this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
73 points (84.1% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5237 readers
486 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
73
Should Climate Protesters Be Less Annoying? (newrepublic.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
118 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ex_06@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

good faith conversation with you

Didn’t seem like it ^^

The environment just isn't worth explaining things to people

Nah. It’s about a more effective use of the time to actually change the world. If you want answers, you got history and that book to read. There is no point in convincing you because, as I said, your anger works in favor of them.

And before someone adds the “but you are still answering” argument, well I’m answering when I have 2 minutes to write this stuff that is not as high effort as a clear explanation that would still open up to more and more and more questions :)

[–] loom_in_essence@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn’t seem like it

Of course it does. I've been thoughtful and engaged on every point. Solving the climate crisis is important, I've been breathing in our burning-down forests all summer. And it's a difficult problem because the machinery of society is a very difficult thing to steer in new directions. I'm engaging critically with your bad ideas, and you choose to interpret that as bad faith because you care more about your ideas than you do about the climate crisis.

If you want answers, you got history and that book to read.

If this were true then you would already have explained the relevant points. And you still have the opportunity. Because I'm being good faith enough to ignore your bratty dismissals and to try again to get an actual response from you other than "There is no point in convincing you"

[–] ex_06@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ll try to sum it up in a pointed list.

  • agitate, educate and organize
  • as we know, not enough people are agitated and so all the past “educate” made by scientists has been pretty much useless
  • we need to raise the tension then
  • to raise the tension in a system where power lies in the hands of those that don’t want the tension, you need to force it
  • to force it without power, you have very little range of options
  • these actions are discussed a lot also out of the conscious-about-climate-people bubble
  • so it’s basically stealing time and cognitive energy from the shit media to this shit actions
  • the models of the past that worked better are the one for the workers rights and the one for the black people civil rights
  • in both cases, there was a whole ecology of actions: violent protests, disobedience, non violent marches, super far left parties, more moderate parties and so on.
  • they are a functional part of our ecology that is forcing the media to ring some bells

Here in Italy, they recently received a meeting with the climate minister, for example. No association could have that.

An impactful and radical change requires a whole ecology of movements with different strategies and tactics. Unless you have power in the system you are trying to change, obv.

[–] loom_in_essence@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is an actual response, thanks.

What I'm seeing is a minister met with Greta Thurnberg. She's a celebrity who gives talks on actual environmental issues. This is effective because it's explicitly about the environment.

I'm not aware of situations where people inconveniencing each other (but NOT inconveniencing power) led to meaningful change. Civil rights activists inconvenienced power, not each other.

[–] ex_06@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you sure that black panthers or red brigades inconvenienced only those in power? Btw I was not talking about Greta Thunberg but Ultima Generazione, the Italian chapter of Just Stop Oil. Yes, the ones that put cleanable paint over stuff or block the roads

[–] loom_in_essence@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Blocking roads is related to the climate crisis. This makes perfect sense.