• Skies5394@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      This issue is that nature is going to start with the people who contribute the least to the issue.

      If only the people contributing the most could actually feel the pressure.

      • AccmRazr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        And those who contribute the least to this issue are also likely the ones who want it fixed the most.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      By resetting earth. I wonder what species will wander the lands and waters in millions of years…

  • uphillbothways@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    This rule is actually “an order of magnitude best estimate”, which means it’s more of a range, somewhere between 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1000 tons of carbon burned.

    That leaves a lot of room for scenarios even more dire than the one outlined here.

    “When climate scientists run their models and then report on them, everybody leans toward being conservative, because no one wants to sound like Doctor Doom,” explains Pierce.

    “We’ve done that here too and it still doesn’t look good.”

    Translation: 10 billion people will die.

    2nd translation: Almost everyone will die.

  • Aidinthel@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are some real disgusting people here. Anyone who thinks that the solution to climate change is to kill a lot of humans should consider going first.

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.

    Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out

    • magnetosphere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yup. The same people who deny science start paying attention once their own money becomes involved.

      In Florida, the issue is rising sea levels. If you look at one of those interactive maps showing the effects of a rising sea level, you’ll notice that all of southern Florida is at risk of major flooding.

      In California, wildfires are the problem. As the atmosphere gets warmer and rainfall becomes unreliable, forests get drier. Fires will become bigger, spread faster, and be even more frequent.

      Neither state will be a profitable place for home insurance companies.

  • magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The people responsible don’t care. They will be perfectly fine letting the rest of us die. They’ll only start giving a shit once cheap labor starts getting hard to come by.

    • DieguiTux8623@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Automation replaces manual works, AI replaces intellectual ones. No need for cheap labor in the short term.

  • Iamdanno@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A billion over a century is only 10 million per year. Does that exceed the birth rate?

  • catreadingabook@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    “… over the next century,” continues the article after the catchy headline.

    Not that people dying is a good thing, but I was kind of hoping they’d be people alive right now. If 1/8th of the world treated climate change like it was personally going to kill them, we might still have a chance of turning things around. (As a bonus, can oil giants really keep their execs safe from 1 in 8 highly motivated people?)

    • Hank@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It kills the poor. Noone care about that, not even the poor as they won’t be informed enough to know what’s going on.

      • mochi@lemdit.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Definitely, because poor people don’t watch the news and can’t read.

    • TheAlbacor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t need to kill them to completely disrupt social order. There’s an estimate out there that there will be up to 1 billion climate refugees by 2050. The Global North already does not handle refugees as well, even though they consistently cause a large amount of the refugee problems.

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s 1 billion less people contributing to climate changes! Seems like a self-correcting problem over a long enough time scale.

    • DingleBoone@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The richest 10% of the world’s population contributes 50% of annual global warming emissions.

      And you better believe those 10% aren’t going to be the ones dying from climate change…