1 point

I do lawn care and I’ve had heat exhaustion/minor heat stroke more times this year than every other year combined. I’m in Canada and I remember when 30 celsius with the humidex was hot. Now it’s getting to nearly 40 fairly consistently.

Honestly, with how crap everything is getting and how many times governments have had to give out various relief funds the past few years, why do we not have a universal basic income yet? At least that way they wouldn’t have to pass a new law every few months to give out a bit of pocket change that doesn’t actually make a difference with how high the cost of living is now.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

Unusually very hot here in the Philippines too but for several days every two weeks it gets cancelled out by the biweekly typhoon.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Just a normal year in the Philippines. 😅

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

Wouldn’t that imply that the federal government needs to do something to prevent similar events in the future? Like actually doing something to reduce CO2 emissions in the US?

permalink
report
reply
28 points

It would activate the FEMA fund and allow for a pool of executive spending for disaster relief, yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Oh you mean, oh no, big oil and legacy auto are struggling with the switch to EV… they need relief money so they can destroy the ecosystem and come up with a 0 emission plan by 2050…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No, I mean that our dear president and his cabinet get to decide to continue with BP’s BS and lose 2024, or prove that he’s tackling climate change earnestly and with all due seriousness over the next 5 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

It’s been over 100°F for two or three weeks here. Of course I live in a redhat reichwing state and people are quick to point out “yeah, it’s always 104° in July” the problem is its been over 100° every day since June. That’s unusual. Or it was unusual.

permalink
report
reply
-11 points
*

Let’s declare summer a federal disaster. But sure, it’s primarily Arizona and Nevada. Two states that shouldn’t exist and already receive more than their fair share of federal aid. Why not add a few more bucks who cares?

permalink
report
reply
6 points

While this is a pretty callous take, I do think it that a mass relocation effort from desert cities primarily reliant on the rerouting of rivers that are beginning to shrink due to climate change (i.e. Colorado River) needs to start being considered. What are they going to do once their water source is completely gone?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think we are on the cusp of some seriously epic population migrations. It’s going to be ugly,the other is going to be in serious danger. Hopefully I’ve checked out before it happens, because I’m pretty much completely lacking in survival skills.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

A vast majority of Nevada (80%) isn’t even owned by the state of Nevada but rather the federal gov’t, so of course a majority of their funds also aren’t state-generated.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 428K

    Comments