• @deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Yeah. That’s the sad part. I think most people sort of accidentally think that, without really critically thinking about it.

        The people who will suffer most area already invisible to most others.

        In NZ we’re trying to reduce carbon emissions in farming to the cries of farmers “but you’re killing our jobs” neglecting that they’re indirectly killing actual people.

    • @Urbanfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      In Europe over 60,000 people died in 2022 due to heatwaves.

      People are blind to these deaths because they’re not being taken out by a single devastating event, but rather a series of small events the people brush off as “they were going to die anyway”.

      It’s one of the reasons I’ve not, and will not have children. This is getting exponentially worse and I couldn’t image the horror that our future will face.

      • @deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        … meanwhile we’re compensating people who built $10m houses on cliff tops, who then cut down the trees securing the cliff edge, and are now finding out that cliffs erode, and their houses are failing into the sea.

        … we’re exempting farmers from paying the actual costs of their carbon emissions while they pollute or water ways with reckless abandon. It’s only the poor fuckers down stream who’ll get sick and die.

        … While we still argue if old and sick people should die of COVID so that fashion shops can still hock their tat manufactured halfway around the world and shipped here on ships that burn the shittiest fuel available.

        I have had kids, and lament the world I’m giving to them.

        • @solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          At least with the house on the cliff example it’s the insurance companies paying for it though right? Hopefully their premiums were priced appropriately and the insurer doesn’t raise everyone else’s rates to cover their folly. I’ve no doubt they would if that’s the case, but I presume their actuaries did a decent job computing that risk so who knows.

          • @deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I’m fairly sure, but have no evidence, that the argument is “the council approved these plans therefore it’s the council’s fault my house is falling off the cliff”. Floating over the fact that the council approved a plan where there was 50m of vegetation securing the cliff edge… All of which has mysteriously disappeared over the last 15 years.

            Also apparently caveat emptor is only for poor people.

            • @solstice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              What council? Wouldn’t their insurance be on the hook then? Eventually somewhere an insurer has written a policy for that $10m cliff side house. Per my previous point, hopefully their actuaries accurately priced the risk.

              • @deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Sorry. I lapsed into some specifics of my locale. Didn’t realise I was in world news.

                We have city councils. They are responsible for approving building plan/permits. They tend to be either unless pedantic or grossly negligent.

                There’s been a trend here to blame that council for when a property becomes uninhabitable. E.g. by a cliff face eroding over time, accelerated by actions of the property owner.

    • @scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      That’s the irony. They are probably a lot of the people who contribute the least to climate change. So any misanthropes in here saying “good, this will help” are not only evil but wrong.