- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- climate@slrpnk.net
You must log in or register to comment.
Then the world’s fever will work as intended.
No it won’t. The problem causers can afford air conditioning.
Until there’s no one below them to keep the air conditioning working.
When an area isn’t survivable without air conditioning, any power outage can kill millions.
When an area isn’t survivable without air conditioning, people shouldn’t be living there.
No it won’t. Eco-fascist rhetoric like this is unproductive because it ignores the fact that the people who are most shielded from the harms of climate change are the ones most responsible for it.
Billionaires and others who are profiting most from pillaging the planet’s resources are not the ones at risk here.
(N.b. I am not calling you an eco-fascist, just that this framing is commonly used by eco-fascists. Part of why I highlight this is because your use of this rhetoric may not be intentional)
It just keeps getting worse, doesn’t it?
It’s been awhile since I have seen talk about 2°, as if we have given up on that number. Maybe only in the US, where climate change isn’t even really discussed in a meaningful way by our two primary presidential candidates.
The official goal is still 1.5, but that’s kind of irrelevant, since we’ve been over 1.5 for an entire year already, and the only reason the official number is still at 1.4 is that the number is averaged over several years and it’s technically possible temps will go down next year.
technically possible temps will go down next year.
I sure hope so. But I think it would be bad to plan on luck alone (not that you are advocating for that).
The New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The New York Times:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times’s website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
