this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
66 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10902 readers
1011 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Are you guys ready to witness the fall of agriculture? This isnt a hypothetical. We passed the marker that allowed us to halt that eventuality, and not only did we fail to limit future warming, we are doing it faster. If you are under 40, in your lifetime, you will see the modern agricultural sector implode.

There is not a single thing that has been as devastating to the human race as that event will be. Billions, with a B, will die

[–] sik0fewl@piefed.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The 1.5 C marker. Its a VERY complex topic about why that marker is sort of the canary in the mine for agricultural failure, but it boils down to a few very important things that cant sustain past that rough marker; The mid Atlantic current that allows europe to be habitable north of spain, the plains of mid America will transition to arid rather than temperate, and sub saharan Africa will shift to being much, MUCH further south than it is now.

All these put together devastate our ability to grow crops. Unfortunately, I am mostly only familiar with affects on Western society. I am not hopeful that our eastern friends will have any more luck.

[–] sik0fewl@piefed.ca 1 points 55 minutes ago* (last edited 54 minutes ago)

Ok, my impression was that the 1.5 C target was somewhat arbitrary and meant to be an achievable goal to work together to slow global warming.

Edit: I will need to do some more reading

[–] glibg@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't get it. He wrote a book in which he says that "He believes in the reality of human-driven climate change and the risks it poses to life on this planet." (link) so I guess he's making these fossil fuel concessions for the sake of the economy? If he truly understands the risks, what he's doing seems extremely short sighted.

Maybe our economy is so reliant on fossil fuels we can't simply stop building new infrastructure? Maybe he knows that solar & batteries are growing so fast that these pro-fossil fuel deals are like a "last meal" to a dying industry? I don't understand.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago

it's reliant on fossil fuel in that the people who make decisions on it are beholden to monied interest that want to keep it going.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 24 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

We're so fucked. I seriously have no hope for the future. As long as we elect these politicians that prioritize the economy and deny scientific facts,  nothing will change and it's just going to get worst for the most of us. But those billionaires who are influencing our politics to make those kinds of decisions will be well off, so it's none of their concerns 

As soon as we eliminate these billionaires and eliminate the system that allows them to happen, the better off we will be. 

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago

Quick recap: it was a choice between

  • bad
  • worse

We chose bad, to ensure we didn't get worse.

Keep that in mind. We can do better, but we almost did way worse.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 11 points 7 hours ago

It's not even the economy. It's the billionaire economy.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

There is no economic solution to climate change. Factoring in the externalized cost of pollution would make everything unaffordable. Until technologies provide economically viable solutions, the economy is just gonna keep doing what it is currently dependent on to function.

All I hear are excuses. 

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is the correct answer with the caveat that the solution is an economic solution: alternative energy has to be so economically superior that it overrides the legacy lobbies. Which is getting close to being the case everywhere except extremely corrupt systems like the US.

Do you even know how much governments subsidize the oil industry with taxpayer money? If we stopped tomorrow, we'd have the money to fund these green alternatives. But instead we have billionaire welfare leeches telling our governments what to do. 

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 26 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The latest government progress report on Canada’s climate plan shows the country is “significantly off track” to meeting its emissions reduction target for 2030 and 2035, according to the Canadian Climate Institute.

Carney’s environmental policy changes were also unveiled during a year when Canada faced its second-worst wildfire season, second-worst year for ice loss and major heat waves, the severity and frequency of all of which are tied to climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, of which the global oil and gas industry is the largest contributor.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 19 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Don't worry kids! There won't be a 2030 after ww3.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

Oh, thank God!

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 7 hours ago