End of the world

Idk man I think at this point we just gotta keep diverting money to science and conservation efforts. I think that humans can always find a way out of everything if we come together and collectively work to solve a problem. The issue with that is not everyone is gonna want to get behind halting climate change/the end of the world because there’s more money to be made by just keeping our consumerist ways (and not everyone believes it’s happening). As a high schooler it’s stressful to know we’re inheriting a dying world :(

Humans used to die at age 38 or so...we extended life span through diet and science...so I die at 69 and you die at 37... question is*how'd we live*

nick.boernerIdk man I think at this point we just gotta keep diverting money to science and conservation efforts. I think that humans can always find a way out of everything if we come together and collectively work to solve a problem. The issue with that is not everyone is gonna want to get behind halting climate change/the end of the world because there’s more money to be made by just keeping our consumerist ways (and not everyone believes it’s happening). As a high schooler it’s stressful to know we’re inheriting a dying world :(

I feel like I have a hard time believing were not gonna just find a way out of it too. Definitely agree, divesting is paramount. But people would rather buy a 4th pair of shoes and a latte and a tank of gas than divest their money- that's just the reality. were selfish and favor our present comfort over future tragedy.

If we are already quite fucked and only continue to increase our carbon footprint each year as we have been doing- I don't see the way out. Unless, we somehow come out with some crazy technology to just patch the atmosphere or some shit like that.

Climate apocalypsism is a religion

Tip: Don’t believe everything you read.

We should be mire worried about china and India’s future carbon footprint if we actually want to reverse the climate crisis. Also many car companies have pledged to go fully electric in the coming years so that’s a step in the right direction.

As much as you blame other countries, the United States is still part of the problem. Lead and the international community will eventually follow.

¨ExxonMobil is the greatest single-use plastic waste polluter in the world, contributing 5.9m tonnes to the global waste mountain, concludes the analysis by the Minderoo Foundation of Australia with partners including Wood Mackenzie, the London School of Economics and Stockholm Environment Institute. The largest chemicals company in the world, Dow, which is based in the US, created 5.5m tonnes of plastic waste, while China’s oil and gas enterprise, Sinopec, created 5.3m tonnes.
Eleven of the companies are based in Asia, four in Europe, three in North America, one in Latin America, and one in the Middle East. Their plastic production is funded by leading banks, chief among which are Barclays, HSBC, Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.¨

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/twenty-firms-produce-55-of-worlds-plastic-waste-report-reveals

We couldn’t even get people to agree on masks, whether the virus was real, whether the vaccines were good.

I seriously doubt we as a species will find the willpower and agreement required to remedy climate change in any meaningful way. We will bake our planet and then find a way to exist in our new reality.

The only hope imo is significant advances in geoengineering or carbon capture to cool this puppy back down, because we have another few decades of warming ahead of us even if we stopped everything today.

My advice is don’t worry too much, enjoy the skiing while you can, and when it vanishes, buy a cheap home in a fancy ski town once property values crash, get a fancy mountain bike to go with it and learn to love that.



Edit: this all assumes there aren’t any terrible feedback loops that lead to economic and agricultural meltdown that significantly change modern life. I am hopeful we’ll adapt somehow in that respect.

**This post was edited on Jan 20th 2022 at 3:21:22pm

MoneyMakerMikeWe should be mire worried about china and India’s future carbon footprint if we actually want to reverse the climate crisis. Also many car companies have pledged to go fully electric in the coming years so that’s a step in the right direction.

A lot of that is due to goods that are created for the western market, created by western owned companies. Specifying tariff rates by how much CO2 a country emits could work.

The thing is they have been saying stuff like the world will end over climate change etc since the 1970s. I remember when we were going to have an apocalypse over peak oil and that never happened. The thing about fear is that its addictive and that addiction is used to make money. In a way, that is why we all ski because we love that adrenaline rush. The same thing goes for blogs, movies etc that shove alarmist views in your face because they know you get hooked on it which gives them more clout views and money. Alex Jones is a prime example of this. It also helps drive other agendas. For instance if you convince people the world will end in 2030 and scare the shit out of everyone unless you follow their XYZ agenda then it is an easier sell because you get people in that fear state of mind.

Here is a good article on it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/12/04/why-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/?sh=2972be7a36d8

Are we going to see different weather patterns and more extreme weather compounded by habitat destruction and poor planning? Yeah we are, the Boulder County fire is a good example of that. Are we all going to die and civilization collapse? Probably not. Should we still work to be more environmentally friendly? Yeah.

Don't look up

STEEZUS_CHRI5TTip: Don’t believe everything you read.

*international coalition of climate scientists writing peer reviewed reports based on collected data from around the world* vs. "I dont think about it therefore it doesn't exist" yea sure bro dont believe everything you read

Yeah, honestly the best thing to do is to make sure we keep funding land trusts and push the government towards switching to better energy sources. I would say its due time to start some peaceful climate protests and get the eco revolution ball rolling. but I'd highly reccoment getting outside and takin in the nature in the mean time, its here so we might as well enjoy it, and fight for it

SuspiciousFishAre we going to see different weather patterns and more extreme weather compounded by habitat destruction and poor planning? Yeah we are, the Boulder County fire is a good example of that. Are we all going to die and civilization collapse? Probably not. Should we still work to be more environmentally friendly? Yeah.

Not being terrified is bad for business though. Vestas, ge, siemens are all selling hell and everyone is tripping over their dicks to pay their tithes and repent their sins with carbon credits. The only people screaming that the end is near are religious zealots, always have been.

yeah, I heard the earth was going to explode and everything on it would be obliterated by the end of the decade too.

Well, this thread is going to be a cluster fuck, so let me add my two cents....

First off, the end of the world is not merely going to come from a warming planet by humans. The planet would still be here. Maybe just not us or wed be wearing oxygen masks like what is displayed in the movie Avatar. A lot of aspects contribute to a warming world. Apart of that comes from economic growth. Graphs over the last several decades have pointed to an increase in emissions when the global economy was not within a recession. We cant merely destroy our economies for the environment as it would ruin our own lives. We wouldnt be able to support ourselves anymore, but there is hope. It may not materialize in our lifetimes, but with technological advance comes decreased emissions. While emissions continue to go up due to population growth, look at something as basic as a car or a plane. Both ranges have been greatly expanded because of innovation. The problem with tackling emissions nowadays is not merely efficiency, but merely an issue of growth and widespread use. China now owns more vehicles than any other country on the planet yet such was not the same in the 80s, but those vehicles now have the benefits of modern innovation to increase ranges and fuel longevity. One issue with the expansive use of electric vehicles as a replaced for fuel dependent transportation is the source of electricity in which those vehicles acquire. Most is produced through coal instead of natural gas or renewable sources. Even natural gas poses drawbacks as one of its main byproducts is methane which is around 10-20 times worse than CO2. A solution to this is innovation towards Nuclear Fusion as opposed to waste prevalent Fission. Another solution is shifting the global economy away from Oil which could take decades, but as the world runs out of oil, how will businesses like exxon mobil and BP survive? Well, one solution to this is the production of bio fuels. While Ethanol in its current state is inefficient compared to gasoline, algae based Oil byproducts have been proven to trump petroleum. So while the use of certain non renewable sources longevity has increased, so has the demand.

In terms of actually solving these issues, the government, instead of taxing businesses, could incentivize innovation towards renewable and clean sources of energy. If businesses like Exxon are teething to survive the next century, this may require them to tap into the electric business and construct electric quick charging stations for electric cars. These stations would also most likely be pay stations where costs are similar to fuel costs, but in the long run, could be made much more affordable. In order to change full power grids, this should be achieved without the issue of rolling blackouts. Rolling blackouts for people without surge protectors could increase more electronic waste than benefits of using clean power. One solution would be to embrace(as mentioned earlier) nuclear fusion as a future source of energy. Just recently, a lab was able to produce more energy than cost from an experimental reaction. The only downside was attempting to maintain the reaction. Fusion comes with an added benefit of no meltdowns and a lower radioactive compound than fission. Fission operates on unstable isotopes because its the power being drawn from explosions(think about the sun going supernova) while fusion operates of a stable superheated source of hydrogen(our sun in current state. not similar to fusion bombs). In terms of the climate protests going on, most are advocated through the use of fear and emotions. Instead, people with notoriety like greta could be advocating for businesses trying to fix apart of the problem as opposed to a government more focused on a countries yearly budget.

To cover more environmental aspects, some temperature models produced could be engraved in falsified date only produced by heat island effects by the growth of cities. Some can be upwards of 2-4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding countryside. A solution to this could be more white or reflective surfaces on the roofs of buildings. This is regarded as albedo and could also help to produce cooler 2nd floors in homes. Darker surfaces produce their own heating effects. Albedo is extremely important in the temperature of the planet as it works to reflect sunlight off of surfaces. The darker, the warmer. brighter, the opposite. So jokingly, you could cover the poles with huge white sheets to reflect more sunlight, but obviously this is habitat intensive. Another thing would be to plant trees in more methodical places as opposed to deserts or fields, but places where trees are being removed like the Amazon. Forests and overgrowth in Siberia are actually contributing the decline of the permafrost. Rates of such melt were higher where there was forest. So, would I support revitalizing Siberia to how it once was as plains and tundra. Actually, yes. Thats the difference between Siberia and northern Canada/Alaska. While the latter still are mainly large fields, Siberia has experienced expansive plant growth. This could also be contributing to the record warmth above the arctic circle as it was in Siberia at over 100 degrees F. Another factor is changing weather patterns. Due to the decline of Arctic ice, which can be contributed to northern hemisphere economic growth(most people live in the North). patterns the the polar vortex's experienced have become more erradic. They havent shrunk much, but where they used to feast on the arctics high albedo rate, now move over to where massive snow fields are or where the least absorbed sunlight is. In recent years, this has been known as Arctic destabilization and it is.

In terms of snowfall rates in recent years, lower elevations have seen a reasonable decrease during the early and late months of the winter, while upper elevations have seen an increase. Another is warmer winter storms which have lead to heavier snow in recent years. While this may contribute to less snowfall(because more moisture per inch), snowpacks have stayed relatively similar to a certain extent and on normal years. There seems to be more and more abnormality in terms of a seasons overall snowfall because this can to some extent, be a contributing factor to a destabilizing Arctic. While we may be living in a world where a lot of issues are happening to global environments, changes are being made. Fast enough or not however is up for question. How we solve it is merely up to the people causing it.

So in conclusion, its complicated, but the world wont end.

I kinda have faith yet dread for my kids’ future at the same time. Take for example TSLA and GME. Totally overvalued, but driven by a bunch of retarded apes willing them to survive and flourish. I put about 1/4 of our equities into green and progressive ETFs and I may add more. I don’t give a f’k about return on investment of those, and because of that similar to TSLA I think it might actual turn out to yield big too once the younger generations start getting their money and doing same.

also I lived the discussion of carbon credits in Economics, but I dont trust governments to bite the corporate hands that feed them. But with centralized and decentralized blockchains with Web3 and the Internet of Things, I think we could see carbon credits actually work in the new framework

We're probably fucked but what can ya do?


Whatever happens, happens.


I'm assuming an economic collapse will likely precede the most drastic effects of climate change. I think that as a species we will likely fall victim to the whole "put a frog in a pot of boiling water" thing.


There are a fuck ton of people experiencing psychosis in the states, but it would be hard for normal people to get on board as well. At the end of the day people care more about affording groceries and the things they want than the slowly ticking time bomb.

Also, the whole "climate change is a hoax for people to make money" thing is hilarious to me. It's expensive. It's risky for the most powerful and wealthiest corporations and governments on earth etc.etc.

It's just another contradictory talking point.

"Climate changing is being pushed to make a bunch of money for the government and evil companies"



"We can't possibly pursue green energy with a heavy hand! You are restricting the rights of the companies I just called evil!"

Balloons make me irrationally mad, that is all.

LonelyAlso, the whole "climate change is a hoax for people to make money" thing is hilarious to me. It's expensive. It's risky for the most powerful and wealthiest corporations and governments on earth etc.etc.

It's just another contradictory talking point.

"Climate changing is being pushed to make a bunch of money for the government and evil companies"



"We can't possibly pursue green energy with a heavy hand! You are restricting the rights of the companies I just called evil!"

I want to be clear here, whether this is aimed at my posts or not-

Climate change is absolutely real. Wind and solar energy is also largely ineffective with current technology and energy demands, the energy density is just too low and inconsistent and transmission losses to remote areas is too high. There is great conflict of interest between what is effective, what is being legislated, and what is sold.

This doesn't mean stop pursuing greener energy supply. It is just essential to consider the emptiness of political promise and a corporation's willingness to profit off of non solutions.

It's a basket case, our only hope now is jesus

CrunnchyPissFart*international coalition of climate scientists writing peer reviewed reports based on collected data from around the world* vs. "I dont think about it therefore it doesn't exist" yea sure bro dont believe everything you read

Lmao, that’s cause the last book he read was probably a “magic treehouse” novel.

Mf sounds like the type to not believe science but instead does his own research on Facebook where the words aren’t as big and scary.

BiffbarfNot being terrified is bad for business though. Vestas, ge, siemens are all selling hell and everyone is tripping over their dicks to pay their tithes and repent their sins with carbon credits. The only people screaming that the end is near are religious zealots, always have been.

Seeing your responses in this thread is mad disappointing Biff, always kinda thought you were smarter than that tbh :/




like y’all we’re living in the apocalypse rn, it started the second we decided to make climate change a partisan issue. Those of you who are still in denial about it now are gonna have a super scary realization in a decade or so.

I’m going to Mars with Papa Elon so IDGAF

BiffbarfI want to be clear here, whether this is aimed at my posts or not-

Climate change is absolutely real. Wind and solar energy is also largely ineffective with current technology and energy demands, the energy density is just too low and inconsistent and transmission losses to remote areas is too high. There is great conflict of interest between what is effective, what is being legislated, and what is sold.

This doesn't mean stop pursuing greener energy supply. It is just essential to consider the emptiness of political promise and a corporation's willingness to profit off of non solutions.

I appreciate the nuance. I'm Genuiley interested-care to go into that conflict of interest part?

LonelyI appreciate the nuance. I'm Genuiley interested-care to go into that conflict of interest part?

Politicians want to address clean energy production or climate change (pick R or D after their name to differentiate) ge, vestas, siemens, etc develop solutions that require incredible investment (wind, solar) government regulatory committees influence energy supply companies to invest, companies do, politicians can say they saved the world and ge/vestas/siemens gets paid.

In a perfect world, this would be where it ends.

But after the investment of hundreds or thousands of wind turbines at 1mil+ each, they are located in remote locations where transmission losses are very high, wind doesn't blow 24/7, and they each produce a very small fraction of what a combined cycle natural gas turbine produce.

Energy supply companies have 2 options to address these shortcomings. They can build more farms, which is very expensive, or they can subsidize intermittent power with simple cycle natural gas turbines that are very, very inneficient. So inneficient to the point where a combined cycle turbine that runs 24/7 is more efficient than wind subsidized w/ simple cycles.

Now we're back to square 1. Carbon emissions still need addressed, politicians still need to save the world, wind turbine companies have the answer. Ge/vestas/siemens get paid. Politicians can say they've saved the world. Carbon emissions remain a problem, the cycle continues.

To re-iterate, climate change is real and green energy production is very important. Just realize how willing political and corperate entities are to sell non-solutions to pacify credulous alarmists.

If you're not willing to have a conversation about detonating a nuclear bomb beneath the yellowstone caldera in order to cool the earth, you're not serious about putting a stop to global warming.

Young_pattyLmao, that’s cause the last book he read was probably a “magic treehouse” novel.

Mf sounds like the type to not believe science but instead does his own research on Facebook where the words aren’t as big and scary.

Seeing your responses in this thread is mad disappointing Biff, always kinda thought you were smarter than that tbh :/




like y’all we’re living in the apocalypse rn, it started the second we decided to make climate change a partisan issue. Those of you who are still in denial about it now are gonna have a super scary realization in a decade or so.

"FuCk YoU My MomS QaNon FaCeBooK GroUp SAid ThAt THe LiBeRaLs aRe WoRkiNg WiTh thE JeWs aNnd ThE MaRtiaNs MaKinG SpaCe LaZerz tO StArT WiLdFiReS aNd WaRm The EarTh tO sElL mOrE CoViD MaSks AnD KeEP JoE BiDEn ALiVe FoRevER tO ImPLEmEnT GLoObaAl CoMmUniSm"

SuspiciousFishThe thing is they have been saying stuff like the world will end over climate change etc since the 1970s. I remember when we were going to have an apocalypse over peak oil and that never happened. The thing about fear is that its addictive and that addiction is used to make money. In a way, that is why we all ski because we love that adrenaline rush. The same thing goes for blogs, movies etc that shove alarmist views in your face because they know you get hooked on it which gives them more clout views and money. Alex Jones is a prime example of this. It also helps drive other agendas. For instance if you convince people the world will end in 2030 and scare the shit out of everyone unless you follow their XYZ agenda then it is an easier sell because you get people in that fear state of mind.

Here is a good article on it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/12/04/why-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/?sh=2972be7a36d8

Are we going to see different weather patterns and more extreme weather compounded by habitat destruction and poor planning? Yeah we are, the Boulder County fire is a good example of that. Are we all going to die and civilization collapse? Probably not. Should we still work to be more environmentally friendly? Yeah.

The word climate change is sort of a misnomer. Climate always changes! I'm not really sure why climatologists and environmentalists use this term. It is too generalized and does not pinpoint the problems causing the warming of the planet, air pollution, and the acidification of regions in the ocean, such as the Great Barrier reef, which is declicing in health at a rapid pace.

Globalization is partly the cause, and while the WEF, a forum for billionaire plutocrats and corporatists, claims the impoverished are significant polluters, all science points to the very rich being the worst polluters with the highest carbon footprint.

Globalisation, in that the 1st world exploits the third world for cheap raw materials such as fire wood, is a driver of deforestation... and forests take in Co2 and produce oxygen. One acre of forest can produce enough oxygen for 18 humans per yer. Forests are filters that are being destroyed by foreign multi-national corporations and Mafiyas subsidised by criminals and corrupt politicians for commercialisation projects.

The "wars for democracy" was just another charade polluting the planet for the benefit of Israel. The military burn pits added to this pollution. You can thank Bill Kristol, David Frum and other neocons, who are now paraded on CNN (once Fox News) as heroes for their bloodlust for war. Plutocrats don't care about violence, poverty or crime. The neoliberal and neoconservative order want open borders for simplified commerce—to speculate and profit. They want a new class of prolific consumers to keep late-stage capitalism afloat. Endless growth for the sake of growth is not only needless but totally incalculable with the environment.

Of course, immigrants, legal or undocumented, are exploited tremendously by multi-national corporations, which treat them as slaves on a plantation. Very poor conditions, very low wages, which is exactly why many large farming corporations hire illegals, because they won't advocate for higher wages. In fact, the demographic change in certain farming towns due to immigration becomes a problem for corporations who want diversified migrants. The uniform ethnic makeup of farmworkers allowed them to band together and file class action lawsuits against criminals such as Jack DeCoster. DeCoster had found that a less diversified workforce as well as bringing in waves of migrants for a temporary amount of time, was a good way to keep wages low.

Clean drinking water... we don't have that for billions of people including many living in the US... the bottled water industry is a big market and polluter. Certainly the bottled water industry doesn't want to curtail clean drinking water issues enough to destroy the bottled water industry, just like they don't want to teach locals to extract essential oils from their terrier which would profit them far more than lumber and livestock and the devastating impact deforestation causes.

CEO of Cornerstone Erika Karp, a Lesbian Jewess progressive and member of the WEF, who loves the ethnostate of Israel, advocates for "social justice," holding 90 trillion in assets! Kofi Annan is a friend and we know from the Panama papers how corrupt these fake philanthropists really are about saving the environment.

All these people care about is resource consolidation, speculation, the erasure of nations for easier commerce, and clandestine in-group nepotism for insider knowledge. They all advocate for 4IR and globalisation 4.0 initiatives which instate the need for human commodity markets and data-farming. For mass movements of cheap, exploited labor/consumer goods in the service of a neoliberal economy... in the service of the WTO's goal to "maximise foreign direct investment and global economic interdependence."

If these people cared about the environment, they'd subsidise organic horticulture and local permaculture! Instead they advocate for everything to be funnelled upwards to the 1%. Politicians don't actually care about the environment and if they do, it is under the vested interest to make someone, somewhere profit.

Take for instance the Green New Deal, while certain aspects of it are good, the primarily goal is to make large corporations profit through impact/value investing. Carbon emissions are considered the greatest problem by carbon billionaires but the solutions are pretty straightforward, curtail the exploitation of immigrants and stop immigration by building up countries under sustainable initiatives so that they can better their citizens and localities. Focus on localised trade and production on a local not globalised (what is the cheapest way to do something) view. Try to curtail commuting too while creating sustainable good paying jobs locally and plant more trees!

Louis Redshaw, former power trader at Enron, self-described progressive, doesn't care about any of this. He cares about carbon capture for profit reasons. See, these fucks only care about money, about trading stock, about making money from money.

Their pretensions are in the realm of abstraction. They don't give a shit about the onerous of things like tax burden (they find loopholes) on the middle class and they simply ignore pollution, deforestation, and environmental degradation.

Look at industrial gas credits for instance. In fact, developers found this so lucrative they created these gasses just to capture and sell them, which was awarded to Chinese and Indian companies straight from utility bills of Europeans which cost a total of 6 billion.

Dan Loeb owns a 52 billion dollar yacht but wants fo control the middle-class through carbon credits.

How about instead of these industrial carbon capture schemes, which make billionaires richer, replant, say, the 350,000 hectares of rainforest lost every year to pesticide ridden soya crop. 1 hectare of forest accounts for 175 cubic tons carbon from the atmosphere each year compared to 56 tons when bioethanol replaces fossil fuel. Destroy 1 hectare of rainforest, release 200 cubic tons of carbon!

And if everything we are told about climate change is true, that it is "our fault" not "their fault," then why do they continue to do the very things that hurt the environment, why do they hold stock in fossil fuels, while proclaiming slogans about "saving the environment?"

90,000 cargo ships to facilitate global trade is totally fine, I guess. 50 million times more pollution is emitted from cargo ships than a car annually. Buy local? Guess not!

Subsidise local organic sustainable initiatives, not big agra! Subsidise for public banks in rural areas so profits go back into community!

Billionaires have made if impossible for a large swath of the middle-class to stay and live in a accordance with the Paris Accord. Why not subsidise bilateral trade agreements for medicinal herbs and natural medicine that can be harvested from the forest of impoverished nations, which reap 2400 per acre as opposed to 60 for cattle and 400 for timber.

After all, the Green New Deal was neologized by Thomas Freidman, whose very first backers were Microsoft, Google, IKEA, Coca-cola, and GM, extensive polluters who use greenwashing and pinkwashing as a way to market their products.

What happened to fusion energy?

Also, 4IR AND 5G is retarded and very bad for the climate and environment. The amount of river diversions to cool down cooling towers for data centers to hold the streamlining of digital data is retarded. If you have a 5G phone you aren't pro-environment.

700billionI just want to hear people's thoughts on the climate crisis. I'm sure most of you are aware of the very grim IPCC report that came out last year saying we are essentially fucked within out lifetime- which really came as no surprise. But what are you guys doing with this information? Anything at all? or just accepting that we are fucked. I mean seriously it seems hopeless imo, America is not going to just suddenly do a full 180 and change out consumerist ways and abandon the car and everything we are used to. so its like what were just gonna slowly burn the place down? I seriously think there's gonna be mass death in first world countries within the century (its already occurring in developing countries). Idk Im just on a meandering rant but curious to hear other people's rants on the topic, or see who denies it... or maybe y'all see a way out?

The human race may be screwed, but the earth will recover.
Do whatever you can.
Who knows, maybe some smart folks can change things.
The climate has always been going through changes, only now the change is off the charts as compared to the prior cycles from millions of years past.
So our way of living has changed things. See above, "Who knows, maybe some smart folks can change things."

The world has been ending since the beginning of time

Water Wars

Poindexter.V2Water Wars

Great time to buy property in the lake states. It's still cheap but won't be for long.

the collective human species is fucked because the elites sold our future to see more numbers in their bank accounts. they will do anything to protect the numbers in their bank account.