What, you expected something different than the usual human reactionary model in place? No, no. You will get this stuff when it starts affecting people in a much larger population. When over 50% of the population is inconvenienced at the same time by the same events repeatedly, it will cause a reactionary change that will be equally bad in the opposite direction.
World News
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I’m reading a book atm, Losing Earth, that kind of goes through the history of climate change scientists in the USA as they try to get the country on board with fixing things. Obviously during the Reagan years there was a massive pushback on the progress they were able to gain from the Carter administration, with one exception. When the story of Ozone depletion came out and was directly tied to CFC’s, even conservatives got on board with a CFC ban (as I understand it). But they only got on board this one time, for this one thing. Not for stopping climate change as a whole, obviously.
It makes me wonder if another simple and even more easily visible climate change disaster could spur a similar sort of change in policy. I think, if anything, we would have the increasing summer wildfires in North America (and worldwide) to use in replacement of the Ozone layer story. “Stopping summer wildfires” feels more concrete and “real” than stopping climate change. But I have no idea what, if anything, will convince politicians to act here. Plus, now the issue is infinitely more politicized than it was in the 80s, so who knows if tactics used then will work now. Idk where I’m going with this. Food for thought, I guess.
I'd like to hope, but I won't hold my breath. It's too politicized now and there's no hint on that changing. Tornados, blizzards, heatwaves are all happening now.
Also solving climate change doesn't address other issues like: pollution, biodiversity loss, etc.