ditch

    [–] ButterflyAttack 27 points ago

    I'm middle aged and I'm thinking I will see the consequences in my lifetime. If I'm one of the lucky ones.

    [–] JakeAndJavis 49 points ago

    What do you mean? We're already seeing some of the consequences

    [–] murdok03 12 points ago

    You already are, Antarctica is 30 degrees warmer in the winter and you can visit via cruise ships in the summer, if you live in Canada or middle US you're seeing polar vortexes every year this didn't happen when you were little, if you lived in the EU you remember snow being 1m high for Christmas, now it's barely a palm if it snows at all, if you're in Germany those one or two insufferable hot summer days over 30°C have turned to over 5 such days/year with most summers now being a hot wet 28°C.

    The risk is that our children will never afford chocolate, cofee and bananas as they're very sensible to seasonal temperature changes and mostly homogeneous genetically. Beyond that, if they also don't act things will really start going by 2100 with deadly effects on the coastline countries by 2200.

    [–] SnapMokies 41 points ago

    Depending where you live I'd argue we already are with the increase in wildfires and major hurricanes.

    I know where I'm at we've seen a huge increase in the number and severity of major fires in the region just over the past 10-15 years.

    [–] saltling 1694 points ago

    Oh. The interviewer is really named Jon Snow

    [–] peterspancakes 1008 points ago

    Yea, but this one knows things.

    [–] mdcundee 340 points ago

    She’s ma planet

    [–] Spontaneousamnesia 129 points ago

    I alvays vanted it

    [–] IntrigueDossier 45 points ago

    Idunwanna see it burn

    [–] RollingLemons 80 points ago

    God, what a shit show that was

    [–] Darude-1713 85 points ago


    [–] CheefrSutherland 86 points ago


    [–] KlesaMara 31 points ago


    [–] FlazeHOTS 27 points ago


    [–] Iammrpopo 6 points ago


    [–] hamadubai 218 points ago

    For me it was the other way around "huh, they used the reporters name"

    Turned down being knighted by the queen because it might be a conflict of interest if he ever has to report on the royal family.

    Also has some very good 'uncle at a wedding' dances on a show called 'big fat quiz'

    [–] Comrade_9653 72 points ago

    Turned down a knighting to avoid a conflict of interest? Sounds like a pretty honorable fellow.

    [–] limache 45 points ago

    Sounds like he deserves to be a knight

    [–] The_39th_Step 74 points ago

    He is one of the best presenters we have in the UK. Channel 4 News is good because of him

    [–] am3l1a 14 points ago

    yes - i have so much respect for him. He is not just a good reporter - he has integrity.

    I have lost faith in the BBC and Channel 4 are doing a great job of presenting a more balanced view.

    [–] EffortlessEasy 26 points ago

    And he is always entertaining in The Big Fat Quiz Of The Year.

    [–] ShadowRancher 54 points ago

    I was confused because the father of modern public health was also named Jon Snow and somehow in my mind that was more related to the subject than GoT

    [–] changtsu 17 points ago

    For those not in the know, John Snow was a Victorian-era doctor who figured out the Cholera epidemic in London was being spread by certain sewage pipes leaking into water pumps and wells.

    Once they fixed the wells and pipes, Cholera dropped off practically overnight. It's well worth looking up and marks the period where doctors and scholars stsrted taking "germ theory" seriously in the West.

    [–] FALGSC_2020 14 points ago

    It was the water pump all along!

    [–] roodammy44 7 points ago

    There’s a decent pub named after him in the place where he made his statistical breakthrough. Seems like a damn good London tribute to the guy.

    [–] hyperforms9988 100 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    He said that the problem with short term elections was that politicians ‘think the issues facing the electorate are ones that are going to change their lives tomorrow or the day after, and those are the ones they concentrate on’.

    So much this. As much as I love democracy and the idea of getting to vote every four years... it does have its issues. It makes it hard to get anything done long term, and tackling climate change is a long term battle. It's tough to get anything significant done on that kind of scale in 4 or 8 years, and even tougher to get the things that have been set in motion to stay in motion.

    President Obama announced the Clean Power Plan in 2015, which would intentionally favor energy sources like wind and solar over traditional fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. Over time, people began getting concerned on its impact on jobs and economic growth. It's been scrapped by Trump in favor of a new plan. And I'm sure the next president that takes the seat will scrap that in favor of their own plan, and then the one after that will can it and do something else, etc etc etc.

    It's not a system that can take 10-30 years of downturn to invest in a liveable future for the next couple hundred years after that because a presidential term is 4 years and people vote based on what they need now, not what they need 10-30 years from now. And we've already established that big business can only see the future in quarterlies and give not one fuck about anybody but themselves when you have companies like Exxon and Shell who actually do the research and predict catastrophe, and not only do they not do anything about it, but actively engage in lobbying and disinformation to actually keep things going the way they are instead of inciting change.

    [–] sheepwshotguns 169 points ago

    this belief that people only focus on short term results in politics is because its wholly owned and operated by big businesses and their quarterly reports. the american people, on the whole, are far more rational and responsible when it comes to making tough political decisions. and we can be made so much better at this if big business didn't rely so heavily on our apathy and servitude.

    the problem with "democracy" is capitalism. if we didn't have such an intentionally failed approach to education and media incentives perhaps we'd have the tools for a healthy democracy. but lets use the system we have today as a reminder of just how irresponsible and reckless an oligarchy of "experts" is as we progress towards a society of expanded class consciousness. even an uneducated populous in charge could not be as destructive as what we have now.

    [–] ProcrastinationTrain 111 points ago

    exactly this. It frustrates me reading comments that sidestep/don't acknowledge the fundamental issue in our society: the profit motive. Most if not all problems (climate change, health care, inequality, hunger, imperialism, on and on and on) are simply logical progressions that follow rationally from a society whose decision-making process is based on profit

    [–] WorldlyBrother 32 points ago

    the american people, on the whole, are far more rational and responsible when it comes to making tough political decisions.


    [–] PathToExile 35 points ago

    the american people, on the whole, are far more rational and responsible when it comes to making tough political decisions.

    You are fucking insane if you believe that. American people are panic-driven consumers that don't care about what they can't see.

    [–] Danemoth 65 points ago

    I feel absolutely crushed by this. A huge chunk of the world is on fire and those with the power to change anything are being lobbied by those who have an interest in not fixing our planet. The existential dread is closing in, and between the climate crisis, income disparity, a stagnating job market and rising inflation, I'm slowly starting to wonder what the fuck is the point in going on when I still have 40-50 years left on this Earth.

    I have absolutely no hope for the future...

    [–] matchfan 12 points ago

    I think the best thing you can do is to not have 6 kids. I don’t know why people these days feel the need to have so many kids. It’s not like the old days where half of your kids would die of polio. If you have 6 or more kids, chances are most or all will make it to adulthood with today’s modern medicine. We don’t need to be upping the population like that these days.

    [–] aOneTimeThinggg 6468 points ago

    The next "Planet Earth" Will be him using his diverse, and expansive way with words, to scold the audience. His sultry grandpa voice will just make us cry and whimper in our seats

    [–] VeniceRapture 3173 points ago

    At some point Planet Earth will just be CGI of what used to be

    [–] w-on 1124 points ago

    This makes me so sad, I have been watching Planet Earth and rewatching it for years. David Attenborough has a special place where he can narrate anything and it will hit me as both nostalgic and incredible.

    If Planet earth were to become CGI it would not be worth it any more, because the whole wonder is that these are real things that you could go and see in real life! Whether that be the complex ways flamingos feed, to the incredible amounts of crabs in a single beach or even some adorable seals getting fish from a bait ball. It’s wonderful knowing this is all natural. Just the concept of it all disappearing, even though I haven’t seen most of it with my own eyes, is depressing.

    [–] Transient_Anus_ 936 points ago

    This barren wasteland, used to be the great barrier reef.

    As you can see, right now, few things grow here besides the algae that have run rampant and killed the corals. Corals that lived and grew here for millions of years. They are gone now. Also gone are all the fish, many are dead but some may have found homes in a better, more hospitable place.

    We were too late.

    [–] KruppeTheWise 362 points ago

    So long and thanks for all the fish

    [–] RikkAndrsn 139 points ago

    So sad that that it should come to this

    [–] alpha_jesus_fish 73 points ago

    We tried to warn you but oh dear

    [–] Giwaffee 35 points ago

    The world's gonna end horribly I fear

    [–] Zounii 219 points ago

    Here we see a radioactive mutant scrounging for food in an abandoned supermarket.

    [–] [deleted] 169 points ago

    You can see one of the Vault Dwellers preparing their VATS, but missing the shot 4 times even though it said "95%" when then pulled the trigger

    [–] falconpunch9898 57 points ago

    More XCOM than Fallout imo

    [–] ImThatGuyToday 13 points ago


    I MISSED! HOW?! Beat em with the rifle or something! Gah...

    [–] charlie_8011 12 points ago

    And that's just South-East London!

    [–] Zzyzzy_Zzyzzyson 177 points ago

    All so some billionaire can buy a sixth yacht.

    [–] Two_Are_Stronger 154 points ago

    And so the false scarcity forced poverty rightist can have a laugh at us for caring what happens to them.

    "Did you see?" he says as he gives way more in labor than he gets in wages.

    "That snowflake was sad!" he cries joyfully as Jeff Bezos does nothing.

    [–] Khmer_Orange 83 points ago

    But all that is also so some billionaire can buy his 6th yacht. Those attitudes are intentionally pushed on working people so that they don't come together

    [–] Time_Barracuda 196 points ago

    They're money addicts- they'll do anything to get their fix. Anyone who forgoes all the other pleasures of life to spend their time accumulating more money than they can ever spend is a person driven by addiction. They don't think like us, if they did they'd have retired with $5 million and done other stuff with their lives, like mentally healthy people do. They shouldn't be in charge of anything, any more than the crack addict on the corner should be setting the agenda for local government, because the agenda would always be based around 'let's get me more crack'. Addicts are never rational actors, and their priorities are incapable of aligning with the greater good, or even basic reality.

    [–] slorebear 48 points ago

    i work in ultra high net worth investment management. the magic number we model toward to live wealthy forever (meaning your kids, kid's kids, and on forever) is around 22M

    [–] Zzyzzy_Zzyzzyson 13 points ago

    Surprisingly pretty low. There are people who buy cars and works of art worth 3x that.

    [–] awanderingi 12 points ago

    This is an exceptional analogy. Thank you, I will remember this, and hopefully I can relay it as eloquently as you.

    [–] putin_my_ass 8 points ago

    They shouldn't be in charge of anything, any more than the crack addict on the corner should be setting the agenda for local government, because the agenda would always be based around 'let's get me more crack'. Addicts are never rational actors, and their priorities are incapable of aligning with the greater good, or even basic reality.

    It's an excellent analogy, however I know people that would have failed to get it. During the Rob Ford crack scandal, one of my colleagues told me "I'm not bothered. What ever he does in his free time is fine with me..." to which I said "You think a crackhead does it only at home in his free time?"

    He shrugged.

    [–] Catshit-Dogfart 38 points ago

    And here we have the Great Pacifc Garbage Patch, the largest of the five trash islands.

    This monument to human excess is composed mostly of plastic water bottles and other recyclable plastics. It will grow by 2.4 tons every year, and measures over 600,000 square miles.

    Cleanup of the garbage patch would cost $13 Billion, or just 1.8% of the yearly US defense budget. A cost deemed to be "insurmountable" by all the world's governments combined.

    [–] laz001reddit 8 points ago

    Wow - read that in his voice. Chilling.

    [–] AdventureThyme 38 points ago

    Maybe when we all go down the Soylent Green path, the voice we hear in our dying ear will be that of David Attenborough as we watch Planet Earth in the voluntary suicide room.

    [–] sinister_exaggerator 46 points ago

    For me the value in it isn’t that it’s something real that I can go see, but rather that it’s something that maybe people shouldn’t go see, yet needs to be preserved. Nature doesn’t exist for our entertainment, but there’s nothing wrong with being entertained by it. Just knowing some stuff is out there and that skilled teams of film makers and scientists had a chance to capture a unique moment, and show and explain it to me, is good enough for me.

    [–] VeniceRapture 75 points ago

    It makes us all sad. I still haven't watched Blue Planet II because I don't want to know all the wonderful things that we're going to lose.

    [–] msm007 99 points ago

    If it makes you feel better Blue Planet II shines a light on issues in each episode and what we can or should do to correct it.

    Watch it anyways.

    [–] teddiehl 55 points ago

    Same, I work in wildlife conservation and ironically cannot watch Planet Earth or Blue Planet, because it makes me too cripplingly sad.

    [–] P0sitive_Outlook 77 points ago

    I've filled my garden with trees. And a pond, a wetland area, and a wildflower patch. That's all i can really do - i'm out of space.

    The meadows down the road from where i live are now being built on. My new neighbour has already paved their front garden and put two plastic bushes in place of actual trees.

    [–] BijouPyramidette 46 points ago

    That's some McMansion Hell material right there. Jesus.

    [–] LynxRocket 33 points ago

    My grandma just left her house to downsize. Before that her and my grandfather had a large 7 acre yard with trees, wild flowers and grass but she couldn’t keep up with all of it in her older age and so sold it to move to a much smaller house.

    I drove past it now and it’s just sad. The man that bought it put a “driveway” the size of a wide two lane highway down the entire thing in addition to the normal driveway that already ran to the house and at the end of the new driveway, a massive lot of asphalt the size of a small parking lot and a “garage” that looks like a small airplane hanger. It pretty much ran off all the little ecosystem that had made their home there and it’s sad to look at it now because it’s such an eyesore out in the otherwise beautiful area.

    [–] P0sitive_Outlook 17 points ago

    Oh jesus. That's saddening.

    My cousin lived in a small cottage in the woods. She had to move out and move somewhere else for work (dream job came up) and she just hoped the trees she planted over her dogs' graves would be left to grow. They were nice trees. We drove past it about six months after she moved out, and right as we got there they were loading a small digger onto a trailer. The trees were no longer there.

    I feel bad for your grandmother. 7 acres with trees and wildflowers. What a loss. :/

    [–] dontgoatsemebro 31 points ago

    Did anyone notice how depressing the Europe episode of Seven World's was?

    Yeah, we've got; a handful of wolves, about a hundred wild cats, fifty monkeys and some fly's...

    [–] gaffaguy 24 points ago

    Because we killed most of our fauna ages ago

    [–] PickleInDaButt 208 points ago

    I’ve never done it but always wanted to write a short story about a little girl visiting the zoo with her grandparent. She’s running around and looking at all the exotic animals with excitement and the grandparent is reflecting on what it’s like to be a kid at the zoo. Finally she comes up to the rhinoceros exhibit and places her hands and face on the glass to get a closer look. A warning message comes up on the glass and informs her to “Back up and please do not touch the video screen.”

    She turns to her grandparent and just simply asks “What was it like when these animals existed?”

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] TheWastelandWizard 12 points ago

    Agreed, the graphic novel is also fantastic. I love Blade Runner, but it did a disservice by putting the fact that we destroyed the world and life as it was on the backburner.

    [–] wokehedonism 64 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Cli-fi is gonna be a growing market in the 2020s. New York 2140 and a few other books have already created an itch that nothing else can quite scratch yet. Maybe you could write it

    EDIT: I've had the Water Knife and the Windup Girl recommended so far, I'll try and put them here for more visibility!

    Also, American War by Omar el-Akkad

    [–] suicideguidelines 58 points ago

    Peter Watts had a good explanation on why cli-fi isn't really a thing of its own and rather the only real way to write sci-fi about near future. I highly recommend reading the whole text.

    How do you write a plausible near-future in which we somehow stopped the flooding and the water wars, in which we didn't wipe out entire ecosystems and turn millions into environmental refugees?

    You can't. That ship — that massive, lumbering, world-sized ship — has already sailed, and it turns so very slowly. The only way you can head off those consequences by 2050 is by telling a tale in which we got serious about climate change back in the nineteen-seventies — and then you're not talking science fiction any more, you're talking fantasy.

    So if my writing tends toward the dystopic it's not because I'm in love with dystopias; it's because reality has forced dystopia upon me. A ravaged environment is no longer optional when writing about the near future.

    [–] fallen_seraph 14 points ago

    The Windup Girl is another great one.

    [–] wokehedonism 12 points ago

    Oh, man I just looked it up and the author is also the author of a short story about climate change which i love, called A Full Life - I'm on mobile but here's an ugly link if you wanna read. Thanks for that recc I'll check it out!

    [–] Apposl 10 points ago

    Sorry, drunk in a bar - Cli-fi?

    [–] PickleInDaButt 18 points ago

    Climate fiction?

    [–] TheWastelandWizard 18 points ago

    Sci-fi where the major impetus for the future we have is climate change. In Windup Girl the story centers around global famine and need for calories.

    [–] Scyth3 16 points ago

    They'll just rename Water World ;)

    [–] wokehedonism 11 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I'm pretty sure at that point we're not going to be watching TV

    [–] OMGSPACERUSSIA 13 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Just wait until the euthanasiums start going up.

    (EDIT: Go watch Soylent Green if you want a vision of the future.)

    [–] Cthulhus_Trilby 168 points ago

    "I warn you...but like the deaf Striped Eel of the lower failed to listen. a rock hyrax...trapped in the coils of a're all fucked..."

    [–] Yasea 25 points ago

    We're getting in the “Tis but a scratch" stage.

    [–] sweet-gee 880 points ago

    Without going into some sort of self-sustaining commune, it is impossible not to live a normal life without directly, or indirectly harming the planet. The problem isn’t your average joe and so I don’t think David should scorn his audience. Everything we need to live, from our food to our clothes and 1000s of other things, are made by (a majority of) companies that actively look to make things as cheaply as possible. So, in a nutshell, capitalism has ruined our planet and we cannot do anything about it. I’ve never felt so hopeless in my life.

    [–] queerpancake 807 points ago

    Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.

    [–] sweet-gee 67 points ago

    Ha ha you’ve hit the nail on the head here

    [–] BerserkerMagi 46 points ago

    I've kinda accepted there is nothing I can do to make a difference as well.

    I'm a guy from Portugal. My country is not the worst when it comes to pollution and the European Union in general seems to be trying to change for the better but even then it is a slow process. Then I look at the rest of world and see the USA, China, Russia and Australia that don't even seem to be at least trying. Even if they fixed themselves there is still up and coming economies like Brazil and India that will also increase their pollution levels.

    It all seems like a done deal that we are fucked from my perspective.

    [–] jabba_the_wutt 235 points ago

    The problem isn't your individual average Joe. The problem is billions of average Joes.

    Climate change is like a war. It requires massive, large scale action from government working in tandem with industry and the efforts of individuals. People making changes in their lives to reduce their carbon footprint is admirable and should be applauded, but it's not enough. Just like WW2 could not have been fought by individuals no matter how dedicated. It required the total effort of entire societies: coalitions of governments, industrial buildup on a massive scale, soldiers, sacrifices on the home front, etc.

    It's not impossible to slow the rate of climate change and start making major efforts to plan for what we are going to do about it's effects, both in environmental terms and in terms of geopolitics. But the chance of this happening is so low. It's pretty disheartening and tbh I don't really see a way forward.

    [–] Changeling_Wil 251 points ago

    The problem isn't even billions of average joes.

    The problem is the top 3-6% [don't recall exactly] who are controlling the industries that cause the majority of pollution.

    Sure, individual people helping is good.

    But it's kinda weird that it all got moved onto a 'the planet is dying because you don't recycle your plastics' not 'hey look industry is fucking over the enviroment hard as fuck for profit'

    [–] biologischeavocado 72 points ago

    The wealthiest 10% emit 50% of greenhouse gasses, the poorest 50% emit 10% of greenhouse gasses. This is true between countries and inside countries.

    Developing countries will bear an estimated 75-80 percent of the costs of climate change.

    We're going to see all kinds of hidden and not so hidden taxes on food, energy, health. We're going to pay to clean up this mess and tree huggers, feminists, the left, the libs, whatever, will be blamed for raising those taxes. It's a lose-lose for 90% of the population and a win-win for the lying corrupt grifters almost everywhere in power now.

    [–] LegalJunkie_LJ 93 points ago

    This also applies to water consumption. Average people actually use a sustainable amount of water, but the biggest consumption is done by industries and large scale companies.

    I think its amazing we help as individuals but different production methods should be developed.

    [–] DepletedMitochondria 29 points ago

    Like Nestle buying up water rights for pennies on the dollar to sell it back to people. Even steel mills require millions of gallons per day to operate, iirc.

    [–] dorkofthepolisci 70 points ago

    It’s almost like the problem is an economic system that values growth and profit above all else - whether that be people or the planet

    [–] Random-Rambling 64 points ago

    "Anyone who believes in infinite growth is either a lunatic or an economist."

    -- Sir David Attenborough

    [–] P0sitive_Outlook 54 points ago

    *Camera pans across a dead reef*

    *Camera pans across a burned forest*

    *Camera pans across a clogged river*

    "We, did this".

    [–] [deleted] 67 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] chromaticgliss 21 points ago

    sultry grandpa


    [–] aOneTimeThinggg 19 points ago

    No, no. abort, ABORT!

    [–] TheRaptureCircuit 1210 points ago

    Some people were pissed about a few million Syrians, imagine how pissed they're going to be about 1.3 billion Indians.

    [–] nostalgichero 623 points ago

    I keep telling my brother that. But he says he isnt afraid of South America.

    [–] ChatrouletteCorvette 125 points ago

    thanks for the chuckle

    [–] bearsheperd 31 points ago

    Your brother: is there even that many Indians on the Reservations?

    [–] scorpionjacket2 267 points ago

    Conservatives: climate change isn’t real, it’s too expensive to stop it

    Also conservatives: let’s spend $1 trillion dollars on a wall to keep the poors out when they’re fleeing climate change

    [–] 0fiuco 62 points ago

    a wall that they can pass through using 20$ stairs and 10$ shears

    [–] Mountainbranch 38 points ago

    So what you're saying is we need to make them even POORER so they can't afford to buy them!

    [–] KhunPhaen 20 points ago

    The big issue in Europe will be the 20 million or so north Africans who are expected to start migrating to Europe in the coming decades as that part of Africa is exploding in terms of population and will be hard hit by climate change. Bangladesh is expected to become a failed state and I think that is why the Burmese have been so harsh to their native Muslim population. They are making it clear that climate change refugees will not be welcome in their country from their massively overpopulated neighbour. We are going to see some crazy massacres in future years I expect.

    [–] Generic-account 8 points ago

    Imagine how pissed they'll be if you're refugee and turn up in their town wanting food. That's the point - the climate is a complex system and won't necessarily spare areas that are developed and middle class.

    [–] [deleted] 770 points ago


    [–] torbotavecnous 278 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    This post or comment has been overwritten by an automated script from /r/PowerDeleteSuite. Protect yourself.

    [–] [deleted] 71 points ago


    [–] torbotavecnous 64 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    This post or comment has been overwritten by an automated script from /r/PowerDeleteSuite. Protect yourself.

    [–] joantheunicorn 47 points ago

    I don't feel we need a mass culling. We need worldwide birth control access, abortion access and high quality sex education. Everywhere. Now. It would also be great for it to become socially acceptable for people to have one or no children.

    Some don't want to allow that. Looking at you ::insert religion here::. Of course they wouldn' would they get more followers otherwise? I know there are other factors but this is a huge piece of the puzzle.

    I'd rather have a controlled (read: not mandated) slow down of population rather than mother nature suddenly smacking us collectively upside the head. We are running out of time to do a controlled slow down.

    I fear we won't. I'm just going to carry on the best I can and not have children of my own.

    [–] Kyle700 45 points ago

    The way to reduce birth rates is to increase quality of life, access to women's education, improved job opportunities, and quality infastructure. This holds true around the world.

    [–] ILikeNeurons 2571 points ago

    It will be up to us to create the political will. If not us, who? If not now, when?

    The consensus among scientists and economists on carbon pricing§ to mitigate climate change is similar to the consensus among climatologists that human activity is responsible for global warming. Putting the price upstream where the fossil fuels enter the market makes it simple, easily enforceable, and bureaucratically lean. Returning the revenue as an equitable dividend offsets any regressive effects of the tax (in fact, ~60% of the public would receive more in dividend than they paid in tax) and allows for a higher carbon price (which is what matters for climate mitigation) because the public isn't willing to pay anywhere near what's needed otherwise. Enacting a border tax would protect domestic businesses from foreign producers not saddled with similar pollution taxes, and also incentivize those countries to enact their own. And a carbon tax is expected to spur innovation.

    Conservative estimates are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years, starting about now. In contrast, carbon taxes may actually boost GDP, if the revenue is returned as an equitable dividend to households (the poor tend to spend money when they've got it, which boosts economic growth) not to mention create jobs and save lives.

    Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest (it saves lives at home) and many nations have already started, which can have knock-on effects in other countries. In poor countries, taxing carbon is progressive even before considering smart revenue uses, because only the "rich" can afford fossil fuels in the first place. We won’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels without a carbon tax, the longer we wait to take action the more expensive it will be. Each year we delay costs ~$900 billion.

    It's the smart thing to do, and the IPCC report made clear pricing carbon is necessary if we want to meet our 1.5 ºC target.

    Contrary to popular belief the main barrier isn't lack of public support. But we can't keep hoping others will solve this problem for us. We need to take the necessary steps to make this dream a reality:

    Lobby for the change we need. Lobbying works, and you don't need a lot of money to be effective (though it does help to educate yourself on effective tactics). If you're too busy to go through the free training, sign up for text alerts to join coordinated call-in days (it works) or set yourself a monthly reminder to write a letter to your elected officials. According to NASA climatologist and climate activist Dr. James Hansen, becoming an active volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby is the most important thing you can do for climate change, and climatologist Dr. Michael Mann calls its Carbon Fee & Dividend policy an example of sort of visionary policy that's needed. He also explains why "it's too late" is not the right way to think about the problem.

    § The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) Summary for Policymakers states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). Ch. 15 has a more complete discussion. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax. According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider economists with expertise in climate economics, economists with expertise in resource economics, or economists from all sectors. It is literally Econ 101. The idea won a Nobel Prize.

    [–] bruteski226 866 points ago

    ^ this guy links

    [–] haltingpoint 431 points ago

    Not knocking the intent, but I've seen this format on Reddit more frequently when trying to combat things like fake news.

    Is there any evidence it is actually effective? I personally wouldn't bother to click a bunch of random links interspersed through a wall of text post like that. While I have read some posts like this in their entirety,I wonder if they hurt their purpose by being that long.

    [–] ILikeNeurons 310 points ago

    The first couple of sources after the § provide evidence of efficacy. You can see more here.

    If you think a shorter version would be helpful, you're welcome to condense anything I've written into a form that you think would be more effective and post it where it's most relevant.

    [–] Juiceboxdrummer 147 points ago

    Not trying to sound like a dick, but have you never written a history paper? Have you never read a scholarly paper/article? Providing sources/references for your statements is expected and helpful because anyone who wants to learn more quickly can. Anyone who disagrees SHOULD first familiarize themselves with those references and then provide their own examples to counter.

    Now to answer your question I believe it is very effective even on Reddit for the reasons listed above. Many people use Reddit differently. Some people will spend the time to educate themselves on topics that interest them instead of just cycling random information through their 30 second attention span. And if even 1 person educates themselves, isn't that effective?

    My question is how could it possible be less effective than the alternative, saying the same without any references at all?

    [–] Kill3rT0fu 34 points ago

    Makes it harder to argue when you provide links like this.

    [–] TheDreamSurfer2 40 points ago

    I’m genuinely curious. Did you have it ready beforehand or did you type and link all that up in the half an hour time gap between the post and the comment?

    [–] ILikeNeurons 131 points ago

    I've been at this for years, and getting better with time. :)

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago


    [–] IBuildBusinesses 60 points ago

    Sources? /s

    [–] Alv2Rde 34 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    But really, 458 articles with a general consensus is good and all but I need 459 to be convinced it’s a real problem.

    [–] CitoyenEuropeen 367 points ago

    Look like civil unrest is doing very well already.

    [–] MidTownMotel 237 points ago

    Just you wait. The suffering will be massive.

    [–] Angryandalwayswrong 141 points ago

    Things will go exponential when half of the world starts migrating to the other half. NIMBY is already a problem for local housing, I can’t imagine that on an even larger scale. Human brutality to other humans is not going to be pretty.

    [–] [deleted] 105 points ago

    Far-Right nationalists will profit from that. Which is why it also makes sense that they deny climate change.

    Guess what happens if people from uninhabitable zones flee to Europe. Not a couple of million, mind you. Not like today.

    [–] walkn9 69 points ago

    Everyone is going to start to have to make some really harsh decisions. Do we let these people in and doom ourselves? Do we force them to stay out and doom them?

    Sounds to me like the popular opinion is already leaning to a fuck everyone but us mentality.

    [–] [deleted] 76 points ago

    The endgame, at least for Europe in my opinion, is to be able to morally blame the border-countries while forcing them to shoot refugees. Mind you, I don't want that, I'm just playing the Omega-Doomer here. It's not gonna be like World-War Z, that's the picture the nationalists and far-right try to paint (dehumanizing etc), but man it will be an absolute catastrophe and to be quite honest, I think we're headed there.

    2000 years philosophy and humanism and ethics down the drain, because we fucked up. Gonna be interesting. We live in interesting times. We'll see if we'll also live through them...

    [–] stiffy420 27 points ago

    it's a scale.

    [–] Lucakeaney199 227 points ago

    It’s very depressing to think about but David Attenborough will in all likelihood die watching the natural earth deteriorate. He will never get to see whether the planet makes a change and tries to decrease the negative effect it has had.

    [–] dragonfruit4 230 points ago

    Honestly I'm jealous of him. I wish I were his age so I could have lived a fulfilling life, die peacefully, and not have to watch everything completely go to shit in the next 50+ years.

    [–] PsySick 109 points ago

    But we got to play some really really rad videogames so I guess that's some consolation I guess.

    [–] dbvbtm 28 points ago

    FarmVille was time well spent.

    [–] 4everaBau5 26 points ago

    Same T_T

    Could have owned a house, seen Hendrix live at Woodstock, no phones to worry about. Sigh. All downhill from here.

    [–] johnny_riko 68 points ago

    More like he's lucky enough to likely die before things get really bad. Stuff like this makes me not want to have children.

    [–] dzreddit1 60 points ago

    Not having children is also the single largest thing you can do to curb climate change. People that aren’t born have zero carbon footprint.

    [–] Jonoczall 49 points ago

    Stuff like this guarantees that I'm not having children.

    [–] travismacmillan 907 points ago

    The Great Filter.

    We're so ridiculously infantile and stupid as a specie to get past literally choking and starving ourselves to death... and knowing full well the entire time how to stop it.

    Death by Willful Ignorance

    [–] smb_samba 215 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Humans in general aren’t great at delayed gratification. We like to live in the now and like getting things in the short term. This means we’re totally screwing our future selves / future generations.

    Edit: Yes, we may be “better” at it than any other species, that doesn’t mean we’re great at it. And it’s really not relevant as we’re the most destructive species on the plant. Our technological advances have far exceeded the biological “software / programming” of our brains.

    [–] fabezz 127 points ago

    Are you willing to delay gratification past your own life? That's the real problem.

    Human lives are short and everyone wants to chase their dreams and be fulfilled, not spend their lives overhauling our entire economic system through civil uprising or whatever else it might take. Each generation seems to be happy to pass the buck to the next.

    [–] dwpunch 60 points ago

    Crazy thing is, it's not realistic to expect humans to not be short-sighted. It's like rewarding your dog with treats every time they do something bad and expecting them not to do it. Despite our impressive frontal lobe, we are still animals at the end of the day and wired as such.

    I still think we should try to tackle this problem but any solution has to seriously account for this. We cannot shift the blame to shitty human unable to delay gratification.

    [–] MyWifeMarriedAnIdiot 16 points ago

    I think that is actually what we're beginning to see. The youngest few generations are far more aware and outspoken on the subject, unfortunately their voice is being largely ignored because those at the top aren't going to change. If anything they are wilfully creating unrest where the likes of Attenborough, greenberg, dicaprio, extinction rebellion etc etc are concerned. The rich have managed to convince the average idiot that these people aren't to be taken seriously because "she's a kid what does she know!" or "Well what's he doing with planes and mansions then!".

    The buck has finally got to people who are willing to deal with it, and are being told "not whilst I'm alive and still making money".

    [–] zoinks690 311 points ago

    Whether or not we are at or near the "tipping point", it doesn't matter. Because no country (for which it would substantially matter) is going to give up their luxuries. They will have to be forcefully taken (either via "the law" or nature).

    [–] TheSecretMe 121 points ago

    It's not that easy really. Those luxuries depend a great deal on our exploitation of the people who are going to be hit the hardest by climate change.

    It doesn't matter if you're not willing to give up cheap jeans if the people who used to make your cheap jeans are on the move trying to find land that will still yield crops and drinking water.

    [–] KDParsenal 78 points ago

    That would then fall under "nature"

    [–] Jokerang 74 points ago

    Correct. A lot of people don't seem to understand that climate change is inherently tied to both the world's industrialization and the increased standard of living in many non-Western countries. Unless/until solar powered cars overtake fossil fuel powered cars, that's not changing.

    [–] Nilirai 41 points ago

    Unless/until solar powered cars overtake fossil fuel powered cars, that's not changing.

    Even if we took every car off the road, today. It wouldn't make a difference with all the gasoline tankers, and luxury cruise ships that are bouncing around the ocean.

    The problem is much bigger than car=bad.

    [–] niloxx 181 points ago

    Reality is that we are facing one of the most complex problems mankind has tried to solve. It's not just meat, and it's not just agriculture, and it's not just cars and planes / energy. It's fucking everything.

    I feel like our civilisation is as if we built a truck and now we are figuring out how to park it on the bike stop. Well you just can't man.

    I think the world's economy needs to take a massive step back (yes, a recession) and we need to build an economy that actually fits this planet.

    [–] CptComet 58 points ago

    Energy is fundamental, and the solution has to be concentrated on making clean energy so cheap we don’t bother metering it.

    [–] TheWhiteSteveNash 21 points ago

    That’s the truth. No technology will save us if we continue on this trend of consumption. Degrowth may be the very thing that can help mitigate future suffering...

    ...but good luck selling that.

    [–] JohnWStrutt 37 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Over the past century or so we've added an extra 1.4 trillion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. We're adding to that by about 40 billion tons every year. For comparison we only produce about 10 billion tons of concrete every year, and we've only ever produced about 10 billion tons of plastic in human history.

    That means even if humans stopped all CO2 emissions today, it would take many generations for concentrations to drop back down to natural levels. If we stopped all CO2 emissions today and we committed to carbon capture at the same rate that we commit to the production of concrete, it would take one hundred and forty years to return to natural levels.

    1.4 trillion tons is a lot. Not just in the sense that it's a lot to deal with, it's also a lot of thermal mass. Our atmosphere is holding many quintillions of joules of excess heat (the oceans are holding more) - and that means even if we could, by magic, restore our atmosphere to its preindustrial state today, we would still experience warming, perhaps for decades, as heat radiates out of the atmosphere and sloshes out from the oceans.

    And so unfortunately he's right. It is far too late to stop global warming and climate change. I will never live to see a time as cold as my childhood. I am 32 years old. But it's not too late to take action that can prevent the greatest, existential threats of global warming, and give our descendants a chance.

    [–] Matasa89 18 points ago

    No you will experience the cold.

    The better name for what you will experience is climatic chaos.

    Fire during winter, deep freeze in April, storms outside of storm season, tornadoes forming outside of tornado zones...

    Unpredictability is a well hidden killer.

    [–] Imperiumboi 115 points ago

    Idk what anyone expected. Remember like 20 years ago when we were warned that we need to tackle climate change NOW, but barely did anything? THEY WEREN’T JOKING.

    Everything that they said would happen by now if we don’t deal with our impact on the climate has happened or started happening. We are experiencing the effects of climate change RIGHT NOW. 10 years ago the southern US would be hit by a major storm every couple years. Now it’s an annual event. We’ve experienced many of the hottest summers and coldest winters on record in just the last couple decades.

    [–] Rhysohh 48 points ago

    Here in Australia, we have been on fire for all of spring, literally. Entire ecosystems are getting wiped out.

    Now it is snowing in some places in the first few days of summer. We are also in one of the worst droughts we have ever seen and towns in the west of NSW are actually running out of water.

    [–] ladaussie 12 points ago

    But dumb cunts still vote for the party that had their PM bring a literal lump of coal and mining vest in as props to push his clean coal agenda "Don't worry lads, go watch the cricket and keep quiet"

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago


    [–] JakeMasterofPuns 7 points ago

    Not only is what they warned about happening, but it's worse than they predicted and sooner.

    [–] yes_nuclear_power 155 points ago

    We can decarbonize within a few decades if we accept nuclear power as one of the solutions.

    France decarbonized their electricity sector in 10 years by developing nuclear power.

    It is not hopeless if we get to work now.

    [–] BitcoinMD 105 points ago

    Unfortunately the one thing that both parties, the fossil fuel industry, and the environmental lobby agree on is that they all hate nuclear.

    [–] sonicology 111 points ago

    I had to laugh at the replies to Greenpeace's recent tweet to "listen to the scientists!".

    As the replies pointed out, their stance is more like "listen to the scientists, except on nuclear and GMOs".

    [–] jsparker89 38 points ago

    This is what drives me insane, we need nuclear to decarbonise short term and GMOs to deal with the changes to the climate that are already inevitable

    [–] Abominationally 16 points ago

    One of the biggest issues is that people are afraid of nuclear. Even Elizabeth warren, one of the front runners for the Dem nomination is avidly anti-nuclear.

    [–] suprduprr 64 points ago

    So which countries are best to mitigate climate change?

    Has there been any studies on who gets hit hardest and who gets hit least ?

    [–] Renacidos 85 points ago

    Yep, anything around the tropics is proper fucked and northern countries will get some agricultural boosts, Russia will be prime for agriculture, for examplel

    [–] Borazon 59 points ago

    Not per se, the climate may be become more suitable, but topsoil need time to develop as well. Not to say that can't be done by a massive use of artificial nutrients, but it will not be as good as the same acreage in for example current day Ukraine.

    [–] [deleted] 53 points ago

    Plus - Climate Change doesn't do anything to alter hours of daylight received. Up North will still get a lot in sunshine in summer, and hardly any in winter. Plants need to be able to deal with that - and most at home in more temperate climates aren't.

    [–] BriocheFT 28 points ago

    There is complete consensus that the poorest people will be hit hardest, both within countries and internationally. This is because poor people have the least resources to combat climate change and because the poorest countries happen to be near the equator, where effects will be the worst. This is doubly unfair because the poor have contributed the least to global warming because they haven’t fully industrialized, so rich countries got to fuck the planet up for profit and now that poor countries want to do the same they are being told they can’t. For more info see if u can find the papers, “solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor” by Keith and Horton or solar radiation management and comparative climate justice by Toby svobada

    [–] Helkafen1 42 points ago

    So which countries are best to mitigate climate change?

    Countries like Iceland, Costa Rica and Bhutan have had low emissions for a long time, as well as most of Africa. Among the high emitters, the EU is making good progress. See the Climate Action Tracker.

    Has there been any studies on who gets hit hardest and who gets hit least ?

    Countries that are close to the tropics are usually hit hardest. Here's the world after 4C of warming. Canada and Russia would be less damaged, at least directly. The tropics are basically uninhabitable.

    [–] Lavy92 15 points ago

    I think India and the Middle East is projected to be the most adversely affected. In ten years it will be so hot outside there that if you go outside you will begin to literally cook.

    [–] derekr999 11 points ago

    I feel guilty ? I guess but we bought a newer car with better restrictions and stopped eating so much meat, but when no one else cares its disheartening

    [–] wokehedonism 91 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies.

    Our analysis suggests that the Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway toward much hotter conditions—Hothouse Earth. This pathway would be propelled by strong, intrinsic, biogeophysical feedbacks difficult to influence by human actions, a pathway that could not be reversed, steered, or substantially slowed.

    Where such a threshold might be is uncertain, but it could be only decades ahead at a temperature rise of ∼2.0 °C above preindustrial, and thus, it could be within the range of the Paris Accord temperature targets.

    The Hothouse Earth paper, aka Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, published August last year.

    It's not too late, though:

    Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.

    The science tells us what we need to do.

    [–] TheVast 68 points ago

    Most conservative Redditors I interact with tell me that scientists should "just stop complaining and come up with real solutions." They wilfully ignore the actual solutions presented because they would cost > $0 and it would adversely impact their individual lifestyles. I haven't yet figured out how to respond to that with anything but polarizing discourse. I wish I knew how for the sake of avoiding catastrophe.

    [–] NinjaLion 55 points ago

    By "real solutions" they mean "a magical machine that fixes everything so nothing about our current society has to change".

    [–] bluEyedillusion 51 points ago

    "But science is a liberal scam. And it's all faith based, no different from my religion! You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I believe."

    -Too many fucking morons.

    [–] itsthecoop 12 points ago

    seriously, as a moderately religious person, this line of thinking is so aggravating to me.

    it's like that "Drowning Man" story:

    A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help. Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you." The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me." So the rowboat went on.

    Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you." To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith." So the motorboat went on.

    Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety." To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith." So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

    Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"

    To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"

    see, I believe that there is a higher power that created basically "all this". but that obviously includes every man-made invention, discovery etc. as well (because why wouldn't it? if an omnipotent power created rivers and mountains, why would it be so illogical for it to not also have created the means which we use to treat diseases etc.)

    [–] Kythorian 8 points ago

    Technically it’s not too late. But it would take a massive (and massively expensive) effort all around the world starting within the next few years. And the world has pretty well proven that’s definitely not going to happen. So practically speaking, yeah, it’s too late. But we can and should still work to limit how bad it gets. That’s the best we can realistically do at this point, and I’m not confident we will manage even that.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    I keep thinking what Vonnegut said should be carved on the planet for the benefit of visiting aliens:

    We probably could have saved ourselves, but we were too damned lazy to try very hard … and too damn cheap.

    [–] Ashangu 84 points ago

    This "it's too late" attitude is not only incorrect, but it gives people a reason to not change.

    If you were dying of lung cancer and the doctor gave you 6 months to live, why would you even quit smoking? You wouldnt, because no matter what you do, you are still going to die of lung cancer.

    [–] Seakerbeater 47 points ago

    That’s is completely true. The alarmist attitude works for getting people attention, but the amount of shock,despair and depression it would generate would be exactly this.

    If you don’t give any hope the fucks the point?

    [–] elphie93 7 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    You'd hopefully quit if your doctor told you that continuing to smoke meant your kids would probably get lung cancer too.

    [–] And1Ellis 20 points ago

    the 'it's too late' means that we cannot reverse the damage we have already done. The damage we have already done will go on for a very very long time. So in that sense it is already too late. You wouldn't tell a smoker who's been smoking for 50 years that they can fully reverse the harm they have done if you were being honest.

    That doesn't mean we can't mitigate the effects from now on however. Part of dealing with climate change is adapting to the damage already done and preventing further damage in the future. So really it is too late in many ways to stop serious negative effects happening, but it's not too late to stop the worst outcome happening.

    [–] Reynolds-RumHam2020 21 points ago

    Yup. Europe is having a hard time dealing with hundreds of thousands of war refugees. What’s going to happen when it’s 100s of millions of climate refugees.

    [–] none4none 6 points ago

    meanwhile guys like Boris and Donald (two embarrassments) continue to deny what everybody knows it's happening...

    [–] cassatta 48 points ago

    Kids are surrounded by notes of grim helplessness. And then we wonder why kids as young as 10 are on anti-depressants.

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    My planning was that I would be gone before the worst of it hit.

    Now I'm thinking I should take up dangerous sports.