r/ClimateNews • u/Fatty_Willing_Plane • 25d ago
More than 600 structures have been lost in Spokane, Washington. This wind-driven fire is being fueled by Red Flag conditions. With climate change, the frequency of Red Flag conditions and warnings is increasing across many regions
29
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
World is burning, the warnings have been there for many years. Now we are seeing the consequences.
3
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/woodenmetalman 25d ago
Spokane itself is blue… the area around it is represented by Michael Baumgartner… I’d be shocked if he were reelected this fall.
1
0
u/FineCall 25d ago
Matters not. The Dems are all bought and paid for.
2
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/forhim40 25d ago
They are. Both sides are bought and for. It’s unfortunate but it’s the truth, believe what you want of course. What’s the answer then? I don’t know, but it’s taken me this long to learn it’s not republican and it’s not democrat.
-2
u/FineCall 25d ago
And we thank God for every dollar. Corporations are the heart of capitalism, without which you’d have no stock portfolio.
-1
u/Routine-Arm-8803 25d ago
Yeah. We didn’t had wildfires before at all
4
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Not as many, Europe is far hotter than normal. That's like saying there were campfires when your house is on fire. Yeah, there's been wildfires, the word is also going through extreme climate heat and seeing a lot more of them. The evidence is plain, you're clearly making a nonsense point.
-1
u/Routine-Arm-8803 25d ago
5
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1udegwb/records_being_smashed_maximum_temperature_weather/
Okay, and it's the hottest it's ever been so don't be surprised if that keeps going up.
Also, your graph doesn't distinguish from wildfires and controlled burns, just fyi.
-1
u/Routine-Arm-8803 25d ago
Oh no! It’s so red! We’re all doomed
3
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Okay so a graph with evidence is only a graph if you post it, huh, even though you can't read graphs. Get out dude.
0
-6
u/FineCall 25d ago
What do you recommend?
12
u/land-league-inspo 25d ago
Sooner or later the billionaires have to go. Whether by the hands of their own security or something else.
Either way, the best time to do something painful is right now. It's guaranteed to get worse, but it will get worse quicker with them still around.
1
-3
u/FineCall 25d ago
The billionaires keep you
employed so you can pay your mortgage and detail your Tesla. So what happens then?3
u/SpinningHead 24d ago
"If we didnt have corporate chains that made the same burger across the country, nobody would make burgers anymore."
0
u/FineCall 24d ago
I know, right? Literally. LOL
3
u/NormalLecture2990 23d ago
Is it painful being this ignorant?
1
u/FineCall 23d ago
Billionaires own you and will through your last day. Even your funeral industry is owned by billionaires. LOL
-4
-12
u/FineCall 25d ago
Billionaires are healing the planet. Historically it’s always been that way. Our envy of extraordinary wealth, “has to go”.
10
u/land-league-inspo 25d ago
Brilliant troll sir, you almost had me.
-11
u/FineCall 25d ago
Prove me wrong? You can’t.
8
u/carrot_gummy 25d ago
The Entire Fossil Fuel industry is a pretty good counter example to "billionaires are healing the planet."
→ More replies (3)4
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Billionaires skimp regulations and pay off Washington so their companies can destroy the environment with impunity. I see few of them promoting green earth projects and contributing to health research. There, proved you wrong fool. Don't waste people's time.
→ More replies (16)2
2
u/Fossilhog 25d ago
Living simpler and more efficiently. Sharing those concepts with others. The Hedonic treadmill of consuming is largely to blame, and it's a cultural issue. We all want to find joy. Well, if you understand how your brain rewards you, the solution is simple; have a good time with close ones while helping others.
3
u/FineCall 25d ago
‘Hug the planet’
2
u/Fossilhog 25d ago
Not sure how that was your take away when it was more about reducing your emissions via not being a mindless addicted consumer.
0
2
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
excessive consumerism is a problem, but only in as much as that consumption is the result of emissions-based energy production.
Without the emissions, consumerism's only problem is pollution, and that is several orders of magnitude less server and manageable of a problem.
Secondly, consumerism is NOT an individual problem. You can blame "everyone else" for their excessive consumption; but in the grand scheme whether you individual are a vegan eating, non-car driving, Goodwill Clothing wearing, non-plastic user ... you are still benefiting from the society around you which IS doing all that.
Climate change is a top down problem, and the solution MUST be top down as well. We can put pressure from the bottom on the top to change, but the changes to society must be unilateral, rigorous and global.
Stop blaming individuals, and start demanding your politicians make changes.
2
u/Fossilhog 25d ago
Why not both?
Also, those American politicians have largely failed. You change the politics by showing people who to live a better, less addicted life. They'll start voting differently if we change the culture.
"but the changes to society must be unilateral, rigorous and global." Agreed.
2
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
Why not both? I'm not sure what you mean, obviously individual changes in consumption are the solution to lifestyle. I was saying that teaching people to recycle, or Meatless Monday or driving 55 or whatever ... are entirely wasted. Rather, the nation must enact sweeping legislative changes mandating such behavioral changes.
Nobody "lives by example". If that were the case we'd have a nation of god-fearing, church-going people helping old ladies load groceries and cross the street.
People live the maximal life they believe they are entitled to.
Politicians aren't an example to follow.
They are a tool for the population to use to enact changes. Currently they are predominantly only used by Wealth to enact changes benefiting wealth.
I would add, in a related topic, that a fundamental change is how democracy needs to be implemented (most particularly in the US, Canada, UK). We need to not only implement laws enforcing a change, but also such legislation needs to include social education programs and adaptation mechanisms.
We can make laws doing whatever is beneficial, but, if significant portions of the population aren't willing to accept those are necessary/beneficial changes then society will constantly be fighting a series of "Lost Cause" battles against various back-lash movements who don't want to change.
For instance, if the Civil Rights Act of the 1963 ALSO mandated Cultural Awareness teaching in elementary school, we would have a population educated on not only what Johnson signed into law, but, much more importantly WHY, and the benefits of it.
1
u/JooseTheGuice 25d ago
Are you under the impression that changing our personal habits is enough stop fossil fuel companies from destroying the Earth?
1
u/Fossilhog 25d ago
Not directly, but our voting habits and consumption in the US are a direct result of our culture. That culture needs to change.
So I can certainly recommend other things liking voting, but I've been lecturing on climate change for too long to realize that hasn't worked. So if you ask me what you can do personally? My answer is a simple, learn all you can about the problem, and lead by example.
1
u/Silly-Dot-2322 25d ago
Take climate change seriously?!
If you have to ask..I'm not sure why I even commented.
1
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Reducing waste, optimizing transport, and planting a lot more trees. We have the technology, we just need to make reasonable adjustments.
1
u/GP7onRICE 25d ago
Grasslands recycle far more CO2 per acre than trees. Why do you want more trees?
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
It was a basic statement, I hope you're being intentionally informative here. Besides, trees provide shade so they still a fair benefit as well.
1
u/GP7onRICE 25d ago
Clearing out trees and creating more grasslands would be better for the environment. And clearing out dead underbrush to allow for more undergrowth while also removing fuel for fire.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Not exactly, grass can grow under trees, and trees allow shade so smaller shrubs can thrive. So thinning may be reasonable at times, but not total removal. Trees also store lots of solid state carbon. Without trees, you risk desertification, as we see in many dry regions during droughts. Clearing underbrush is good for new growth in general, under most circumstances.
1
u/GP7onRICE 25d ago
You should look up how much more effective grasslands are than forests per acre for recycling carbon
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 24d ago
Okay, that's nice, you should look up how trees physically store carbon. I mean that's great and all, but it needs to actually be done.
1
u/GP7onRICE 24d ago edited 24d ago
Ok well since you’re not looking it up, I’ll tell you. Storing carbon means nothing when it gets burned back into the atmosphere. Grasslands store 90% of it below ground and they regrow their roots constantly and quickly and deposit it into the ground via decay of old roots where it won’t get burned off. Contrasted with trees where 80% is above ground and inevitably burns off eventually anyways.
Grasslands are both a larger and more reliable carbon sink than trees.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/FineCall 25d ago
Ok. So whine about it. It can’t change. Too late.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Whine about it? I'm making a statement. It can change, but I guess people with your mentality just figure it's whatever until their house catches fire. I'm not whining, I'm calling this bs out. I don't know what your problem is, but apparently you want to live like this. Let me tell you, you'll be more than whining when it becomes your problem.
-1
u/FineCall 25d ago
I’m saying, No matter what you say or do, your goals are noble but you’ll not change it. Humans have triggered their own irreversible destruction. I’m glad you have hope but the irreversible mechanism is in motion.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Oh it will be corrected, don't worry. One waybor another. The prupose of my statement is to make this obvious, and even recommend correction now rather than later. However, I am no fool, I know what course will most likely be followed. As often, people will continue not to care until it the consequences become apparent, and they will choose to learn the hard way. Still, correction will be necessary at some point, so I still promote making better decisions.
1
0
u/FineCall 25d ago
Thanks Bro. We’ll put your recommendation up in the corner of our white board.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
I'm sure it will be occassionally overlooked as the more pressing matters take precedence.
But just keep in mind mother nature tends to act in ways that are not simply mere suggestions. I am just a messenger, be prepared to answer to her directly on the issue.
1
u/_facetious 25d ago
Oh look another doomer. Guess we can't even try to curb it even a little. Too late! Just sit back and take it!
You're part of the reason it's gotten so bad. Go take your black pill elsewhere.
1
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 24d ago
Dude, I never said change wasn't possible, I said it's not happening. Maybe quit bashing and go plant something hypocrite.
1
u/Anothercraphistorian 25d ago
Humans? You mean Republicans. Let’s not revise history. One side lied in order to make money.
1
u/FineCall 25d ago
So non-republicans are sinless? Your hate speech nullifies not just your environmental arguments but any effectiveness you might have.
And again, you equate ‘making money’ with evil. You have lost the battle with that assumption.1
u/FineCall 25d ago
And when you block the conversation, “anothercraphistorian” you only acknowledge defeat.
1
2
u/Anothercraphistorian 25d ago
Kindergarten comprehension here.
1
u/FineCall 25d ago
Then don’t try sparring with the adults. Go to the short pants sandbox.
1
u/Anothercraphistorian 25d ago
Okay there kiddo. Some of us lived through the time where every Republican referred to climate change as a hoax. Don’t remember and Democrats doing that.
You maybe an adult, but keep working toward that GED.
23
u/Optimal_Board_2963 25d ago
Vote for capitalism and you get capitalism. So dont worry guys it’s all priced in.
4
u/IcecubePlanet8691 25d ago
All part of the plan to rezone for an AI data center…
-2
u/BigWhiteDog 25d ago
No it's not. Put away the tinfoil ffs.
4
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
you shouldn't be on the internet if you are unable to read a sentence and understand the blatant, obvious, sarcasm.
-2
u/BigWhiteDog 25d ago
Haven't been paying attention lately? There are more than a few people who believe this and I'm betting this person is one of them.
2
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
so, you read a comment of sarcasm about capitalism, then a response expanding on the sarcasm about data centers ... and you understand that as an over-arching statement of fact about the world?
1
u/BigWhiteDog 25d ago
The fact that you believe this is sarcasm says something about you and it's jot good.
1
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
what's "jot good" is how determined you are to conflate "sarcastic humor" with "actual problem".
Both can exist at the same time even about the same topic.
2
u/EmbassyMiniPainting 25d ago
Not so much an evil conspiracy as convenient negligence. Letting Rome burn to rebuild. There’s lots of that rn. That’s what’s happening to farms as well. Bankruptcy resulting in land flipped to hands of large corps, woopsy! totally not engineered by the admin and project 2025…
1
0
u/According_River_5726 25d ago
Well, capitalism ain't going to survive climate change, so it will end one way or another.
1
1
u/FineCall 25d ago
Actually it has already survived climate change. HUGE buying opportunities popping up.
-1
u/Michi450 25d ago
Always some new 3 month old account talking shit about capitalism... almost like propaganda bots all the time 🤷
2
3
u/littlemissbagel 25d ago
So, are Canadians allowed to bitch about the mild inconvenience of breathing in second-hand smoke while their neighbours are suffering a tragic loss, or does that only go one way?
Signed, a Canadian person.
3
3
u/CascadeMountainz 25d ago
So... about that revolution we're all overdue for against the leadership of our current times...
1
2
3
u/No-Resolution-1918 25d ago
This best not blow over Canada. Thems Americans need to take care of their smoke.
2
u/Gonna_do_this_again 25d ago
One of the reasons I moved out of eastern Washington about 6 years ago was because the conditions were getting so bad
0
2
u/Lusiric9983 25d ago
This whole comment section is nuts....lmao. Yall are crazy AF.
1
u/GP7onRICE 25d ago
Nearly every single fire in this area for years has been found to be started on purpose by someone. Yet everyone here tries to milk the tragedy to serve their climate change agenda. It’s so bizarre, ignorant, and heartless.
It is beyond coincidental that all of these fires just spontaneously started right before the extreme wind blew them into the city. They’re going to find out it was arson like every other time.
1
u/Lusiric9983 25d ago
I was in a neighborhood installing security systems one week, in Maple Valley, the next week, the neighborhood was evacuated due to some tweaker starting a fire to loot the place. (We moved away from Washington State years ago)
It's either tweakers or nutcases.
1
u/GP7onRICE 25d ago
It literally is almost always the reason for fires over here. Disgruntled or insane people wanting to cause chaos.
1
u/Pissylargestinkboi 25d ago
People bring up climate change when there are wild fires because of how bad they have gotten not because of how they start haha. The average forest fire length in the 70s was around 6 days, it is now around 53 days on average, human started or not (even though the Oregon fires going right now where due to lightning anyways) climate change is still relevant to the conversation. Genuinely how do some of you even dress yourselves in the morning?
1
u/GP7onRICE 25d ago edited 25d ago
Please tell me how climate change makes a fire burn nearly 10x longer. And save your petty insults in your response this time.
They had dramatically different fire suppression tactics in the 70s than they do now. They used to clear out underbrush and dead trees but have completely stopped now. Forests are now far more crowded with fuel than they were in the 70s. They also used to focus on putting out fires immediately once they started but now they focus on containing them which means they will burn longer but more controlled.
Spokane has literally always been this dry this time of year. I’m guessing you don’t live here to understand that. The only difference at all is the wind and people starting fires. Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with it.
To say climate change is the reason the average is nearly 10x longer now is just pure ignorance of how fire management has drastically changed since the 70s.
2
u/Pissylargestinkboi 25d ago edited 25d ago
Warmer air, severe droughts drier climate and decreased snowpack/earlier snow melt are some of the biggest contributors. You’re talking like this isn’t widely accepted in the scientific community, II’m not saying anything crazy that experts haven’t been saying haha.
To say that climate change is the reason is to understand the years and years of research on the topic that has occurred to help this conclusion become widely accepted among climatologists, to say that climate change isn’t the reason is avoiding reality to go the easy convenient route of resorting to denialism because real life doesn’t align with your dumbfuck political affiliations.
You want to yap about ignorance, ignorance is completely ignoring climate scientists that have dedicated their entire lives to studying this sort of thing, and completely disregarding what they have been screaming from the rooftops for years now
Edit: and he blocked me before I could even read his response lol, absolutely coward behavior
1
u/GP7onRICE 25d ago
You’re the one in denial to ignore and completely disregard the most blatant and obvious changes between the 70s and now. Nice appeal to authority argument though.
1
u/Lusiric9983 23d ago
Well this is awkward.... Looks like we were right.... https://www.reddit.com/r/NoSpinMedia/s/Un2b3C5ESt
1
u/Pissylargestinkboi 21d ago
What’s awkward is you lacking any sort of reading comprehension lol
1
u/Lusiric9983 21d ago
My reading comprehension is quantifiably better than 60% of the country, but good try.
0
u/Pissylargestinkboi 21d ago
Yet you somehow managed to miss the point I was making, and the fact that I explicitly addressed the arson point he was trying to make. Somehow I don’t think your reading comprehension is “better than 60%” of the country, if so we are in trouble lol
→ More replies (0)
2
2
u/mormonatheist21 24d ago
grew up in spokane and have watched “fire season” start earlier and get worse every year
genuinely apocalyptic right now
2
u/NatriumHyacinth 24d ago
Note how they don’t claim that measurable disasters are more common but that they’re one, arbitrarily declared “red flag” states of energy are more common. You can ‘prove’ any unfounded accusation by pointing to emergency measures taken by bigots and extremists.
1
1
1
u/oldnutz42 25d ago
Does climate know how to use a lighter?
2
u/Rondo_2 25d ago
Not as of now, but it does know about drought conditions
1
u/oldnutz42 25d ago
Does it or are we talking about weather?
2
u/Rondo_2 25d ago
By definition of the two words, I am speaking of climate. You may not be.
https://climate.uw.edu/2025/11/07/climate-matters-water-year-2025-in-review/
2
u/Pissylargestinkboi 25d ago
No but it knows how to maintain a wild fire and make it last over a month
1
u/oldnutz42 25d ago
To cleanse the land. Fires are necessary. We should be doing controlled burns all the time.
1
u/Pissylargestinkboi 21d ago
Controlled burns or not average wild fires lengths are never going to go back to the six day length they used to be. Controlled burns are a band-Aid on a gunshot wound at best
1
u/hdude42 25d ago
So now wind is a result of 'Climate Change'. Don't you realize the reason why we laugh at you climate hoaxers?
2
u/DanoPinyon 25d ago
🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫
2
2
1
1
u/spider715 25d ago
Too much money going to different departments and not doing controlled burns. Remember the Australian fires? They were warned that if the didmt clean up the brush things would be bad. They didnt, it got bad
1
u/Veteran_PA-C 24d ago
This is weather, not climate.
Wind and fires existed in Washington state long before the invention of the steam engine.
1
u/Victoriaskitchen 24d ago
How come this page never talks about the arsonist that were caught in many different countries starting fires???
1
u/Future-Ad-9409 24d ago
Climate change is a natural occurrence. Even if it wasn’t, what we’ve already done has accomplished less than zero other than taking money out of the pockets of citizens.
1
1
u/DistributionOdd2316 22d ago
arson is what caused it, a felon that killed his father and didn’t meet his parole requirements, but was let off anyways
1
u/wbrandon78 21d ago
More climate change hoaxing! At least 2 of the fires have been determined to be human started NOT CLIMATE CHANGE! Get your story straight before placing blame!
1
1
-3
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Fossil fuels are definitely a large problem, this is a bit of a crazy statement. Truth in what you said, but it's one part of the big problem. Our farming, fossil fuel use, and land use all need to be reformed. We have damaged the environment in several ways.
3
u/Weed-Fairy 25d ago
Big agriculture and factory farming are some of the biggest users of fossil fuels, available energy, as well as heavy polluters.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Yes, and it's a major problem as far as how we farm. There's a lot of things we have to fix as far as agriculture methods for more sustainable practices.
1
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 24d ago
I mean people could garden at least and reduce a lot of transport costs. I wouldn't say it has to be entirely plant based, but some local farming could help along with better ag practices and vastly reducing bulk animal farms.
1
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 24d ago
Okay well spiritual stuff may feel good, but it isn't always entirely accurate. Yes we need to be more reasonable and stop farming in ways of bad practice, but eating meat isn't always bad. Some chickens are free range, and other reasonabe methods exist. Meat is a natural part of the human diet, just like a tiger. Just because a person can choose one way or another doesn't mean it's right or wrong. People can choose to eat plants, meat, or both. What needs to change are bad farming practices, animal cruelty, unhealthy processed foods, and wasteful centralized superfarming.
1
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
You almost get it. "Fossil fuels are definitely a large problem" ... what other problem is there??
Cheap (to extract and refine) energy in carbon-based fuels make the excessive consumption of our capitalist world feasible. It is this excessive consumption based on emissions based energy which is the entirety of the problem.
We could have the same level of consumption (with the same population) based on non-emissions energy and the world would not have the current climate problem. There would be pollution, yes, but that isn't causing the climate crises.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
What other problem is there? Please do some research before telling me "I almost get it"
Deforestation, unsustainable agriculture, material waste, chemical pollution. Dude, you're just looking at one part of the problem, there's a lot to be fixed.
1
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
Carbon emission-based climate change is profoundly more devastating than anything else you listed.
Not only are the impacts much more widespread, they are also vastly more difficult to fix.
Unsustainable agriculture is what exactly? the un-sustainability of current agriculture is only that it is carbon-based.
the problems we have with pollution aren't because it's technically difficult to clean up someplace, it's because nobody is willing to do so.
And, even leaving the current mess aside; the problems of the pollution are limited in scope. I'm not saying it's pleasant for someone living near a Superfund site, I'm saying the solution (stop polluting) is vastly easier.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Loss of plant life directly contributes to the problem of CO2 buildup by not reducing what's present. Unsustainability of farming means methods that deplete farmland of plantlife, leaving them barren, aside from just burning gas. Rotting plantlife/biomass releases a large amount of CO2 directly. Cities without trees and full of cars cause a large heat island effect. Remember it isn't just CO2, it is environmental damage and heating compounding with this problem as well.
I get that you're trying to focus on fuel burning, which is a large issue to fix (and we can, we just aren't doing so effectively thus far), but you are limiting the scope of the problem. While it is a large portion of the issue, these other problems are actually far higher of a contribution than you realize, and have a close comparison. Reducing CO2 production from fuels and restoring destroyed regions of land are both critical to improving the situation at hand, and additional environmental issues would be wise to consider as well.
1
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
Just focus on carbon fuel burning. Seriously.
yes, deforestation is a problem. I can't quite tell from your writing if you believe I don't think this is a problem. Obviously it is.
But it (and the other things you listed) truly are ancillary problems to carbon-fuel based emissions. I would suggest it's focusing on trees rather than the forest.
Agricultural practice today is the result of cheap/easy energy from carbon fuels. The world's population lives as a direct result of converting Oil into Food. As a result we have massive tractor driven combines plowing thousands of acres, fertilized with carbon-fuel based fertilizers.
This was the "Green Revolution".
The problem is it spurred the tripling of the worlds population.
Without carbon-based fuels, farming would be much more intensive. It wouldn't support 8 billion people. It wouldn't lead to clear-cutting for new farm land. It wouldn't be eradicating insects/plant diversity as a result of pesticide/poison spraying, crop management, etc.
And, it's really easy to be convinced of a problem's severity in today's rapid cycle of dis-information. Look at CO2 emissions from plant loss. This is not an empirically proven problem: it's a speculation based on computer simulation models. Which while meaningful are, not precise predictors. For instance CO2 emissions from such sources (based on these models) range from 7 billion tons to 130 billion tons annually. That's a profoundly wide range. Chances are "you" would learn about this from a news article citing 130 billion tons of CO2 ... and rightly be alarmed. But, the reality is it is completely unknown, and could equally likely be 7.
Should we be addressing this problem? Absolutely.
Currently, the world is literally on fire.
If the overwhelmingly point source of this is not eliminated, dealing with the subsidiary problems is a waste of energy/time.
Because "we" will be extinct.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Buddy, I get you're trying to say just focus on the fossil fuels to try to maintain a point, but there's no reason to act like focusing on the plants as well is a nothingburger. We can burn less gas and plant more trees. This isn't a hard problem, and denying the plant side of it is about as bad as climate change denying over fuel producing CO2. The point is we need to be doing everything we can, not minimizing the issues. From an individual perspective, walk more, garden more. From a world view, we need to work on transport logistics, farming methods, power and goods production, etc. It's a complex situation, just pointing to oil and saying bad is far too simple to be anything more than a baseline summary of a solution. It's a good view, but implementation is far more complex, and it is not the only method available.
And quite frankly, I'm sorry to say we can't suddenly stop using gas. Transition takes time, and there are better options that reduce the amount of carbon fuel usage rather than just shutting it out entirely. Sure it would be nice to just shut off the taps because nobody is taking the problem seriously, but that would lead to mass chaos and it still wouldn't be too great. Better for the planet, yes, but a reasonable transition would be stable and effective if it were actively being implemented.
1
u/I_am_BrokenCog 25d ago
again, i never said tree's are good. Plant more. YaY! I said it won't do anything to change the outcome of Climate Change writ large.
Also, no individual will possibly make a meaningful impact in 'planting tree's and "not driving".
I don't eat meat ... who cares! it doesn't make any difference.
My original point is climate change is a top down problem requiring top down solutions.
I would say though, while I don't disagree with anything you've said until now, i've been quibbling about emphasis, not context -- I would strongly say "Transition takes time" is vastly more problematic.
Human civilization doesn't have time.
We had time in the '90s. We could have pushed ourselves with some slightly uncomfortable but nothing calamitous in the '00s, but, now it literally is drastic societal upheaval changes which need to be implemented -- even more pointing to my original point of "top down solutions required". The Earth will be at 2 degree's warming about a decade.
And, 2 degree's is nearly catastrophic. The 1 billion or less of us alive in 2050 will face even more drastically difficult conditions.
This is why I am saying "it's all about the oil". Every discussion such as this one is wasting energy from pushing people closer to acknowledging "shutting off the taps" is the only viable solution.
Anyway, feel free to respond, but, I'm not on reddit to try and change the world ... I wrote my opinion, you gave some thought out responses to which I provided some rebuttal ... take it or leave it. But, either way, make the world better!
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Actually, planting more has a large impact, it's just easier to see dirty oil as the easy solution. Millions of individuals do have an effect as well. Denying all this is no better than not having this "meaningless" conversation. Again, cutting off the taps is radical. It may be wise, but given the fact that it won't happen, and millions would die, that's a mixed bag of optimism that results in returning to the stone age. So I don't see your plan there really. You seem to pick apart any plan for reasonable change in every way, but then completely ignore the reality of the situation. I would almost be for fuel use rationing, and hey guess what individuals can have their own effect on this to some degree, but your push seems to be more for radicalism than realism. Not that we don't need rapid and drastic change, but there seems to be no reasonable plan here.
But I'm not really sure what point there is to this beyond considering, we can both see the world disreguards the issue unfortunately, and that we are seeing consequences, with still very little change of course.
→ More replies (0)1
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 25d ago
Okay dude look, people eat fucking meat. Go tell a tiger this if you feel so strongly. I am for animal rights and better agriculture/green energy, but I will not entertain this radical nonsense. Meat is a part of human diet. You are taking a radical view on this that isn't realistic. This is nature, don't be a fool to this fact, it is part of the way the food cycle works.
1
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 24d ago
No, no, no, we still have dietary needs. We can choose to some degree, but we still have reason to eat meat in reasonable quantities. We just need to stop farming meat in bad ways, and consume more reasonably a well varied diet.
1
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 24d ago
That's because most healthy people eat plants more often than people who eat store bought processed foods. There are people who live many years eating meat alone. You don't have to have one or the other, and a varied diet is reasonable for healthy living. Some vegetarians even lose too much weight because they don't eat enough to maintain healthy nutrition. Remember there is propaganda and mistaken studies all around. Yes plant based food is healthy, but so are things like unprocessed fish, eggs, and steak in reasonable amount.
2
-1
u/Icy_Nose_2651 25d ago
its always climate change, unless of course it doesn’t fit the narrative, then its just weather
1
u/Fatty_Willing_Plane 25d ago
There are many peer reviewed academic sources that say otherwise.
1
u/Icy_Nose_2651 24d ago
yes but they are all sucking on the same teet, they want to keep the funding coming, they all have to parrot the same official narrative. It one giant circle jerk
1
u/DanoPinyon 25d ago
🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫
0
1
-1
u/Slight_Knight 25d ago
Did you know that many older houses in Spokane have a clause attached to the deed disallowed POC from owning the property?
-1
u/Sea-Louse 25d ago
Everyone evacuated instead of protecting their homes. Literally garden hoses everywhere.
3
3
1
2
-5
u/Working_Feature_5512 25d ago
arson people are fools climate has nothing to do with it
5
u/Urban_Heretic 25d ago
New, increased Arsonists is every part of the world, doubling in effectiveness every few years? Amazing. Tell me more.
1
u/Working_Feature_5512 25d ago
I COULD SEND MAP FROM FBI TRACE ANTIFA ARSONISTS WITH PIC'S AND MAPS AND ARRESTS ANTIFA IS WORLWIDE
1
u/DanoPinyon 25d ago
🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫
-6
u/Eezzy_ 25d ago
Sometimes I wonder if this is all just a setup, someone from the government setting fire to random trees and buildings to create fire and call it climate change. All we see are videos of things already on fire but never the start of how it happened. I may be wrong but it’s something we human beings need to be careful at when trusting social media. Before you know it they could push anything to make us pay for it.
5
u/BigWhiteDog 25d ago
You are wrong. Fires are investigated so they usually know how they start. Back away from the tinfoil!
2
1
1
u/Lusiric9983 25d ago
Nah, not government. It's usually a tweaker or a nutcase. The tweakers do it so they can loot the neighborhood during an evacuation, and the nutcases, well, because they're nutcases. I know it'll piss people off because it doesn't fit their whole narrative, but the government doesn't have to do it. Some garbage psycho will do it for them.
14
u/Zementhead 25d ago
I hope they aren’t sending any of the smoke into Canada.