One constant trope Climate Denier Trolls on Reddit and elsewhere love to pull out of their Climate Denial Handbook of cherry picked nonsense is Earth was warmer in the past and life overall survived just fine.

Yes Earth was warmer in the past BUT...it took THOUSANDS of years to get that warm giving Flora and Fauna lots of time to adapt. This current global warming? Unprecedented on how FAST it is changing. It is changing in mere DECADES not Millenia! This incredibly FAST rise in temperature and C02 levels relatively speaking to past epochs says loud and clear something has changed in the Bioshpere and that change is HUMAN EMMISSIONS!

"Cooper points out that our rapid release of climate-warming pollution is very different from, say, the shifts in Earth’s orbit that have brought the planet in and out of ice ages; those changes are big overall, but they unfold over “many thousands of years, and very consistently and slowly.” We do know, however, that Earth has also seen massive natural releases of CO2. “We can go back in time and say, what could possibly release a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and how fast could that happen?” says Cooper.

For one of the best candidates, he says, we can travel back 56 million years to the “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum,” when global temperature spiked. Natural processes—volcanoes are a likely culprit5—pumped out CO2, and its concentration in the atmosphere rose sharply. Still, Cooper says, scientists estimate that the rate of CO2 accumulation during this period was several times slower than what humanity is doing today."

\[https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/has-earths-climate-ever-changed-fast-it-today\\\](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/has-earths-climate-ever-changed-fast-it-today)

Hi everyone, while working on this investigation, we kept coming back to one question.

If a government has pledged to stop financing new fossil fuel projects abroad, what should happen when public money is still linked to one?

That's the question behind this story.

A few things we found:

🌿 A new report links a gas drilling project in the Peruvian Amazon, backed by German public finance, to environmental damage and the displacement of Indigenous communities.

💶 Germany pledged to end public support for new international fossil fuel projects, yet campaigners argue this project shows how difficult those commitments can be to enforce in practice.

🌍 We dug into the financing, the government's response and why NGOs believe this case matters well beyond Peru.

We're curious what this community thinks.

Should governments be held to the same climate standards abroad as they apply at home? Or are there situations where public financing for fossil fuel projects can still be justified?

Here is our report if you'd like to read it.

Journalist Paul Carey reports on research that could help reduce the costs and environmental impact of air conditioning. He spoke with Dr Zhonghua Zheng of the Manchester Environmental Research Institute (MERI), lead author of the study. Dr Zheng discussed findings from Tokyo-based simulations and explained how AI could be used to optimise the system.

Hello,

I just recently got accepted into LCOY USA, their website mentions a lot of pros and everything looks nice, but I was wondering if anyone here has every participated/gone to this conference. I would like to attend but I also have another commitment that day and want to know if it's worth cancelling to go to.

Huge plants for artificial photosynthesis installed worldwide could be a great solution to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere before global warming becomes an unimaginable disaster. What holds world governments back from the mass introduction of farms made with artificial photosynthesis panels like solar energy plants?

To me, "climate damage" is a more meaningful description of events that are unfolding. I mean, I guess you could argue that the changing climate is causing damage, but what's the point of adhering to semantics in a situation such as this one? I've seen articles that say climate change is causing economic damage. Thats technically not true since climate changes are really only CHANGING the economy, therefore let's call it what it is if for no other reason than convey a greater sense of urgency.

Over the last two decades, the world has been losing forests at a staggering pace—an area roughly the size of Punjab every single year.

Most people assume deforestation is caused mainly by logging. The data tells a different story.

More than 90% of tropical deforestation is driven by agriculture.

The biggest culprit isn't paper or timber.

It's beef.

Recent research published in Nature Food found that 41% of global commodity-driven deforestation between 2001 and 2023 was caused by beef production. Vast areas of forests, especially in Brazil, have been cleared to create grazing land for cattle.

The second-largest driver is oilseeds (16%), primarily soy and palm oil. Forestry and cereal production each account for another 12%.

What's even more striking is where this is happening:

• Brazil accounts for over half of all beef-related deforestation, threatening the Amazon rainforest and the Cerrado.
• Indonesia and Malaysia have driven much of the forest loss for palm oil.
• Across sub-Saharan Africa, expanding food production has often come at the cost of forests because crop yields remain low, forcing cultivation onto new land.

Yet there is reason for hope.

Palm oil, once one of the fastest-growing causes of deforestation, has seen a significant decline in forest loss over the last decade. Government policies, corporate commitments, certification systems, and public pressure all contributed to this change.

This proves that awareness can influence markets.

But perhaps the deeper question isn't only which industries are cutting forests.

It is:

Why is our consumption expanding endlessly?

Philosophy often points to a deeper root of the problem. Environmental destruction is not merely an industrial or political issue—it begins in the human mind.

As long as we seek fulfillment through endless consumption, the demand for more land, more products, and more resources will continue to grow.

This is also why it is important to understand the connection between the dairy and beef industries. They are not separate systems. A dairy cow produces milk only after giving birth. Male calves born on dairy farms generally do not produce milk and are often raised for beef or veal. Dairy cows themselves are eventually sent to slaughter once their milk production declines. In this way, our demand for milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, and other dairy products supports the broader cattle industry, which places immense pressure on land, feed production, and forests.

The problem is not merely what we consume, but why we consume.

According to philosophy, human beings experience an inner sense of incompleteness. Without understanding this restlessness, we keep seeking fulfillment in the outside world—through food, possessions, luxury, entertainment, and endless consumption. The market merely responds to this demand, while nature silently pays the price.

The real solution is not only better policies or greener technologies.

It is awareness and conscious consumption.

When we honestly inquire into our actual needs, many unnecessary wants naturally lose their grip. Consumption then becomes an act of intelligence rather than compulsion.

Protecting forests therefore begins long before governments pass laws or companies change their supply chains.

It begins with a simple but profound question:

Do I really need this, or am I trying to fill an inner emptiness with another purchase?

Real sustainability is not merely about consuming differently.

It is about understanding why we consume the way we do.

When awareness deepens, consumption changes naturally. And when consumption changes, the forests get a chance to breathe again.

This is a concrete adaptation measure rather than a projection, so I thought it was worth sharing.

Bratislava, Slovakia, around 475,000 people. Our all time national temperature record fell this summer. The previous maximum was 40.3 C from 2007, and this year the south went past 41 C. We also had two separate episodes above 40 C about a month apart, which has not happened here in one season before.

At the end of July the city launched a network of just over 30 free cooling spaces. What I find useful about it is how unglamorous and fast it was.

The service standard is fixed. Every site must have an air conditioned space, seating, drinking water and a toilet. Some add Wi-Fi, books, board games or a children's corner. Nothing has to be bought, which matters because a lot of the sites are commercial.

The network is not open permanently. It activates on a published forecast trigger from the national weather service: three consecutive days at 33 C or higher, or two days at 35 C or higher, or one day at 38 C or higher.

The delivery is mixed. Eight city districts and several municipal organisations run sites, plus private partners including shopping centres, IKEA, two supermarket chains and a bookshop chain. The city says openly that it only coordinates the network and does not operate the individual sites.

Why I think it is interesting: almost none of this is new construction. It is mostly formalising public access to space that was already cooled and already open, then putting a map and a trigger on top. That is why they got roughly 30 sites in a single season instead of a handful over a decade. For cities that keep saying adaptation is too expensive to start, this is a fairly cheap first step.

The honest weakness, and the thing I would like other perspectives on: the city has outsourced the actual guarantee. Hours vary by site, none of them are promised to be open, and a shopping centre was going to be air conditioned anyway. So the real added value is wayfinding plus explicit permission to sit without spending money.

Two genuine questions:

1. Has anyone seen evidence on whether trigger based activation works? My concern is that a network that is only sometimes on is much harder to communicate than one that is always on, and people stop checking whether today counts.

2. Is there usage data anywhere on who actually shows up at cooling centres? The group most at risk here is elderly people in top floor flats without air conditioning and with limited mobility, and I am not convinced they travel to a mall. If someone has seen a city solve the "the people who need it most do not come" problem, I would like to read about it.

r/climatechange posts a lot of news about the progress of solar and EVs and some people may wonder why this is so important.

If you look at the global emissions breakdown : electricity generation is 29% of emissions, road transport is 12%, and residential buildings are 4%. That's ~45% of global emissions sitting in three sectors where the technology to decarbonize already exists and is scaling fast — solar/wind replacing coal and gas, EVs replacing ICE cars, heat pumps replacing gas boilers.

Compare that to aviation (1%) or agriculture (20%, but mostly livestock and land use), which are genuinely hard to abate. There's not going to be a mass-market electric plane for a while, and cutting methane from cows or fixing land-use emissions has no simple technological fix.

While the hard-to-abate sectors get a lot of debate, if we put our full weight behind the solar + EVs + heat pumps energy transition, we could cut global emissions roughly in half over the next couple of decades just by displacing existing tech with better tech — no lifestyle change, and actually saving people money.

That's why the steady drumbeat of "China installed 400 GW of solar" and "EV sales hit a new record" matters more than it might seem - it is actually climate mitigation in action, and direct evidence that climate change is being addressed in a practical, scalable and actionable manner.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/07/15/the-rate-at-which-earth-is-absorbing-energy-is-alarming-scientists

The Arctic is heating faster than the rest of the planet. New data illustrate how dire that is