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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Nonono, spontaneously in the near future all humanity will reject greed and gluttony to begin working together, optimizing resource use, and minimizing global impact to levels the geological and biological systems can cope with.
Is there a way to stop it, like which are the most poluting factories, where are they and how do we turn them of and how do we make sure they are never turned on again?
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”
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.
Here in Canada the wildfires got so bad this summer that the smoke was drifting into provinces that didn’t even have wildfires. It was legitimately difficult to breath or just be outside and downright dangerous if you were elderly or had health complications related to breathing. It’s already not normal, corporations just willingly ignore it.
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 🤗)
Dooming is like porn to these people man. They don’t care about the realities at all, and only are interested in this article because it helps them feel bad.
My point is the implications of the industrial revolution don’t stop at national borders.
You don’t need every country to emit pollution when they all share the same atmosphere.
And it’s overwhelmingly likely that the rollout of renewables and environmentally responsible infrastructure won’t happen everywhere at once. It begins in the countries with the ability and materials to produce such systems.
Do you have a map of existing renewable use per capital to see if my opinion is accurate or are you just going to be a massive prick?
Great talk, you’ve done wonders for the community.
You called me a massive prick dude. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it back.
It’s not that hard a concept. I even posted a picture. Do you really think technology is not being developed and implemented faster today than the 18th century?
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.
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.
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.
Add comment