• Skies5394@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      This issue is that nature is going to start with the people who contribute the least to the issue.

      If only the people contributing the most could actually feel the pressure.

      • AccmRazr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        And those who contribute the least to this issue are also likely the ones who want it fixed the most.

  • xT1TANx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It only took 250 years since the industrial revolution to utterly doom our world.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, our world will be fine, it’s not the Earth’s first mass extinction event. We - and a lot of flora and fauna we depend on - are really fucked though.

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

        It’s an interesting mass extinction event, too. Have we ever seen one species balloon to such predominance? Humans are like 80% of mammalian biomass on the planet. Definite loss of biodiversity. I wonder if it’s a loss of biomass too.

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

          Hard to beat the dominance of archosaurs on Earth for about 180 mio years. Humans are a blink of an eye compared to that.

  • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This article is bogus. It doesn’t even mention the power or thoughts and prayers once!

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

    I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.

    Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out

    • cabb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s largely legislative changes that have made insurance unprofitable in those states. Florida’s bad faith law and banning of international reinsurers have both hurt the industry a lot. California has had wildfires for a long time and their frequency hasn’t increased much over time.

      I left a more detailed comment elsewhere in this thread if you’re interested.

    • jcit878@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      odds are greater you’ll just have to live and suffer through the heatwaves, droughts, freezes and cyclones instead, not to mention the super fun collapse of society

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “1 billion people on track to die”… I guess we’re doing an empirical test of the trolley problem.

    We have a choice between inconveniencing some people (especially some very rich people); vs saving billions of lives by switching tracks. And apparently the empirical choice is to equivocate and delay so that we stay on the path of death and ruin. … It isn’t the solution I would have chosen personally.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you pull the lever, ultimately nothing changes because the tipping point was wooshed past in the 1990s and this first billion will be the lucky ones who dont survive to witness the extinction of the human race

    • drphungky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not actually junk prediction, though you might call it doom-bait journalism. WHO put climate change related deaths at like 150,000 people annually in the year 2000. Those numbers will obviously go up, which is why they’re backed in a lot of studies, but the real rub on reporting here is that they’re talking about “over the course of a century”. So it’s a completely reasonable estimate, it just ignores a lot of nuance like “some countries are having higher population growth so we’re not going to just lose 1 billion (though these deaths are theoretically preventable)” but also “the vast majority of these deaths will be concentrated in Southeast Asia and poorer countries.”

    • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, anyone remember “10 in 2010”? You know, where everyone was panicking because there were going to be 10 billion people on Earth in 2010. The best thing anyone can do for their case is to stick to facts.

  • bigkix@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a bummer. Well, what’re you gonna do… We should build more solar and wind farms, that will surely help. Maybe ban plastic straws in Africa, too?

  • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    A billion over a century is only 10 million per year. Does that exceed the birth rate?

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s 1 billion less people contributing to climate changes! Seems like a self-correcting problem over a long enough time scale.