this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
72 points (84.0% liked)

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

5237 readers
750 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
[email protected]
72
Should Climate Protesters Be Less Annoying? (newrepublic.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
118 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The problem I have with groups doing things like the throwing soup in a painting thing or other annoying activities is how can we be sure these people weren't paid to make the cause look bad? It wouldn't be the first or last time something like that happens where someone will be paid to make a cause look bad.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If and when protests turn violent because people are desperate and there's nothing else left you'll realise how innocuous these types of protests are. They hurt nobody, disrupt people for a very short time and get the message out there.

This idea that it's funded by big oil is just ridiculous. I am in activism and I know people from JSO, they are some of the kindest and caring people you could meet. They understand the urgency of the crisis and are willing to their bodies and freedom on the line to get the message out. Being popular is not their goal, they get people talking and that is undeniable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

@raginghummus @AceFuzzLord @climate

Good job that being popular isn't their primary goal because they won't be fairly treated by the popular press (where many folk get their opinions from)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

The painting was protected by a plexiglass cover. The painting thing caused zero property damage and did good by reigniting the conversation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Judging by the foolishness of unfocused anger I see on reddit, tumblr, twitter, etc... I think it's very likely they're just incredibly stupid but well meaning people.

See also: "vote 3rd party", "oh you eat meat you must like torturing animals", "we should literally ban all cars" etc

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We should literally ban all cars.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And eating meat is literally torturing and killing animals.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

And I live in an instant runoff country where you can vote third party without sacrificing your interests. I voted socialist last election

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here we go

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago
  1. No, you shouldn't vote third party in America, or any country with a first-past-the-post system captured by a duopoly, because it flies in the face of the reality of game theory. Tactical voting is real, no matter how upset the idea makes people. Yes, this even includes deep-red and deep-blue states, or whatever your country's equivalent is.
  2. Yes, choosing to eat meat when you have alternatives means you place your convenience and consumption above the death of sentient and pain-feeling creatures. I think it's bad to cause harm when you have the option to not, even if it benefits you in some way.
  3. Yes, we should literally ban all fossil fuels, and restructure all cities such that the public transportation is more than enough for everyone. That this is even a matter of question is ludicrous.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is exactly what comes to mind. It's incoherent and will never help the issue.