314
Scientists warn that a crucial ocean current could collapse, altering global weather
(www.latimes.com)
Won’t somebody think about the profits?
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
314 points (97.9% liked)
News
23275 readers
3549 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
exactly what the profits predicted
The profits always know best!
such wise profits
There Is No Business to Be Done on a Dead Planet
I do think about them.... I do not get any... but I think about them. 🤔
tipping point scenarios are very horrifying. And all the global warming deniers will probably be like "but it wasn't because of global warming it was because this ocean current collapsed!"
We told all those fish that if they kept swimming the way they were this would happen.
load more comments
(12 replies)
The gulf stream is weakening and could collapse too. I'm tired of living in interesting times.
Why do you think the ultra rich are building themselves doomsday bunkers? Conflict and disaster are coming.
They believe the science they're asking you to ignore. They also believe they're not planning to stop anything.
Which shows why obsecenely rich people need to be kept at bay. Anyone who builds a doomsday bunker while profiting off the destruction of the climate is a genocidal mass murderer who enjoys killing people.
Living in a doomsday bunker is so much fucking worse than living in a sustainable society, while being just very rich instead of obsecenely rich.
The first one gets shock
The second one gets attention
The third one develops the pattern
Suddenly redistributing wealth is important for our economy and society more than it was before the first.
It’s not just immorality of it, it’s the absolutely fucked logic of it. How many of them have actually thought through the scenario in which they have to actually use their doomsday bunker? How long will their supplies last? How many people they pay to help them would still do so after the value of money drops to nothing? They won’t last long.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Anyone else feeling deflated?
On the bright side, it says in the article they figure there's a 95% chance this will not happen in the next 75 years, and that we don't know enough about the natural variability in the current to draw up any significant conclusions. They said the last time the current shut down was after the last ice age, when a significantly larger amount of freshwater melted into the oceans than is melting today
I've just given up, the world won't change so I just accept that climate disasters will happen and live day to day until disaster hits my area. Definitely not having kids that's for sure.
Oh, don't worry, we will ignore this too... We're all gonna turn this planet into a living hell for ourselves, and as a species, we will completely deserve the consequences.
But not me. I want change. I want to put nature first... This sucks.
we're going to vote/choose ourselves into pockets of extremism and then wipe each other out.
Good article; this news has been making the rounds for quite some time, but this article actually goes into more thorough detail re: what various effects we might see worldwide.
If everyone were allowed to work from home for jobs that don't require physical presence, this would pretty much sort itself out. Also take the train instead of flying.
While I agree that remote work is positive for the climate 1 )I think you overestimate the number of jobs that can be done remotely. 2) Emissions shift from transportation to home climate control, which may be a net positive in most cases but not necessarily.
It is a start but we need bigger policy changes than that for it to "sort itself out"
I also feel this is may be good but could not be, the number you didn’t give is too large, the benefit would be good but might not be, and this simple step should be replaced with large complicated ones.
Transportation already accounts for more carbon emissions than electricity generation. Green Energy is phasing out fossil fuels in most places albeit slowly. Unless you live somewhere with a fairly extreme climate you don't really need to use that much energy on climate control. I live in the Arctic and only run one heater in the whole apartment and only intermittently. AC uses less electricity than heating. The laptop I use uses the same amount of electricity whether I use it at home or the office. And I realise that there are many jobs that can't be done from home but it's ridiculous to not allow office workers to work from home.
Many of my colleagues burn a liter of diesel a day commuting to work. And that's in a place where you don't idle in traffic for an hour. If anyone who had an office job in LA for example just wasn't in traffic, you can bet your ass the air would be cleaner.
And yes you're right about needing wide scale policy changes. One of the big ones would be investing in high speed rail. Way more environmentally friendly than either flying or driving and more comfortable. And for many journeys doesn't actually take longer than flying. When you consider staking a half hour shuttle bus to the airport, waiting a half hour to get through security, hanging around at the gate, waiting for luggage, shuttle bus from the airport at the other end. It's actually quicker to take the train from London to Paris than it is to fly, more environmentally friendly, but still costs more.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›