Yeah, I know. What the fuck am I supposed to do?
post
"humanity’s future in balance" and "humanity’s future hangs in the balance" don't mean the same thing
Scientists to World Leaders:
"How many times we got to teach you this lesson old man?"
Then to be fair we should be backdating the fines for heavy polluters to when it first started, so the UK, Canada and the US pay our fair share of the cost.
Only if we also backdate the fines and extend them to the countries who sell the most petroleum so Saudi Arabia and Russia can help foot the bill :)
We could also buy a unicorn for everyone on earth since we are giving examples of things that will never happen
governments: We got you, King!
raises taxes on ICE drivers
"Balance" HA! You're late to picture. It's easily too late 2030 Has been my call for over a decade now. Everyone says I'm crazy. I know you're ignorant. You think this is an accident. This is conducted intentionally by folks and you can't see what is obvious because they won't STFU about everything else. You're a sucker for believing fucking anything. Don't believe me. Figure it out for yourself. Stop believing anything. It's fucking obvious when you discard the flash of the neon sign.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/08/earths-vital-signs-show-humanitys-future-in-balance-say-climate-experts
CO2 increase causes an increase in crop yield.
You know what doesn't increase crop yield? Heat stress.
You know what else doesn't increase crop yield? Droughts along with that heat stress.
The garden I put out didn't do anything this year because it was just so hot and dry for so long.
Nor does cold stress. Why again do we only grow crops in the summer?
Not without water
Good thing higher temperatures mean more water in the atmosphere then.
CO2 also lowers nutrient density despite increasing total size and weight of crops, meaning you have fewer nutrients per calorie and per pound. Even if you could spin this into a positive, all crops have the same vulnerabilities to heat stress, drought, and unpredictable seasons, all of which are increased by excess CO2.
Even with crispr changing the timeline to create new crops that might handle the new climate every year to be incredibly short, theres not enough time to produce and distribute those new versions before the climate has changed enough to require yet newer versions of said crops.
But good news, bugs and algae will be plentiful. hope you like algae bars with insect protein bars as a snack.
Well, so many people complain about starvation that I just figured there’d be some celebration of our increase in caloric yields per acre.
Yes, we do need other fertilizers to get more nutrients into the food, but it doesn’t hurt to have more basic carbohydrates available.
If you eat just rabbits, nothing else, just lean rabbit meat you will starve to death
It doesn't matter if you eat 2000 or 10000 kcal of rabbit, if you don't get more nutritious food, you will die of starvation and your body will waste away.
More calories by itself isn't a good thing.
You know when we first started seeing growing populations and development of agriculture? When the climate started an exceptionally long stable period. Guess what's going put of the window now? Planting for draught because that's the "new normal" won't get you far if the next year happens to be the wettest on record. Let alone that stronger storms than ever seen before aren't exactly great for harvests either. And that's just agriculture. Climate related disasters can wipe out key infrastructure, with unexpected consequences down the line (e.g. no car production because of a certain specific part of almost all cars comes from that one specific place). And then there's the refugee problem on top of all that.
all 39 comments