this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024

280 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38591 readers

2356 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

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

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

280

Farmers warn of first year without harvest since Second World War (www.telegraph.co.uk)

submitted 5 months ago by kinther@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 133 points 5 months ago (2 children)

To be clelar for anyone just skimming the article... It's UK Farmers.

I guess they could have had more support if they didn't Brexit...

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 88 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you think the UK sometimes sits up late at night with a bottle of whisky and stalks the EU on social media?

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 49 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Pretty embarrassing when they accidentally like a 200 year old post with bikini pics.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

200 year old post with bikini pics.

Bikini? Don't you mean ankle pics?

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Ahh. Those foxy ankle daguerreotypes.

[+] Worx@lemmynsfw.com -27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I wish people would stop going on about Brexit. It was what the people wanted. Literally every single brown """person""" has left the country and we don't have any EU overlords shoving their rules down our throats. Every other aspect of our life bring worse and facing food shortages is a small price to pay

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"what the people wanted"? I'm going to assume you dropped the /s tag since the morning AFTER the vote the biggest Google searches in the UK were "What is the EU?" and "What is Brexit?"

https://www.webfx.com/blog/seo/7-huge-points-google-trends-tells-us-about-brexit/

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I am being sarcastic. We have a brown person as our prime minister, after all

[–] june@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Gotta add that /s fam

[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

No. If a person is that oblivious, it's their fault.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

There are people who actually believe what you had posted, so without additional cues that it's intended as sarcasm (like starting with Hur Dur or ending with /s), it's anyone's guess what you actually meant. In person sarcasm works better because we can easily add physical cues, but on the internet it's best made very obvious imo.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

To be honest this was very obvious at least at the end, when they recognise life is worse. If it wasn't sarcasm they wouldn't admit that.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

A recurring theme with hard brexiteers was that making "short term" sacrifices was worth it for "reclaiming sovereignty", which would magically lead to more prosperity in the "long term". To some, (others) being worse off than before, is a price they'd gladly (let others) pay if it would allow "their team" to score a victory.

In the Usa there's people cheering for Russia, for the downfall of USA democracy and for Trump to be king. These are such extreme standpoints that it's hard to believe that they would be serious, but when you see them on camera, then it's obvious that they are true believers and that they're not being sarcastic. If those people are real, then I can easily imagine some spiteful british person saying unironically that being worse off now, is a sacrifice that they're willing to make for "reclaiming sovereignty". Especially if it's online and they actually live and work in Sint-Petersburg.

In a world where The Onion cannot make up news that is crazier than the actual news, irony is always going to have hard time.

[–] Syntha@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

There are people who actually believe what you had posted

No they don't. No racist person would ever say that "literally every single brown ""person"" has left the country". If you're not neutron star level dense, it's pretty obviously sarcasm.

[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 99 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Mr Stanley said farms were facing “an existential moment” because of the changing climate, which could put many out of business, reducing UK food security.

“The problem that we’re facing is that weather is becoming so extreme that it is overwhelming our ability as farmers to continue to grow crops at all in some places,” he said.

Yes, but let's not lose sight of what's really important, by sacrificing the planet we've successfully prevented a few billionaires from having to sell their yachts.

[–] DrCake@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago (3 children)

While I’m not saying the farmer quote shares this belief but it’s hard to take when there have been so many “farmers protests” about changes to subsidies linked to reducing emissions and planting more trees

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There was a Climate Town video that explains how the US tried to institute strict emissions standards in the mid to late 90s. Exceptions were given to all work trucks because it would make them too expensive for small farms. This led to car companies leaning into that form factor, and now the Yank Tanks are ubiquitous and infecting the rest of the world.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Vehicles over a certain weight can be exempt for a farm vehicle like a suburban. Also the longer the wheelbase the less fuel economy the vehicle has to have, which is why manufacturers are making larger SUVs that can't even pass the moose test.

[–] Maestro@fedia.io 31 points 5 months ago

I think many farmers are being played for fools. They are being astroturfed by big agri businesses run by corporate billionaires.

[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago

Yeah we just had a huge protest here in France, except for a smaller union they all agreed that the pesky ecologists were to blame for their problems. And the government was more than willing to agree with them, better kill our remaining farming land for short term profit than reign in their buddies at Nestlé and Danone.

[–] herrcaptain@lemmy.ca 26 points 5 months ago

I'm with you, but it's not even about having to sell their yachts. These leeches have so much goddamn money that they could lose most of it with no materiel impact to their lifestyle. They just horde it out of a combination of addiction and lust for power.

[+] Wanderer@lemm.ee -32 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

Can you provide evidence that billionaires yachts cause more environmental damage than say average people using their car.

I'd be really interested to to how billionaires are solely responsible for this mess.

Edit: Congratulations everyone. The oil and gas industries do not want individuals to feel responsible for climate change and want them to push the blame elsewhere so everyone keeps consuming. You're doing what they want. This is bang out of the oil and gas playbook.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

First google result. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/jeff-bezos-superyacht-produces-7k-tons-of-carbon-emissions-per-year-report/ar-AA1kvFFn

[–] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That is soooo far from the point that it's not even funny. Nice straw man though

[–] foofy@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You know, I don't disagree with your ultimate point. But if you look through this comment chain you should recognize that the way you chose to make it is:

Needlessly antagonistic, and (therefore)
Not very effective

If you wanted to convince anyone or provoke interesting discussion I think you failed.

In the future, you should just make your argument/statement instead of asking "clever" bad faith questions.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Yes, but let's not lose sight of what's really important, by sacrificing the planet we've successfully prevented a few billionaires from having to sell their yachts.

This "joke" is more damaging than anything I have said and should be called out as such. Corporations directly try to convince people that there is nothing the individual can do to change the environment so they might as well just use as much oil and gas as they like.

It's a direct play out of the oil and gas PR system and people are doing it for free. Billionaires want people to not blame themselves and it's working.

All because people want to absolve themselves of all responsibility.

Billionaires are wasteful. But the damage to the world is coming more from the average person than from the Billionaires.

[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

Shut up, moron.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Yachts, on average, burn 20-50 gallons of fuel an hour.

Super yachts and mega yachts have fuel capacities of 10k-50k gallons and burn 100-500 gallons per hour.

Before I had a PEV, I would run through about 10 gallons a week. I had that car for 10 years, meaning I used less fuel in a decade than a mega yacht does in a day. I traveled around 130k miles on around 5200 gallons of gas and that car had pretty shit MPG of 25.

Cruising speed for yachts varies quite a bit, but assuming a speed of 50 mph means a super yacht gets between 0.5 and 0.1 MPG.

Then there's the private jets, the 30k sq ft houses, and the fact that 80% of emissions can be tracked back to 57 atate-owned or private companies...none of which are owned or run by the poor or working class. All of that is only considering the western world and it's definition of poor, the poorest 100 nations only account for around 3% of total emissions...so yes, its the rich people.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 6 points 5 months ago

This will not attract a female sea lion, you have to find another way to show your mating prowess.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well yeah, that doesn't even require "proper" evidence. The physical structure alone contains more materials than a car.

[+] Wanderer@lemm.ee -7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You think one yacht uses more material than 440,873 peoples cars?

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Of course not, but it's a wildly disproportionate rate of consumption for an individual, which you're well aware of. I agree that the ultra-wealthy are something of a totem when it comes to eco-rhetoric, but the fact is they perfectly represent human overconsumption, and acknowledging this as abhorrent and in need of curbing is the first step towards moderation in general. Also, telling the working classes they need to reduce their carbon footprint while tolerating this behaviour from the ownership class is not a coherent message. The vanishingly small kernel of a point you think you have is not contributing anything to the discussion, and I say this as a committed troll.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Billionaires should absoultely reduce their consumption and I never said anything to disagree with that point.

The issue is people are looking for any and every excuse not to do anything. That is an issue and it's a bigger issue than overconsumption from billionaires.

Corporations directly try to convince people that there is nothing the individual can do to change the environment so they might as well just use as much oil and gas as they like.

It's a direct play out of the oil and gas PR system and people are doing it for free. Billionaires want people to not blame the individual and it's working.

All because people want to absolve themselves of all responsibility.

Billionaires are wasteful. But the damage to the world is coming more from the average person than from the billionaires. Misleading people on that fact is going to to more damage to the environment than anything billionaires do.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your really out of line here. I'm not the average person, but I'll compare with myself. Taylor Swift consumed more than 16000 gallons a month (or more than 70000 litres) for at least the first 7 months of 2022, and that's after selling one of her jets due to public exposure. Compare to me, I work from home and made 3000 kms in 2 years, for an average of 23 litres a month. So she consumed 3000 times more than me. Even if the average person does 10 times my mileage, she would still be 300x the average.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not out if line at all.

People underestimate how few billionaires there are and how many average people there are.

Average people do more damage than billionaires.

Do your calculations but times it by number of average people and number of billionaires. Which is the point I have directly mentioned in each and every post.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

No. First of all there are a lot of billionaires and orders of magnitude more almost-billionaires with the means to do that kind of damage. In second place this is just jets which are used to go straight from a place to another, but yatches are way less efficient and are used to roam freely so overall they pollute much more. And these are only two of the thousand things the rich do that create infinite pollution. But of course let's focus on straws.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 5 months ago

Won't anyone think of the shareholders??

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Blame it on Biden. Oh, wait, it's the UK. So, yeah Republicans will still blame Biden