[hutzlibu]

"it's about the reality that we might not have a future to offer our children."

But wasn't that always the case?

War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it.

Btw. it seems the war made russia change its stance and some official "scientific" commitee has decided, that climate warming comes simply from radiation inside earth that follows a natural pattern. So no need to not burn coal then. So the hope is, that china who does believe in human made climate change will push them to still reduce CO2 somewhat. Indeed strange times.

[pgeorgi]

> War was always around the corner and nuclear missile threat amplified it.

All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening.

Compare to climate change where people actively try to sabotage stuff like renewables build out (e.g. "In 2019, the state tried to further penalize solar users by implementing a law that levied fines against solar users." [0] which was struck down eventually - but still, people considered that a good enough idea to propose, successfully vote and implement that?!?) to stick it to The Man (or something).

[0] I don't care too much about the specifics, so not naming and shaming anybody, but the source is: https://todayshomeowner.com/solar/guides/states-that-outlaw-...

[hutzlibu]

"All sides showed remarkable restraint in actually following up on the threats. While the possibility of nuclear war was part of the backdrop, at least the impression was made that everybody tries to be as reasonable as possible to prevent it from happening."

Yes, but still all it takes is one crazy guy at the wrong position and time.

I am not ok with that and rather would have all the nukes directed towards the sky against asteroids.

And I am also not ok with producing tanks and artillery instead of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. But it is, what it is. Too many short sighted people in position of power.

[katbyte]

The need to not burn coal goes beyond CO2, the particulates and radiation coal plants put out is terrible for health.

Coal has, and continues, to cause more deaths then nuclear ever has and produces radioactive ash while at it.

[hutzlibu]

I did not debate that, but russia has also a history of not really caring about pollution.

[landemva]

In general, socialist regimes have not cared about the environment. The Stasi records museum in Berlin has a mention of this in the courtyard. Lack of private property leads to government pollution.

[koheripbal]

We were lucky nuclear war didn't happen, and it still might.

I think the risk of nuclear war is higher now, with more nations having more weapons, fewer treaties preventing profession, and an increasingly multipolar power dynamic in international affairs.

[spacephysics]

I highly recommend this video:

https://youtu.be/jG8LJ0QkBo4

I too thought we were closer to nuclear war now. But really with US second strike capability, and the fact that many of the nuclear warhead numbers don’t take into account usable missiles, among other factors, makes me sleep a bit easier at night.

[mikrotikker]

Yea there currently exists a plausible risk of the Taliban taking control of an ailing Pakistan and its 11 nukes.

Thank you Mr Kissenger

[willcipriano]

> But wasn't that always the case?

Nope and it isn't the case now. End of the world cults are a common feature of human societies, pretty much all of them have/had them. My personal guess is that egos are so big that people can't imagine a world after them so it's easier to say the world is going to end.

[flangola7]

Yes but climate disaster isn't a cult. There's the crazy guy who thinks Zeus is going to strike us all down and then there's the oceanographer out there with actual thermometers and log books saying hey this water is getting really damn warm.

Will be the end of life on earth? Not at all. Will it be the total extinction of humans? Probably not. Will it be far more war, starvation, death, and human suffering than we have collectively ever witnessed? Yes.

[hattmall]

There is absolute nothing to suggest catastrophic or even rapid climate change. Yes we can detect human activity that is changing the planet and will have impacts on the climate. Preaching that it will result in any more suffering than the current or a previous state of the world is completely faith based without evidence.

[acdha]

Every credible scientist who studies this says the opposite, that climate change will increase the frequency and magnitude of events impacting millions of people. Yes, things like natural disasters, famines, or wars caused by resource competition aren’t new but we’ve been seeing them intensified for at least a decade and there’s no reason to believe that trend will reverse.

[willcipriano]

Saying humanity will be extinct in X years is completely unsupported by even the most dramatic predictions. If you believe it, you are on equal footing with the people waiting for the four horseman to show up. Teaching that to children will probably be seen as child abuse by the children who are being taught it today.

[flangola7]

Did you even read my comment?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> End of the world cults are a common feature of human societies,

The different tech that can make good on the apocalypse are a relatively recent addition to the equation.

We've had the ability to lay waste to the planet for just a handful of generations.

[willcipriano]

Another feature of human end of the world predictions is its always different this time.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Okay. So make the equation equate. How could humanity make most of the planet uninhabitable 1000 years ago?

[willcipriano]

Lots of reasons, by having sex or praying the wrong way were common. The wrong way being the way some other out group does it. Now we can end the world by doing things like driving the wrong kind of car (but not by flying around the world to "broaden the mind" as in group members like to do that). You can even buy indulgences.

[WarOnPrivacy]

None of those things are responsive to the question: What existed 1000 years ago that humanity could use to make the planet uninhabitable?

If you don't have an answer to the actual question at hand, it's okay to say so.

[Buttons840]

War has indeed always threatened to take away our children's futures. Yet the possibility of peace is ever present.

The difference with climate change is the "peaceful" analog is vanishing. Humanity has always been able to choose peace. But we may soon not be able to choose to live on a healthy planet.

[vondur]

China doesn't care one bit about climate change. China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

[adrianN]

China's CO2/kWh is going down reasonably quickly for a growing economy. They could do a lot better of course (couldn't we all?), but they're not just building coal plants; they're also building renewables and nuclear. "China does X Y-times more than other countries" is a headline that can be recycled for almost every topic. There are 1.4 billion people in China.

[hutzlibu]

I think they do care (they are also number 1 in rollout of most renewables), but they care more for social stability, that they can only sustain with high economic growth.

[helij]

How to reconcile the above article with this[0]?

[0]https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...