I'm not sure if Clarkson's farm has much of a following outside of the UK. Last year they had several crops fail due to the drought over summer and honestly this year was far worse. I believe he may not have even bothered planting the normal cash crops, so it will be interesting to see how that works out. That said, the year before I think it was so wet early in the year that farmers really struggled to get crops in the ground.

In areas like Valencia there are ancient irrigation systems and water rights controlled by water councils older than many countries. I wonder if the UK will need to do similar, irrigation ponds, flood control structures and canals to control the flow of water through the landscape.

California was also in a super drought at that time

Underground cisterns are generally the way to do it and even the Romans were building them

Meh, almost nobody will want to live in most of Europe post AMOC collapse in 20-40 yrs

[dead]

I’ve had it explained to me that it evaporates in the heat and gets deposited in the mountains and the atmosphere above the more northern states, where .. once things cool down, it condenses and moves through tributaries in a big rush or two during the massive temperature changes of October/November.

The thunder storms we’ve had in Vienna in the last few years have produced amazing floods - reminiscent of the desert storms of Australias north-west, where I am from - and a couple years back, the engineering of Viennas water ways was put to the test, with the floods overflowing railway lines and traffic arteries of the city in ways not seen much before this decade...

Finland has escaped most of the heat of Central Europe. We have had hard rains occasionally, but overall not that much more rain. From stats look like 100-150% of historic numbers.

So it has really not rained outside the high pressure zone. So I am not really sure where it all would be.

Drought in The Netherlands is artificial though. Millionaire farmers are pumping up water to water their crops during the day. Due to the heat most of the spray evaporates before it touches the plants. During the winter they artificially lower the ground water level for personal benefit.

Also of this so they can gain even more millions by exporting all the food across the border. Time to block some more highways, destroy some more property and kill some more people in order to secure those sweet EU subsidies.

I can’t imagine what the Netherlands would look like if desertification would occur. It seems implausible that those flat, flat lands would ever turn brown and grey and dusty - but I won’t be surprised if things turn that way in a few years. I hope the Dutch have a solution, they always seem to when it comes to water control ..

As an European, no, current situation is unprecedented.

It was getting bad already, but like this? Absurd.

Hungary was largely swamps and marshlands in the past, much of which was drained to give way for large-field monocultural agriculture, this started in the 19th century, and was further developed, until we got here. Now the "non-existent climate change" is added to that, and I wonder if our forests will survive me...

Also soil erosion is a problem, so I think I'll live to get it all to a desert.

Sure, it gets dry in summer, it’s not always so lush - at least in my experience over the years.

But, parks of dead grass, and dust devils blowing in the corners? Can’t say I’ve seen that much over the decades of visiting the region. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much dry, dead grass.

I, for one, am very grateful for my neighborhood turning the streets into cooler, greener little oases for pedestrians. Perhaps those eucalyptus trees the Schönbrunner Zoo keeps for its koalas will be of use in providing avenues of shade in the decades to come, who knows …

In Europe, we're already degrowing since 2008, even more so if you only look at the real, physical economy because we have to import our fossil energy. We won't be able to power the same lifestyle with nuclear and renewables either, the math doesn't add up. Jean-Marc Jancovici is a french engineer explaining this in great detail, see for example https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/84-jean-marc-... if you don't speak french.

Successful massive nuclear and renewable deployment at world scale, would it have happened, would have only solved one third of the problem. Agriculture, construction and all carbon-emitting industry processses (steel production) require their own solution too.

Many of the "luddite" groups were funded, and in some cases entirely formed, by fossil fuel interests.

I don't buy it.

Climate change is related to our consumptions, period, focusing only on energy or transport doesn't tackle the whole problem: we consume too much, eat too much (cattle and fish in particular) and destroy too much in our quest for more and more.

Inefficient transport or energy is just one aspect of the whole problem.

But I'm tired of hearing how it is just a matter of energy or transport, it's literally missing the forest for a tree, even if it might be a particularly big one.

I think it is extremely simplistic to blame the nuclear transition's failed potential solely on them.

1. The fact that nuclear power has been quite safe so far does not mean that it would have been just as safe if its deployment would have rapidly spread.

2. Nuclear energy is unfortunately tightly coupled with nuclear weapons, as well as the treaties and geopolitics that were designed to keep them only in the hands of the few. Quite many late 1900s crises in Europe could have looked different if nuclear material was even more widespread than it was. I don't even wanna think about nations outside Europe that have been extremely unstable in the past and in recent history.

3. Seeing how intensely fossil fuel companies spread misinformation and disinformation about green technology and climate science, it's hardly a far-fetched idea that that same industry had a hand in helping policymakers steer away from an energy source that would unseat it from the throne.

> Who cares if a small burger pollutes more than commuting with a SUV.

Can you give some references basing that?

I would like to educate myself a bit (I'm a vegetarian myself)

I think it often gets overlooked that effective carbon taxing would tax you right out of pretty much all modern convenience. Which would be the point, but people would fuckin revolt if it actually happened. Parent is complaining about 0.00000000001% of the damage done over the last 100 years.

I don't know, the last few years have taught me that humans have exceedingly short memories

We'll see whether the heatwaves and drought have been forgotten or not in May...

We’ve engineered so that rain water goes into rivers and out to sea.

Whereas we really need to slow it down so that it permeates the ground

Yeah they still have restrictions in my area but I don't know how to find out the real situation. I am close to the Seine and I've seen it quite high the other day, but that's probably not a good indication of the general state.

Agreed that would help, but even if everyone were to eat, say, half the amount of meat they would normally eat that would be huge.

No....because it would make no difference.

https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=dAqbVb9JV_uzLRl1

Non-issue

How do you do that without completely messing up the supply chains that keep us fed and alive for the next 6 months? The wealthiest people (who also happen to be ones that are a bit more sheltered from the climatic crisis) will still be able to afford food. Billions of poor people would just starve without petrochemical fertilizers and the diesel required for industrial farming and transportation of food. We could've had a smooth transition a few decades ago. Now it's super late and the choice is short term catastrophe vs long term catastrophe. Do you know how much fossil fuels it takes to build and maintain a wind farm or an electric truck? How much petroleum coke is burnt making the cement to build the towers that make walkable cities possible?

The alternative to fossil fuels and the climate crisis is basically an incredibly deadly and uncomfortable step out of the industrialized world. No one is making that decision. It's a fancy trolley problem where the amount of people on the tracks has 10 figures on both sides and blurry timelines.

Just the increase of gas prices due to the iran war is going to cause some fucked up harvests in africa, south america and asia. The poorest farmers aren't able to afford fertilizers. I have a coworker who has ties in Guinea-bissau. The farmers there are basically getting spitroasted by the combination of climate changed caused droughts messing up their cash crops followed by increased oil prices due to wars they have nothing to do with increasing the price of their agricultural inputs. Your simplistic view on fossil fuels will not keep them alive long enough to see the even worst effects of climate change that are coming. If it was easy to stop emitting greenhouse gases we would've managed to do it 25+ years ago.

It's too late for that. We had to do it 20 years ago. Plus, you and I have no power over fossil fuel extraction, but we do have the individual ability to put sulphur in the upper atmosphere (with effort). Game theory rules everything.

Sulfur or similar may be more politically viable due to the tradgedy-of-the-commons. They can be enacted without as much consensus, maybe.

Any solution relying on collective sacrifice is unrealistic IMO. I believe in geoingineering because it's better compatible with how economy works. Either that or we discover a magic abundant non-polluting energy source, but I woldn't rely on that

Let's say a magical enviro-fascist cabal of superhumans appears tomorrow and are somehow able to completely dismantle and ban all sources of energy that emit large amounts of CO2 while also somehow providing replacement quantities of non-emitting alternatives (e.g. wind, solar, and nuclear).

In this environment we will still need to geoengineer the planet for as long as the carbon we have already burned remains in the atmosphere. We are already way outside the pre-industrial baseline. And carbon capture is very energy-intensive, so no matter how much of our solar energy abundance we put into it, we are going to be geoengineering for decades.

Even if we hit carbon neutral tomorrow it's too late.

As described in Edward Tenners classic book "Why Things Bite Back. Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences", 1996 (oldie but goldie)

We really need to be pursuing Ocean Iron Fertilization https://www.whoi.edu/ocean-learning-hub/ocean-topics/climate... . We need to both drastically reduce our release of GHG emissions and work to pull CO2 out of the air. This is the only method that seems remotely plausible. I agree that I don't like the sulphur seeding because it doesn't actually remove C02, and higher concentrations of CO2 are toxic to humans.

> feelings on climate change

That. You can't reach these people with reason, the whole debate, the wholse society and entire law has to abide to their feelings.

Ok, summer has been a record dry, as said... not the first time it looks like that but perhaps the longest and driest.

That does not really make sense. Millions of euros is also millions of dollars. It's not an exact number, why would they have a currency conversion.

I don't know what Europeans are worried about. You'd have to ask them. Who's dying from "heat warnings"? Are you trying to make my point about rampant idiocy in my country?

If you were assuming that I'm European for some dumb reason, then rest assured I'm not worried about this passing thought on the writing style of a publication I never read.

Thank you for your concern, but I will be alright.

Is Mensa score correlated with intelligence?

Not quite failing in the UK, but it’s hitting crop quality and yields hard, such that in many cases farmers will end up with a net loss.

Including executives that still refuse to price in the environmental externalities of their business practices.

And don't forget the politicians and media personalities who knowingly or negligently denied that there was even a problem.

And since we've all known about this for 30+ years, is it still their fault, or is it ours?

More like 6%, roughly in line with its population share (5.4%). Not sure if that includes air travel, international air travel often isn't included in national statistics. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025

If it's not significant, can I have 5% of your net worth?

If the EU mandated that products imported are made in a carbon neutral fashion, then importers of products will pay attention. Unfortunately it means higher prices, and the governments will get voted out of office by people voting for the populists selling the electoral promise of "Make Prices Low Again!"...

The EU is responsible for a lot more than that once you factor in emissions in other countries producing goods bought by people and businesses in EU countries.

Note that this 10% is heavily skewed toward the richest, biggest cities.

In bigger cities, it might be closer to 20-30% of their economy.

Take that away, and it would have a cascading effect through entire countries.

10% of an economy is a lot, you don’t need to lose much of that to hit the entire sector very hard.