Uh, you got a source on that 1 in 5 number? Not saying it’s wrong, but that’s a pretty bold claim.
holy fuck
This is why I say it’s good when gas prices rise and become less affordable. Yes, having less access to fuel harms people but it’s hard to believe that harm is more than the harm of burning fossil fuels.
Capitalism burns trough resources too quickly. We should be conserving that oil until we have local food production for everyone
If you’re talking about a total cessation of oil then yeah probably. But I think we could get by on a lot less than we do now, so if it gradually ramped down that would be a clear win for most people.
Actually, do you have links for all, would be really nice to have evidence to back myself up next time I have to speak to a stupid climate change denier.
In hindsight, I should have attached those right away
They found an average decline of 0.045 milligrams per liter per decade, with 78.8% of rivers in the dataset showing signs of deoxygenation.
Wildly different from the given claim. There is nothing in the article that suggest 80% of rivers are currently experiencing hypoxia.
This kind of posting invites doomerism.
I am the
jokergovernment baby
1 in 5 human deaths. If you compare it to total deaths humans cause it is minuscule. We kill 3 trillion animals a year (mostly for pleasure) vs the 4 million human deaths from fossil fuels.
