this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2026
347 points (99.2% liked)

World News

58629 readers
1795 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Action needed to avoid disastrous overshoot of climate targets, according to organisation’s environment body

The world needs to cut carbon emissions by nearly a fifth in the next four years, and by close to half within a decade, to avoid overshooting climate targets by a disastrous margin.

Although the “window has closed” on holding temperature rises to 1.5C, in line with scientific advice, limiting the “overshoot” of that target is still possible, according to the UN Environment Programme (Unep).

But countries are failing to translate their long-term targets on reducing emissions into short-term actions, a report on the “emissions gap” between climate goals and policies has found.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Maybe. I'm not so sure socialism would really change anything though, on the aggregate in terms of climate collapses.

Socialism isn't by default Eco-friendly / Eco-conscientious. Capitalism tends to have all the benefits from climate destroying stuff go to a capitalist class -- socialism could easily take the form of still pushing climate destroying stuff, but distributing the benefits to the masses. Depending on the scale of the change (which is likely to be massive), diversifying the benefits could result in no human surviving, rather than just a subset of the wealthy.

For a random example to explain the thought, really 'loose' example admittedly. Under socialism, theoretically you'd have a fairer distribution of wealth so that housing would be more equitable -- most people would get a simple starter-type home to live in. Rich person doomsday bunker type homes would be almost unheard of, as no individual would amass so much wealth that they could build em. In the socialist approach, each individual home has a smaller climate footprint, but the volume of homes built could have a similar net impact on the environment in the aggregate. So if it gets so bad that you need a bunker, humanity all dies together, equitably?