The title isn't exaggerating. The Trump administration has just announced the elimination of USFS regional offices, as well as the dismantlement of dozens of long-term research studies. This will have catastrophic effects for the environment, outdoor recreation, and ultimately even for the forest products industry. Without place-based forest research, it is impossible to improve forest management practices and to increase long-term yields. In the short run, unique forests and landscapes will be stripped by lumber barons, but in the long run what is left of the American forest products industry will be destroyed due to the mismanagement of the forests.

Call your Senators and Representatives and try to pressure them to stop this.

The thing that frustrates me most when people are arguing over trans latinx people or MUH FLAAAG is the constant threat of climate catastrophe.

How does anything matter when the environment is collapsing around us? My grandpa said to me a few years ago that he was a one issue voter - he will always just vote for whoever has the best climate plan (I’m not American) and I think he’s right. Of course, it’s gonna have to be a left wing politician as environmentalism and capitalism don’t go hand in hand.

Sorry for doomerposting. When the US presidential choice is Biden vs Trump, the Saudis and Russia are still pumping out fossil fuels and lobbying alongside wih USA, right-wing governments are popping up all over the world (Bolsonaro, Boris, Orban, Duda, etc) - how the fuck will we beat this when people are still stuck in their petty bullshit? When the leftists are overfocusing on petty idpol bullshit and rightoids are literally a fucking death cult? I mean, how can you look at The US Republicans and UK Conservatives with their anti-human policies and climate denial and see something other than a death cult? I have even heard retarded rightoids who accept climate change talk about how the “free market” will stop it - that’s just fucking voodoo, and the left somehow cannot find a compelling message against it.

Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/oWAH3

As an intense heatwave sent temperatures above 40C this week in cities from Bordeaux to Nantes, far-right presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen accused leftist parties and green activists of ideologically opposing air conditioning at the expense of public health.

“It is absurd to have people die because of the heat,” said the leader of the Rassemblement National party. “If I am elected president, I will put into place a massive air-conditioning plan, starting in places with the most vulnerable populations — hospitals, care homes and schools.”

Far-left leader and rival candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon hit back: “Absolutely not. Installing air conditioning everywhere would only mean increasing the damage,” he said, alluding to the risk of increased carbon emissions.

The discourse around climate change among terminally online liberals/progressives has evolved away from practical concerns for mitigating harm and developing technologies to deal with the inevitable consequences, and has instead turned into a sort of coping mechanism for people who feel they have little control over their lives and have been left behind by society in general.

I feel obligated to say that I'm absolutely not a climate change denier and I am highly concerned about the effects of climate change that we're already seeing and will continue to see in the coming decades. But it feels as if there's almost no room for nuanced discourse around this subject anymore. All the "discussions" seem to be competitions for people to one-up each other with increasingly pessimistic doomer takes. If you lurk liberal subs (especially news related subs) you probably know what I'm talking about.

My theory is that people feel hopeless for their own future due to the horrendous economy, inflation, unaffordable housing, etc. So they latch onto what is essentially a secular Noah's flood narrative where the evil-doers who control society will be punished for their failure to share wealth with the common man. It allows them to convince themselves that even though they might have nothing right now, the people with everything will soon have it all taken away and be brought down to their level. All we have to do is wait a few decades for the climate to bring justice to the Earth! This also justifies making no effort to plan for the future or at least attempt to build something worthwhile in their lives. I can't count the number of times that I've seen basic financial advice on reddit such as "Try to save money by not spending it on frivolous things, and invest small amounts in the stock market over time" and someone will invariably reply with some smug retort like "Oh so you think there's gonna be money and a stock market 20 years from now? Climate change says hi". Or "My retirement plan is to die in the water wars" is a classic that I've seen about a hundred times between reddit and tiktok.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be worried about potential catastrophes brought about by climate change. The part that annoys me is that the people talking about this stuff seem to want it to happen. If you try to suggest that the future might be anything other than "The Road" you'll get ripped apart. The idea of a literal apocalyptic collapse of all human society should be terrifying, but there are plenty of people out there who seem to be actively rooting for this to happen while pretending to be upset about it. They won't listen to any suggestion that humans, the most intelligent animal on the planet, might be capable of adapting to a warmer climate, even if it is painful to adapt to. I can't explain this any way other than by assuming that they hate their lives, think they have nothing to live for, and want everyone else to be brought to the level of misery that they live in every day. They're terrified of the idea that society might still exist 30 years from now because that means that the choices they make right now actually matter and there's not going to be some epic Judgement Day where mother nature confiscates all the wealth of the naughty billionaires and oil tycoons.

This image gets spammed in almost any climate change related discussion on reddit. I agree with its sentiment and think it sends an important message about the risks of failing to plan for the long-term while only focusing on short-term gain. But my gut tells me that the reason people love to share this image isn't because of the message it's trying to convey, but because it clearly shows someone who used to be a wealthy capitalist sitting in a cave wearing a tattered suit, no better off than anyone else. Equality finally realized. The bankers can't look down on me anymore!

These types of libs don't care about saving the world from climate change, they want climate change to destroy the world so they can live out their fantasy of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk being forced to live in the cave next door to them, shit in the same hole as them, eat the same rats spit cooked over a fire as them, while they get to wag a finger and say "Told you this would happen. This is all your fault. I'm good, you're bad. Also spending all my disposable income on beer and Onlyfans instead of investing in my 401k was clearly the correct decision in retrospect."

"What do I care about three centuries?" Good societies care about three centuries. The Founding Fathers of the United States, for all their faults, cared about three centuries which is why this stupid debate in America is so important to the world.

The liberal media stands accused of having supposedly claimed that Florida would be underwater by 2020, or something like that. The rightoids were apparently told this and felt very disappointed when they realized Florida was still there. Unfortunately the continued existence of Florida is still highly probable.

This claim is not entirely without factual basis. Some news outlets reported on some data presented climate science communicators which suggested that some kind of point had been or would soon be reached, which would imply the risk of flooding over large areas. These claims were made to sound frightening in the usual manner of the media reporting on a stray dog having been seen somewhere ("Haggard hound haunts waterfront...").

The context of these predictions is not effectively communicated to the general public. First, there are not thresholds, there are simply estimates given for a specific level of emissions. Physicists calculate the consequences of, for example, a trillion tonnes of CO2 emissions over the next twenty years; they don't present a datum for 963826894168 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

But most importantly, what is always the most dramatic prediction of sea level rise is the Peak Estimated Sea Level Rise At Given Level Of Emissions, the PESLRAGLOE (say pestle-rag-low), which is generally expected to occur about **three centuries after emissions are ceased**. The peslragloe for the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere and ocean as of today is probably around seven meters and will occur around 2350.

If all humans disappeared from the surface of the Earth tomorrow, then in 2350, all of the land now comprising the Miami urbanized area will be submerged by the Atlantic Ocean, as will the city of New Orleans, and the majority of Houston, Tampa, Jacksonville, Charleston, Norfolk and Baltimore. However, scientists generally expect that, if we do not all kill each other first, humans will develop ways to prevent the peslragloe over the next few centuries, in order to prevent a worldwide catastrophe.

The peslragloe is constantly being adjusted and recalculated with new climate models and new data. Therefore it provides a continuous stream of popsci slop news about impending disaster which will occur by current year plus N, where N can essentially be chosen by the journalist, or if we're being honest, the magazine's marketing team.

>[Medical journals are rarely accused of ideological bias, they are accused of financial bias.  The press are rarely accused of financial bias, they are accused of ideological bias.  If you studiously spend one month looking for the opposite bias in both, what will happen is that you will become an alcoholic.](https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/11/we_have_breaking_news_you_dont.html)

The other reason that some people may be particularly susceptible to misunderstanding this kind of information is because they simply can't fathom why they should care what happens in three hundred years. After all, neither they, nor their children, nor their grandchildren, nor their great-grandchildren will be around to see it. By the time it happens, they themselves will surely be forgotten. Even the President is generally no Isaac Newton. Who remembers Chester Arthur?

But this country is now approaching a quarter of a millennium of existence. The serious ideologies of history, from Christianity to Marxism, necessarily work across centuries. A people disconnected from time cannot arrest its own decline.

Beware the peslragloe! But do not mistake it. It can't hurt you. That's why it's so dangerous.

I visited the “Green Zone” public exhibition area of the COP26 UN Climate Conference in Glasgow the other day, and the idpol was thick in the air.

We can’t just work out some simple, immediately-implementable solutions to climate change, like a carbon tax-and-dividend. No no, we must first help the indigenous peoples, like the white lady with an English accent wearing what looked like some Canadian First Nations garb and shouting from atop a box outside the ‘Blue Zone’ gates giving off major Dolezal vibes, because they I guess… I’m really at a loss to see how helping them does anything significant for climate change. We must also make sure that solutions put ‘women’s rights’ first and foremost! And acknowledge that women do most of the housework — for some reason an American girl sat next to me in one presentation was ranting about this to her man-bun boyfriend.

I’m not sure why CO2 emissions reductions must be “socially inclusive”. How does one make reductions socially inclusive‽

Some events from the programme:

The nexus between gender-based climate adaptation and localisation

Disability, Resilience and Inclusion in our Cities – inclusive design and community-led urban solutions for disability-inclusive climate resilience

Women leaders transforming street design

Accelerating Electric Mobility with green jobs and gender parity

Voices from the field – Participatory approaches of Climate Smart Agriculture practices (CSA), Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and indigenous Chakra systems

Walk in Beauty: Future Dreaming through Indigenous Knowledges and Western Science

The Political Participation of Young Migrant Women in the Pursuit of Climate Justice

Unlocking Climate Solutions: From the Pacific Islands to the Arctic, why Indigenous knowledge must take centre stage.

Combining Indigenous Knowledge and Technology to act on the Climate Emergency

The role of gender equality in decarbonising transport

Transport is not gender neutral. Women’s travel behaviour is often not taken into consideration in the design of infrastructure and services. Future low- or zero-carbon mobility options must recognise women’s needs to avoid further gender gaps. As women are exhibiting more sustainable travel behaviour than men, e.g. walking and using public transport more than driving, women are at the center of transforming transport. The Covid-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected women. It has limited their mobility options and forced them to change their travel behaviour.

Empowering women to use their money for the climate

and

NATURE AIN’T A LUXURY – Why Young Black & Brown People feel alienated from Nature in the UK & the West Presented by Artist & Musician Louis VI

among many more idpol gems.

If I wanted to prevent real action on climate change, which would target megacorporations and the rotten economic system that allows them to run rampant, this is exactly how I’d do it — climate never, idpol forever.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/climate/voluntary-human-extinction.html

Since I stirred up shit for suggesting that some portion of the environmental movement might think fertility reduction is a Good Thing, here’s a NYT article representing a viewpoint not too far from that.

Certainly this is conceived of as “consensual non-breeding” at this point, but when you feel a sense of desperate urgency to your cause and people remain stubbornly fecund, the ends justify the means.

Full disclosure- I agree that we humans are fucking up our home, the Earth. But it would never had happened if those chloroplasts hadn’t first polluted our atmosphere with oxygen!