this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
27 points (69.0% liked)

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

5240 readers
357 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
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Espiritdescali@futurology.today 48 points 4 months ago (2 children)

100,000 people marched through London at the weekend at the Restore Nature Now March, and there was virtually no news coverage of it. Yet 2 people spray corn starch on a monument and it's front page news globally.

It's a dilemma.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net -3 points 4 months ago

It'll take something like a big march ending at an airport, and a few people vandalizing a private jet.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 29 points 4 months ago

Otoh, the Washington Post and their "experts" didn't think any of those civil rights movement direct actions they're celebrating now were reasonable at the time either 🤡

[–] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure all the newspapers and media at the time were talking about how the civil rights activists were horrible people

MLK was considered a terrorist for a while.

You also had the black Panthers arming and educating full communities to fight back.

[–] toaster@slrpnk.net 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There is no one universally right way to do activism. We need a diversity of tactics.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 months ago

The boycott makes a innocent sufferer of the bus company. Had the company defiled city and state laws its franchise would have been canceled. The quarrel of the Negroes is with the law. It is wrong to hold the company hostage.

-The Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery Alabama, Dec 8, 1955

The white man's economic artillery is far superior, better emplaced, and commanded by more experienced gunners.

Second, the white man holds all the offices of government machinery. There will be white rule for as far as the eye can see.

Are these not the facts of life?

Let us be specific, concrete. What is the cost is the bus boycott to the Negro community? Does any Negro leader doubt that the resistance to the registration of Negro voting has been increased? Is economic punishment of the bus company - an innocent hostage to the laws and customs of Alabama - worth the price of a block to the orderly registration of Negro voters?

-The Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery Alabama, Dec 13, 1955

What I'm trying to say here is, fuck off Washington Post with your "why don't you protest the way I want, quietly in the corner" bullshit.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

They could also blow up oil pipelines and actually hurt the industries, but that's apparently going too far. There is no "right way" to protest because the government barely tolerates even "legal" protests, and loves forcing them to places where nobody can even notice them.

Let them do their thing. Nobody's getting injured and the fact that it's in the news and people are discussing it means that it's working. And remember, they could be doing much worse things and choose not to.

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe experts should tell oil companies to fuck right off, then there's be no need to protest against oil companies

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That happened in the late 1970s. The oil companies fired them and hired the tobacco-cancer denial machine instead.

The target audience for a protest isn't the oil executives; it's the politicians and the public.

[–] Five@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Link: Paywalled. Experts? Dubious.

A page from the civil rights era:

Chicago Tribune 1966

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They could also read The Monkey Wrench Gang and start taking direct action against the real perpetrators and their assets rather than random soft targets.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago

I'll note that the protagonists in that book only targeted things, and not people.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Just stop Oil" are paid for by the oil industry to make all kinds of environmentalists look bad. Change my mind.

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago

You're still talking about them. Q.E.D.