429
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 67 points 6 months ago

We will spend it then because they will have to. They won't spend it now because it's not necessary. It's human nature.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 54 points 6 months ago

Them: profit now, dead later.

Young people: pay now, pay later.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 19 points 6 months ago
[-] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Looking at much of human history, it’s a common mantra. The children are our future. The future is their problem.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 9 points 6 months ago

Hi. It's me. The children.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

It won't be spending.

Land, buildings, businesses, capitals will be lost. That's cost and spending won't fight back the sea. Not everywhere that matters, populated areas will be written off.

[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

It will be a hard fought lesson but one modern society needs to experience

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago

Self-driving cars are probably 100x the cost of better transit as well, guess what we chose?

[-] nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 22 points 6 months ago

Yeah. We'd rather create consciousness to drive for us than put down some fucking rail.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

"Costs more" is just another way to say "makes somebody more money".

Wait. Strike that. Reverse it. This is just capitalism functioning as intended.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

Chasing self driving cars that are still 10 years out while still not doing public transit!

[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago

This might be the new thing that's always 10 years away.

[-] rimu@piefed.social 41 points 6 months ago

Public costs, private profits. The usual.

[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 37 points 6 months ago

This is the thing that always drives me up the fucking wall when people say it's too expensive to fix. Expensive compared to what? It's like saying it's not worth stopping your car driving off the cliff because it will take energy to hit the brakes or move the steering wheel, just totally ignoring the fact that there is a huge cost to doing nothing.

Anyway, sorry for the rant but this whole issue is insane.

[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Yes but now imagine the breaks are in your car but the car that goes down the cliff is owned by someone that is not even born yet.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 21 points 6 months ago
[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

The economy won't exist as it is today. Cost of adapting is bigger than economic growth by 2100, if not 2050. Private isurance as a concept no longer applies in many places as many properties are exposed to floods and storms by then making it too expensive to be useful.

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

I know. My comment was a jest. People will destroy the long term health of the economy in the name of the economy. What they really mean is But, my profits!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

I really don't think cost-benefit analysis is going to sway very many people. A lot of people continue to believe in the idea that humans are wholly rational, calculating, utility maximizing individuals, and thus if we just show them how much money they can save, they'll support climate mitigation efforts. But this model of rational economic man is wrong. Maybe it describes some people well enough, but I think it's a poor representation of how most people think and behave.

Humans are not wholly "rational." We are often influenced by emotions and our passions that can be decidedly irrational. But the thing I really take issue with is this continued narrative that humans are fully atomized individuals. It absolutely needs to stop, it's simply untrue. Humans are social, hyper social, even. We form all sorts of interconnected relationships, we depend on them, even, and we are highly tribal by our nature. It is how we evolved, it is how we survived. We are here because our ancestors formed tightly connected groups of people, with common purpose, common culture, common language, and common belief systems.

Do you know why so many people continue to deny climate change and fight against climate mitigation efforts? Because it's what their tribe tells them to do. They are being told by the members of their tribe that they respect and admire that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by an enemy tribe. They're being told that climate mitigation efforts are an attack on their culture, their way of life, and they're being told this by bad actors who deliberately use people's tribal nature against them, to manipulate the people into supporting them and their interests. We need to use culture for progress, so that it can't be weaponized against progress.

The sooner we shit-can the rational economic man model and start seeing people for what they really are: social beings who are highly motivated by emotions and passions, and the sooner we recognize the importance of culture and group identity, the closer we'll be to an actual solution.

[-] stembolts@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

Rupert Murdoch can't die fast enough for this reason. But likely another shit-weasel will just step in and replace him.

You hear that Randy? You hear that? (What Mister Lahey?) Shit weasels, shit weasels all the way down.

I can't think of another entity that has done more harm to the world than the Murdoch media empire. Generations to come will reap what that family has sewn in divisiveness and tribal hate/fear/greed.

I hope they pay. No dollar amount will suffice. A different type of payment.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 6 months ago

But the thing I really take issue with is this continued narrative that humans are fully atomized individuals.

The Century of the Self.

The Rugged Individual.

The Me Generation.

I hate all of it... Seems we forgot "No man is an island."

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

But the shareholders want to see the line go up now!

[-] Inucune@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Damages for who?

Someone else will get suckered into paying for it, I'll get to keep MY money and the problem will be fixed.

Now, if the government is willing to pay me billions to fix it, I might be interested... /S

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 5 points 6 months ago

That's literally it, except for the part where they even care that the problem even gets fixed at all.

Investors/Rich people: "I'll be dead, I don't care. I will make tons of money until the day I die."

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Damages?

More like gross income for a smart, proactive company.

All this spending to repair damages and save lives is the biggest revenue opportunity of the century.

Climate change is an opportunity, not a problem, it could make you rich if you work hard enough.

/s

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] filister@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

I think we are every year getting small sneak peeks of what's to come and we still ignore the warnings nature is giving us and we are strictly focused on the short term growth.

Just look what just happened in Dubai, they had 256mm of rain in one day, while their annual rain rate is 96. That's 2.5x more than the annual in just one day. And I am sure this caused a lot of financial damage to businesses and also the government

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 11 points 6 months ago

One estimate of a solar geoengineering program's cost was $2.5 billion per year. Well within the national budget of many countries that would be significantly impacted by climate change. Presumably at some point one of them will just unilaterally give it a try.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would be technically possible from an engineering perspective

Doesn’t mean it works

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 6 months ago

If we reach the trillions-of-dollars-of-climate-damage state then I'm sure they'll try anyway.

Would be nice if we could have some research into the subject done before then. A pity every time tests are proposed the reaction is "no, that'll only encourage more fossil fuel usage!"

[-] Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

If people have the space and can afford solar on their home, it is a big win as it cuts out the middleman, gives you all the control, and pays for itself. Waiting for government to do the right thing looks like a lost cause right now, but if everyone who could, took the financial hit and put in solar and used nothing but electricity for everything including their car, we would make a dent in carbon output. Those who own homes are the wealthy and really should be doing more than waiting for the government. Not going to happen of course as most are in the same headspace as the government with the pain of climate change just not enough yet to justify the spend. Businesses should be doing the same. Local power on every building will mean less demand on the grid and all the infrastructure upgrades needed to transmit power even if just from green solar farms. Local generation cuts out a lot of infrastructure.

[-] filister@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Oh man, I can't afford buying a small flat let alone house. Things are really fucked up at the moment, price/salary wise. Like you need 300 average salaries to buy a small house in some God forgotten place.

[-] Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

This is why those who own homes and are already in a wealthier position than most, should be stepping up and installing solar panels as people who cannot even afford a home are likely already polluting less.

[-] filister@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Perhaps those wealthier should also consider not hoarding real estate properties, so the less fortunate or younger have a chance to buy their own.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Most of the landlords hoarding properties in the U.S. these days are corporations; many of them not even U.S. based.

[-] Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Homes should not have been allowed to be investments as what is happening with prices is expected. It is basically stocks someone lives in.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

Externalized costs! Governments need to be the ones to enforce it, because otherwise the people paying aren't the ones benefiting.

[-] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

But not applicable for this election cycle, so nothing will get done.

[-] Naich@lemmings.world 9 points 6 months ago

Ha ha. I'm leaving all the problems for future me to solve. The stupid fucker falls for it every time.

[-] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 6 points 6 months ago

Higher costs just mean someone will make more money. The system works as designed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

People expecting the bourgeosie to simply "do the right thing" when presented with clear evidence is pure Utopianism, and betrays an utter lack of understanding with regards to class dynamics and Capitalism in general.

Climate Change must be tackled without regard for the consent of the bourgeoisie.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Utopianism is only used when leftists want a thing, otherwise it's just "Good Business Sense™"

:(

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

No, Utopianism is when leftists think that you can just convince the ruling class to act nicer because it's the right thing to do. There's no materialism in that, and will just repeat the failures of the Owenites.

Actual change comes from force, which is why strikes are so effective. That has materialist analysis, harm the profits and concessions follow.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] aniki@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

6 times the damages for WHO, though? Not the rich...

[-] DerArzt@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Yeah, but the leaders that can make the change today won't be alive then. So why would they care?

[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Line go up

Temp go up

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
429 points (98.6% liked)

News

23293 readers
5038 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS