I'll say two things that will be controversial. But first, just want to be clear: global warming is real; human caused; and will have negative effects on many parts of the world.
1) We are not heading for "the end of the world". There are lots of projections of what things can go wrong. But the climate changes slowly, we are becoming richer and we'll adapt. Also a lot of what is reported is on "worst case" (or things might get as bad as so-and-so) that are often based on CO2 projections that have almost no chance of coming true.
2) Even if you disagree with #1: we are already on our way to solving the problem. We will still have warming, for sure. But we will likely be at or near the goals we've set for end of century. Tech is improving: we are deploying solar, wind and (suddenly) more nuclear; electric cars; heat pumps; and so on. We will eventually run out of fossil fuels. And, population growth is slowing faster than anyone predicted.
Yes, we should be vigilant and continue to try to reduce CO2 emissions. But the idea that "we're all gonna die!" -- or anything close to it -- is wrong. And it's not supported by the science at all.
I acknowledge your position but it is very blind to the real impact global warming is already having. Yes, we, meaning the decently off in rich countries, will adapt. In other places this is much more difficult - see Bangladesh, Pakistan, various sub-saharan countries.
We will not go extinct, but millions or tens of millions will die from climate change over the coming years and decades (and many have already died), many many more will suffer for it. No, technology will not fix this in the near term.
It's similar to air pollution, which we have many ways of stemming and are estimated to kill 7 Mio per year, much less however in todays rich countries which can invest to reduce it (and still do woefully little as everyone wants a big car). https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2
We're not "all going to die", but "A lot of your coastal historical cities are going be be underwater and parts of your country will become uninhabitable, meaning you and everyone else will need to move elsewhere" is absolutely horrific.
Add that to housing being increasingly out of reach for most people and it's hard to not feel disillusioned. In some sense, you could argue that "Work all your life to be able to buy a house on land that will be destroyed" is worse for morale than the Cold War's version of "We'll probably all just die from nuclear war at some point all at the same time".
I'm generally positive about both climate tech, and climate diplomacy, but don't feel it's right to be so cavalier about the potential downsides.
Like, one of my "climate apocalypse" bingo squares was "Russia starts a war to prolong fossil fuel usage". It currently looks like that will backfire and, on balance, be a positive for sorting out climate change, but we're talking about the "positives" of a war with potentially hundreds of thousands of dead! Where people were gleefully predicting the collapse of Western Europe governments and replacement with right wing populists who would stop any attempts to continue supporting the "climate hoax"!
A war is the kind of thing that can go very wrong, and this is neither the first, nor the last, war that people could attribute to climate change.
As others have pointed out, there are parts of the world where increased mortality is actually a problem. Places that will either experience famine & drought, or where the outside temperatures may exceed habitable / safe ranges. (Thinking of parts of e.g. the Indian subcontinent).
So not only does it suck for those people, but in that context, Political and economic instability is a huge concern. Mass migration is already happening, but it will become more intense. People will try to gravitate to areas perceived as more stable. Border wars have the potential to become more frequent. Concerns about control over fresh water and arable land will be heightened. Demands to exploit currently protected regions (e.g. great lakes watershed) will be made.
We have an entire politico-economic system built on cheap fossil fuel energy. There are whole regimes whose power and control and prosperity is founded on petro-chemical extraction. If/as that collapses, there will be major crisis. We already seeing this.
In the context of raising my children, my wife and I are coming around to the perspective that our number one priority is to build resiliency. Not survival-prepper stuff (though we do have a modest 6 acres of arable land, that's not really the focus), but family resiliency: trying to keep kids local to us, concentrating family assets and committing to taking care of each other, making sure we're in a position where we can pass on a stable living situation (house, property), etc.
That, and emotional/ideological/intellectual resilience: understanding what climate change is, understanding what we can or cannot do about it as individuals and a family, understanding the role of collective action... and trying to avoid fear and anxiety by emphasizing knowledge over the unknown and distress.
The worst case emissions scenarios (RCP 8.5) are not likely to happen because we'll hit economic limits that prevent us from accessing every last drop. We're already past peak conventional oil and dipping into the low EROI tight oil. At some point in the future, there will be plenty of oil left but it will be the bottom of the barrel, too expensive to access at a profit. So even if we technically have enough carbon in the ground to spike CO2 to those levels, economic incentives and availability of alternatives are likely to prevent it long before we get there.
That said, I think we're underestimating the impacts of even low emissions scenarios. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we're locked into a wild ride of feedback loops for the next century or more. A low carbon future doesn't free us from climate impacts. I'm not saying we should give up on mitigation but we certainly can't ignore adaptation - no one is "fixing" climate change without a time machine.
There are two things which have kind of cancelled out in terms of climate predictions: the worst-case CO2 emissions have not occured (mostly because growth became linear instead of exponential), but also a lot of the negative effects of climate change have happened sooner than expected (especially extreme weather events).
The really, really bad scenarios depend either on the CO2 emissions not reaching an inflection point and decreasing (which I think will happen, but how quickly it happens will have a big impact on outcomes), or on some positive feedback mechanism kicking in, of which there are a few potential candidates but a lot of uncertainty for where the thresholds are (predictions range from 'already passed' to 'in the relatively far future'). These should neither be ignored as a possibility nor treated as inevitable.
It might not be 1.5 degrees, or even 2--3 degrees, but the longer the current trajectory holds, the closer we will get to it. That's the tricky thing with climate change, if you sleep on it, it's not that you lose the opportunity -- you just suddenly face the next, even bigger challenge. I don't agree with 2) that we are on our way to solving the problem. If you just look at global emissions trajectories and GHG concentration in the atmosphere, there is no sign of slowing down. Everything we do, we just do on top of business as usual.
Most scientists don't want to be perceived as lunatic alarmists in the public, and most have a sentiment that you should try to convey some hope, and maybe folks also do that to keep their own sanity. The counterargument is that people who panic a bit are more likely to take action, but I don't see a lot of folks taking that stance. But a debate exists on dangerous tipping points that we could realistically run into, and it is lead by knowledgeable and famous people like Johan Rockström. Every opinion in the media though is already thought over for the effect scientists want to achieve, nobody just goes in guns blasting.
Have you looked at the scientific data of the temperatures of the world the last month? Global warming has breached 1.5°C threshold in summer for 1st time. Ocean temperatures this spring have been the hottest ever at this time of year, in records going back 174 years. Even the most dependable net-zero pledges would still lead to close to 2.5C of warming according to recent study. The world must slash emissions by 43% by 2030 in order to hold warming to 1.5C, by one estimate. No single country has actually implemented policies to make it happen.
And how chaotic the climate has already become after just 1.2C of warming over pre-industrial levels! Deadly heatwaves, droughts and wildfires. Storms and floods. Millions of people have died, been displaced or suffer long-term health effects from these disasters. Species are going extinct en masse. This is just a taste of what may come. The science supports that many, many of us will die.
We are effectively shitting in our only home and pretending it won't make things really unpleasant, but instead we'll adapt.
I don't want to adapt to plastic strewn all over the planet, air pollution that chokes us, or warming ocean waters that is having deleterious effects on ecosystems and our food chain.
> But the climate changes slowly, we are becoming richer and we'll adapt.
WE are, sure, as in the people in this comment section having this conversation right now. Billions of people are not included in this "we" and have much grimmer outcomes predicted. Seems nasty to leave that out.
It’s not that we’re all going to die. What has died is the myth of progress- the idea that every generation will have it better than the one before. It’s hard to be forward thinking if you believe that your country is going to be worse off in 50 years than it is now, no matter what you do. I don’t think people really understand the degree to which any country is held together by belief. Progress is our national religion, and it’s dying right in front of us. Some will find scapegoats, some will lash out in anger, some will respond with denial, some will blame generations that came before. But how can you hold a nation together when they no longer believe in its foundational mythos? That’s what is being lost, and you can’t just gaslight us into believing it again as it becomes more and more clear that it’s really dead.
The myth of technological progress may be dead, but the myth of social progress is alive and well. Tearing down the old institutions is the most "progressive" thing you can do.
I'm a father and very concerned about climate change. I talk to my son about greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and their unique role in our economy, and the current impacts to extreme weather. Importantly its all about observations of today's bio-geophysical-economic reality. Not speculation about tomorrow's. Building a solid foundation in the scientific method is far more important than scaring him with worst-case-scenarios.
Don't get me wrong, climate models and predictions of their impacts are important for planning our future. I keep up on the literature but I don't expect an elementary school child to. Until he has the foundation to understand the models and a framework for how to do risk assessment with them, we'll be working on the fundamentals.
Also important to emphasize that climate in not the only issue. There is a "polycrisis" of other environmental, economic, and social problems that threaten our civilization; climate change has to be dealt with (or adapted to) alongside these concerns, not with blinders on.
Schwarznegger recently said it very simple. Think of climate change as just another form of pollution. Pollution is unhealthy.
“I’m on a mission to go and reduce greenhouse gases worldwide,” Schwarzenegger told CBS, “because I’m into having a healthy body and a healthy Earth. That’s what I’m fighting for. And that’s my crusade.”
Unhealthy is a bad thing in plain terms and it is a categorical imperative in complex terms. Therefore pollution is morally bad. [Schwarzenegger the philosopher]
I've never noticed climate scientists having any particular control over the narrative at all. I've only ever seen them being realistic and focusing on solutions when they're trying to communicate.
I don't think the coverage is the climate scientists fault.
Some pop culture context. In the hit TV series "Family Ties" episode "Rain Forests Keep Falling on My Head" from 1989, Jennifer becomes very concerned about the environment, worried that if people don't act, the rain forests would be destroyed, the ozone layer destroyed, and we would live in a long hot endless summer.
Later, she's depressed since it's 1°F hotter than it was in 1956, and doesn't want to go to school, feeling like she's dealing with the end of the world.
That was a fictional portrayal, certainly, but I doubt it was made up whole cloth. If so, the writers were extremely good at predicting how kids would react!
Things are significantly worse now than in 1989 - why wouldn't even more kids be worried?
Right? If I don't tell my hypothetical children that they are facing a significant climate crisis and that most of their lives is going to be governed by the consequences of that crisis, that we caused, should I simply lie to them? Why? Plugging your ears and singing "LALALA" isnt going to make climate change go away. If anything, we should teach them how oil companies were aware of impending doom and chose profit over the planet repeatedly, installing at least some class consciousness in them.
The point that gets overlooked in a lot of these conversations is that while my kids (and grandkids, and their kids…) may not die from climate change, their lives could (and I think will) be altered by it. So for example if you are in an area that is going to be under water (or at least all those underground sewer systems will be…) then what’s it going to cost your coastal city in property taxes to fix the problem? Can’t get your home insured in CA or FL any longer? What’s the cost to you then when a fire or hurricane wipes out your house? Massive investment needed in water systems? - more property tax. I suspect we will reach a point where the kinds of food available in our grocery stores is altered by all of this too. So maybe nobody in rich nations actually “dies” but that doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted in very serious, life-altering ways.
I was reminded of this watching my garden this spring… things didn’t germinate until we had a freak day cool enough so the seeds could pop. Think food is expensive now, see what it’s like when temps rise and we’ve got to develop even more new varieties and growing techniques to accommodate.
Bit of a straw man argument. We should be telling kids not to think twice about buying properties in any zone with high flood risk, high wildfire risk, high hurricane risk, high coastal erosion risk, etc. and that they should expect greater frequencies of extreme weather events (heat waves etc.) and this should be taken into account in their own personal planning for the future.
It's rather like teaching kids why signing onto an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad idea. It just makes them better prepared for the future.
However, the fossil fuel sector and its financiers don't even want to admit there's a problem, as that increases the pressure to stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables, which is probably what motivates articles like this.
> It's rather like teaching kids why signing onto an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad idea.
For most time periods and for the average mortgage holder ARMs are going to be cheaper. Fixed rates mortgages are superior when interest rates are rising and you intend to be in a home long term. So this isn't universally good advice to give people.
More accurately: Stop telling kids they'll die from climate change. They won't. We are first world publication preaching to first world parents. Its the third world kids who will grow up to starve and die.
I think that this narrative (about kids dying from climate change) has likely come out of the responses that attempt to downplay climate change, but also, for what appears to be a hot take on this issue here... I don't think it's bad.
We are an incredibly polarized society, and not even leastwise because we are spread across many different countries. There are so many ways that we are polarized.
I think, that makes climate change the best thing that could be happening in terms of a unifying common evil. While it is human caused, it can be human solved. The fixing of it is something that could unify humanity. And the only thing we really need to do to get there, is to focus on how it is a common evil for all of our children.
My only concern is that I don't actually know if we can unify/fix this in time to save our planet. They seem to think we can. I don't know if I'm that optimistic.
The big change isn't actually one that I need to see from kids. It's one I need to see from the parents of those kids. Cause there is a controlling minority of this country that is throwing caution to the wind as if this is already solved. That's the real danger, to me. I think kids understand that better than pretty much all baby boomers I've talked to about this...
Success in the modern world requires ever increasing cognitive dissonance: You know climate change is coming but have to pretend not to, you know the economy is stacked against you but have to remain hopeful, you know you cannot access the sort of life you want, but have to pretend to like what IS on offer.
Capitalism (as successful as it can be) is built fundamentally around cognitive dissonance. We know for a fact that the universe can't support unbounded exponential growth; one day, there will be no more resources to support that growth. On the other hand, the system requires the optimism that capital invested will produce value at an exponential rate forever. If the people ever became convinced that after tomorrow the growth will stop, the system would collapse overnight.
Telling to children that they will suffer from heat, sea level and ecosystem changing because of we the adults can not believe that the shit is real seems like an honest deal.
And what should I say to my children if I can show them some effects of global warming/heating which are happening today? For example I can farm some fruits which were impossible to farm here 40 years ago.
Sometimes people have nothing fun in their life to look forward to so they obsess about something which they have no control over except their perception that if we all did "X" everything will change. But the funny thing is, most aren't giving up car ownership, most aren't trying to offset their energy consumption in a meaningful way, most aren't commuting sepiku, they're only blaming systems without any personal change.
Leave the kids out of your delusion. It's hard enough to become a well balanced person with everything else going on.
[+] [-] timmg|2 years ago|reply
1) We are not heading for "the end of the world". There are lots of projections of what things can go wrong. But the climate changes slowly, we are becoming richer and we'll adapt. Also a lot of what is reported is on "worst case" (or things might get as bad as so-and-so) that are often based on CO2 projections that have almost no chance of coming true.
2) Even if you disagree with #1: we are already on our way to solving the problem. We will still have warming, for sure. But we will likely be at or near the goals we've set for end of century. Tech is improving: we are deploying solar, wind and (suddenly) more nuclear; electric cars; heat pumps; and so on. We will eventually run out of fossil fuels. And, population growth is slowing faster than anyone predicted.
Yes, we should be vigilant and continue to try to reduce CO2 emissions. But the idea that "we're all gonna die!" -- or anything close to it -- is wrong. And it's not supported by the science at all.
[+] [-] lock-the-spock|2 years ago|reply
We will not go extinct, but millions or tens of millions will die from climate change over the coming years and decades (and many have already died), many many more will suffer for it. No, technology will not fix this in the near term.
It's similar to air pollution, which we have many ways of stemming and are estimated to kill 7 Mio per year, much less however in todays rich countries which can invest to reduce it (and still do woefully little as everyone wants a big car). https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2
[+] [-] disruptiveink|2 years ago|reply
Add that to housing being increasingly out of reach for most people and it's hard to not feel disillusioned. In some sense, you could argue that "Work all your life to be able to buy a house on land that will be destroyed" is worse for morale than the Cold War's version of "We'll probably all just die from nuclear war at some point all at the same time".
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|2 years ago|reply
Like, one of my "climate apocalypse" bingo squares was "Russia starts a war to prolong fossil fuel usage". It currently looks like that will backfire and, on balance, be a positive for sorting out climate change, but we're talking about the "positives" of a war with potentially hundreds of thousands of dead! Where people were gleefully predicting the collapse of Western Europe governments and replacement with right wing populists who would stop any attempts to continue supporting the "climate hoax"!
A war is the kind of thing that can go very wrong, and this is neither the first, nor the last, war that people could attribute to climate change.
[+] [-] cmrdporcupine|2 years ago|reply
So not only does it suck for those people, but in that context, Political and economic instability is a huge concern. Mass migration is already happening, but it will become more intense. People will try to gravitate to areas perceived as more stable. Border wars have the potential to become more frequent. Concerns about control over fresh water and arable land will be heightened. Demands to exploit currently protected regions (e.g. great lakes watershed) will be made.
We have an entire politico-economic system built on cheap fossil fuel energy. There are whole regimes whose power and control and prosperity is founded on petro-chemical extraction. If/as that collapses, there will be major crisis. We already seeing this.
In the context of raising my children, my wife and I are coming around to the perspective that our number one priority is to build resiliency. Not survival-prepper stuff (though we do have a modest 6 acres of arable land, that's not really the focus), but family resiliency: trying to keep kids local to us, concentrating family assets and committing to taking care of each other, making sure we're in a position where we can pass on a stable living situation (house, property), etc.
That, and emotional/ideological/intellectual resilience: understanding what climate change is, understanding what we can or cannot do about it as individuals and a family, understanding the role of collective action... and trying to avoid fear and anxiety by emphasizing knowledge over the unknown and distress.
[+] [-] perrygeo|2 years ago|reply
I agree, with caveats.
The worst case emissions scenarios (RCP 8.5) are not likely to happen because we'll hit economic limits that prevent us from accessing every last drop. We're already past peak conventional oil and dipping into the low EROI tight oil. At some point in the future, there will be plenty of oil left but it will be the bottom of the barrel, too expensive to access at a profit. So even if we technically have enough carbon in the ground to spike CO2 to those levels, economic incentives and availability of alternatives are likely to prevent it long before we get there.
That said, I think we're underestimating the impacts of even low emissions scenarios. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we're locked into a wild ride of feedback loops for the next century or more. A low carbon future doesn't free us from climate impacts. I'm not saying we should give up on mitigation but we certainly can't ignore adaptation - no one is "fixing" climate change without a time machine.
[+] [-] rcxdude|2 years ago|reply
The really, really bad scenarios depend either on the CO2 emissions not reaching an inflection point and decreasing (which I think will happen, but how quickly it happens will have a big impact on outcomes), or on some positive feedback mechanism kicking in, of which there are a few potential candidates but a lot of uncertainty for where the thresholds are (predictions range from 'already passed' to 'in the relatively far future'). These should neither be ignored as a possibility nor treated as inevitable.
[+] [-] juujian|2 years ago|reply
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0
It might not be 1.5 degrees, or even 2--3 degrees, but the longer the current trajectory holds, the closer we will get to it. That's the tricky thing with climate change, if you sleep on it, it's not that you lose the opportunity -- you just suddenly face the next, even bigger challenge. I don't agree with 2) that we are on our way to solving the problem. If you just look at global emissions trajectories and GHG concentration in the atmosphere, there is no sign of slowing down. Everything we do, we just do on top of business as usual.
Most scientists don't want to be perceived as lunatic alarmists in the public, and most have a sentiment that you should try to convey some hope, and maybe folks also do that to keep their own sanity. The counterargument is that people who panic a bit are more likely to take action, but I don't see a lot of folks taking that stance. But a debate exists on dangerous tipping points that we could realistically run into, and it is lead by knowledgeable and famous people like Johan Rockström. Every opinion in the media though is already thought over for the effect scientists want to achieve, nobody just goes in guns blasting.
[+] [-] clydethefrog|2 years ago|reply
And how chaotic the climate has already become after just 1.2C of warming over pre-industrial levels! Deadly heatwaves, droughts and wildfires. Storms and floods. Millions of people have died, been displaced or suffer long-term health effects from these disasters. Species are going extinct en masse. This is just a taste of what may come. The science supports that many, many of us will die.
[+] [-] andsoitis|2 years ago|reply
I don't want to adapt to plastic strewn all over the planet, air pollution that chokes us, or warming ocean waters that is having deleterious effects on ecosystems and our food chain.
[+] [-] giraffe_lady|2 years ago|reply
WE are, sure, as in the people in this comment section having this conversation right now. Billions of people are not included in this "we" and have much grimmer outcomes predicted. Seems nasty to leave that out.
[+] [-] pyrale|2 years ago|reply
...And then it'll simply magically stabilize, and will stop being a problem, right?
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fallingfrog|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbg721|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perrygeo|2 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong, climate models and predictions of their impacts are important for planning our future. I keep up on the literature but I don't expect an elementary school child to. Until he has the foundation to understand the models and a framework for how to do risk assessment with them, we'll be working on the fundamentals.
Also important to emphasize that climate in not the only issue. There is a "polycrisis" of other environmental, economic, and social problems that threaten our civilization; climate change has to be dealt with (or adapted to) alongside these concerns, not with blinders on.
[+] [-] ptsneves|2 years ago|reply
“I’m on a mission to go and reduce greenhouse gases worldwide,” Schwarzenegger told CBS, “because I’m into having a healthy body and a healthy Earth. That’s what I’m fighting for. And that’s my crusade.”
Unhealthy is a bad thing in plain terms and it is a categorical imperative in complex terms. Therefore pollution is morally bad. [Schwarzenegger the philosopher]
[Schwarzenegger the philosopher] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-...
[+] [-] lilboiluvr69|2 years ago|reply
I completely agree with this. I'm also familiar with people I've talked to, and myself at times, falling into doomsday scenarios.
No, we aren't all going to die, not in rich countries st least. It's just going to really, really, suck.
[+] [-] Ardon|2 years ago|reply
I don't think the coverage is the climate scientists fault.
[+] [-] eesmith|2 years ago|reply
Later, she's depressed since it's 1°F hotter than it was in 1956, and doesn't want to go to school, feeling like she's dealing with the end of the world.
The episode is available at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8gyxf5 if you want to verify this yourself.
That was a fictional portrayal, certainly, but I doubt it was made up whole cloth. If so, the writers were extremely good at predicting how kids would react!
Things are significantly worse now than in 1989 - why wouldn't even more kids be worried?
[+] [-] otikik|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themoonisachees|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poulsbohemian|2 years ago|reply
I was reminded of this watching my garden this spring… things didn’t germinate until we had a freak day cool enough so the seeds could pop. Think food is expensive now, see what it’s like when temps rise and we’ve got to develop even more new varieties and growing techniques to accommodate.
[+] [-] Clent|2 years ago|reply
I'm not sure gaslighting them will work.
It's definitely a sign that the children are correct.
[+] [-] photochemsyn|2 years ago|reply
It's rather like teaching kids why signing onto an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad idea. It just makes them better prepared for the future.
However, the fossil fuel sector and its financiers don't even want to admit there's a problem, as that increases the pressure to stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables, which is probably what motivates articles like this.
[+] [-] ch4s3|2 years ago|reply
For most time periods and for the average mortgage holder ARMs are going to be cheaper. Fixed rates mortgages are superior when interest rates are rising and you intend to be in a home long term. So this isn't universally good advice to give people.
[+] [-] lkbm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] selimthegrim|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Workaccount2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrale|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xracy|2 years ago|reply
We are an incredibly polarized society, and not even leastwise because we are spread across many different countries. There are so many ways that we are polarized.
I think, that makes climate change the best thing that could be happening in terms of a unifying common evil. While it is human caused, it can be human solved. The fixing of it is something that could unify humanity. And the only thing we really need to do to get there, is to focus on how it is a common evil for all of our children.
My only concern is that I don't actually know if we can unify/fix this in time to save our planet. They seem to think we can. I don't know if I'm that optimistic.
The big change isn't actually one that I need to see from kids. It's one I need to see from the parents of those kids. Cause there is a controlling minority of this country that is throwing caution to the wind as if this is already solved. That's the real danger, to me. I think kids understand that better than pretty much all baby boomers I've talked to about this...
[+] [-] markwalllberg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LatteLazy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wryoak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InitialLastName|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freediverx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammon|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] scotty79|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eimrine|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giraffe_lady|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter_d_sherman|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eimrine|2 years ago|reply
And what should I say to my children if I can show them some effects of global warming/heating which are happening today? For example I can farm some fruits which were impossible to farm here 40 years ago.
[+] [-] fantasticshower|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metalon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weard_beard|2 years ago|reply
Progress is a process and, like grief, there are no short cuts.
Stop short circuiting acceptance. It’s step 1
[+] [-] pcdoodle|2 years ago|reply
Leave the kids out of your delusion. It's hard enough to become a well balanced person with everything else going on.