Meanwhile, history shows that periods of instability and crisis can provide fertile ground for rapid, positive change. This is the other side to derailment risk.
The conditions for doom loops also provide opportunities to accelerate virtuous circles. For example, out of the crises of the interwar period and the devastation of the second world war came legal protections for human rights, universal welfare systems and decolonisation. More recently, the first Trump administration spurred new waves of climate activism.
Great positive message.
“When the world is actively murdering us, maybe we’ll finally see some positive change for a few select oppressed groups.”
The world isn’t actively murdering us.
source: IPCC AR6 - https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
You just kinda linked to the IPCC website. Care to expand on what you’re hoping I get from that
I linked the AR6 report since you haven’t read it.
lol okay
So tell me: is this the one scientific paper about the effects of climate change that somehow found the rise in global temperature as we continue to release co2 and methane into the air doesn’t increase the drought conditions, extreme heat, more powerful and deadly storms, loss of crops? Because you being so smart having read this study, it must be something new, right? Not exactly what scientists have been saying for decades? This one study on this subject must be completely groundbreaking and not relaying the information that has been found in all the other studies, correct? I mean, obviously it is, because it’s found that extreme weather events, sea level rise, and a dying planet bringing acidified oceans and untenable land and drought (and the concurrent famine) aren’t the results of our actions…right?
Are you refering to IPCC AR6 as “one scientific paper”?
… and getting upvotes?
I mean. Peak stupidity.
Jeezus. You’re really trying to argue semantics instead of defending your position? You know “AR6” stands for “sixth assessment report,” right? They accumulated a bunch of papers, and made…a report on the findings.
But since you’re clearly so much smarter than everyone and read so much more than us, why don’t you enlighten us all on these brand new findings that you know everything about? Did they or did they not find that human emissions are causing increasingly dangerous conditions? So please, pass your infinite wisdom to us peons. Grace us with your genius! Because you seem to be implying that they didn’t—more than that, you’re straight up claiming that they didn’t. Are you sure you read it?
Honestly, let’s wrap this shit up. I am exhausted.
It’s not too late to start Project Sundial
Blow a hole in the atmosphere, set half the planet on fire, and if anything miraculously survives, nuclear winter’s older sibling will wreck their shit.
“The conversation, were different”
Proceeds to dish out slop for the doom scrollers
The science shows the current predicament and the fact that any “good things” are based on the idea of massive reforms (or even revolutions) occurring. This makes it very easily to estimate how bad the situation is based on what’s not happening.
As the climate chaos gets worse, it’s reasonable to expect more bad news, not less.
It always reasonable to expect bad news from the popular press .
I wish you were correct, but the popular press is usually loaded with optimism, especially techno-optimism.
So this is wrong then ?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10192715/
There is clear evidence that the prevalence of negative media reporting has increased substantially over the past years. There is evidence that this negative reporting adversely affects social interactions, and thereby also health and well-being outcomes. Given the wide reach of negative media reporting and the contagion of such reporting and the resulting interactions, the effects on health are arguably substantial.
deleted by creator
