Fear often sits behind anxiety, and there’s been growing attention to climate anxiety. We don’t see that climate anxiety is really widespread among populations, but it is higher among younger people. Often it motivates action. What we found was that there is a positive relationship between climate anxiety and taking action to tackle climate change. Fear can be a motivator in the same way that we were just saying about anger.

This could be interesting to be studied more. All too often I hear “we need to stay optimistic to act” and “doomerism leads to inaction” without anything to back that up.

Decades of optimism about climate change have lead to hardly any action.

Personally I believe the average person needs to worry much more than they do now. While more people know about human made climate change now, most of them do so only superficially and very optimistically.

I think we can use “will” or even “is going to” instead of “might” here without problem.

Also, I don’t wanna hear and don’t care anymore what nations pledge. If governments want my attention, they should deliver active plans and changes in the legislative, not hollow promises.

Now, what I don’t understand, maybe somebody can explain this to me: we are currently at 1.2 °C above the baseline. But several sources say that global dimming is currently cooling somewhat between 0.5 and 1 °C. In other words, if we stop all pollution today, we’d quickly face 1.7 to 2.2 °C above the baseline, so at least the 1.5 target would be already technically breached.

Now my question: Is global dimming modelled in any of these scenarios? Because I still see possible pathways just above 1.5. Or are they modelled but the plan is to reduce GHG but not the pollution that causes global dimming? That’s pretty much the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Yes, that could have been written. That there are some people who are readily throw humanity into the biggest crisis for their own profit.

The situation is very dire. There is hardly done anything to improve the situation and there are people who misinform and spread doubt. Scientists and activists get ridiculed and attacked.

That all can be written. I just don’t find the comparison to pre WW2 very matching.

It’s a human decision as it’s humans who can make this decision.

However it’s a decision that only a very small minority of humans can do, most of us have no say in this.

The article compares the years before WW2 to now. How England failed to properly judge the threat from Germany and didn’t get the army ready. As written in an essay by George Orwell. Compared to how we currently fail to realize the threat of climate change.

I don’t know, it doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course there are parallels, like inaction now means bigger problems in future. But that’s pretty much it. I don’t like to compare the climate crisis to war.

Nature isn’t fascist. Earth doesn’t arm up. Yes, disasters get stronger and more common. But this is no war. Nature isn’t expanding and invading neutral countries. We are not fighting and should not fight against our planet, instead we should learn how to live sustainable on it. The climate isn’t the aggressor, it’s simple reacting to our action. Nature doesn’t have ideals nor any agenda, it doesn’t have morality.

And again a very common thing: humanity should not be semantically separated from nature! The two aren’t opposing parties or something, we humans are part of environment, while being dependant on the environment. We can’t save or help environment, when we say so, we merely mean that we don’t harm it.

If we think nature is waging a war against us, we can only lose that war. We need to realize that we are a part of nature and that we harm nature and that we need to stop! We need to do the opposite than fighting, we need to stop destroying!

You mean the Pope who stood up so firmly against sexual abuse in his own house?

Dream on.

No, no, I’ve never said that. I am myself highly worried about many countries going further and further right.

I just thought that maybe there is a either European or international law that prohibits hindering people that help dying people. I’m pretty sure that there used to be a naval code, that sailors must help sailors.

I am not so crazy to think that it would have a high impact, but maybe Europe could threaten cutting financial aid or whatever.

But I see your point. With many countries going racist and with even a European border militia (Frontex), it’s probably only in the interest of Europe to look away.

Imagine a world, where one gets punished for helping dying people.

No need to imagine, we live in that world.

But isn’t there any European legislative that could overrule Italian’s racist government?

Do you have any numbers or studies to support your claim?

I hear that all the time. I am a doomer and long for meaningful action, even if it makes my life harder.

I don’t fly, hardly travel, live very simple without aircon or heating. Don’t eat much meat.

I would love to travel. I enjoy driving, I have a thing for combustion engines. I most times sit out the heat and don’t even turn on the fan. I like the taste of beef, yet never buy it. I do this despite me believing that it doesn’t make much of a difference and it will certainly not save me.

Some rich person will pollute all I save during my life within a few minutes.

For real change, I believe, it must come from politics, not individuals. And forget about company’s responsibility, they clearly don’t care.

I just don’t see this happening. That’s why I believe we won’t make it.

Yet, this realization has only made me restricting myself harder. Before I believed so, I lead a much more polluting way of life. “'Cause someone will figure it out”

I think like this: Knowing everyone must die one day, still in no way it justifies doing bad.

I want to know how climatologists recommend dealing with depression.

Since I read this more often recently: I don’t think the scientists are the right address for that. Scientists expertise is mostly factual, emotionless calculus and number evaluation. Some might deal with the same fears, just hiding them from the public.

Probably a scientist who has also expertise in psychology would do, though.

But ultimately, I think, the fear’s and depression’s origin comes from the knowledge that the way we live makes the situation only worse. So the only way to get rid of that conflict in the mind would be a meaningful change in the way we live. As that doesn’t seem happen, we can only work to deal with the situation.

Singing along to Refused.

“I wanna watch the world burn for what we’ve become”

I’m sorry! It’s just a song, I didn’t mean it literally!

It seems to get more difficult to end an article with optimisms:

But it would be wrong to call what is happening a “climate collapse” […] we still have time to secure a liveable future for many

For many, hm.

Reminded my of another article ending on

Here is where we need to invest and make changes and innovate and not give up. We can’t just write off billions of people.

Article mentioned

If “average” only would mean that the temperature is the same everywhere.

Man, you are so right. The weirdest part is, that your behavior isn’t even socially very accepted.

I, too, love engines. I admire the technology and how genius they are put together. My dream is to own a cruiser motorbike and go drive through the countryside. I don’t think this will happen, as I would hate myself to burn fuel for pleasure.

I own a very old, tiny scooter, that I only use to carry heavy stuff. I used to carry on my shoulders, but mom in law felt sorry for me and gave me her oldest, broken, rusty scooter, that nobody used for months, because she bought a new one again. I repaired it. My wife gets upset, when I don’t drive her around. For example to the market 500 meters down the road to buy a can of soda or so. I only use it for hard work.

People surrounding me think I don’t like progress. No, man, I would love to have a more convenient life! Driving to me is fun, I enjoy it! I just can’t stand myself to do something bad to environment for my pleasure, so I try not to. And people think I’m weird.

I know people like you and me don’t even make a difference. Whatever amount we save and not emit in our whole lifetime - some ignorant wealthy will blow out within 5 minutes.

I’ve been thrown off by “An El Nino cycle is typically 2-7 years long.” But the Wikipedia page really says this.

However, I believe this is meant as the time between El Niño years, not how long a single El Niño pattern sticks.

Looking at history records (NOAA) makes me think so.

If anyone can clarify, please feel free to educate me.

If I understand that correctly, it’s baffling me how blithely some people show their brain farts to the public.

Look up “bureau 39”. They have installed a nice cash flow institute, that goes around the sanctions.

This is just sickening! I’m not sure if I want to vomit or rage.

It’s in the settings > general, for me at least. Both post sorting and comment sorting.

You might need to update, there was an update yesterday or two days ago or so.

Oh yeah, this is definitely hot! Shoot me up there into the endless fediverse! It’s time to discover all those niche galaxies riding a nice vessel!