this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
165 points (96.1% liked)

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

5392 readers
469 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I think these guys get headlines exactly because they target things that “belong” to all of us. PETA throwing red paint on some rich schmuck wearing furs? That might get a minute of airtime. But (safely) paint Stonehenge, throw baked beans on the Mona Lisa, etc and every news outlet will cover it.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago (2 children)

And yet, all I think when I see this is "these guys seem like assholes".

If they ruined the house of an oil CEO, however... Heroes.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exactly my point. Their reason for doing it gets overshadowed by the act, because they are incongruent.

The act and the message should be essentially one and the same, because people's attention is already stretched thin by a myriad of things.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If you put more focus on the act instead of the reason you don't have your priorities straight. People should be out in the streets and destroying a shit ton of monuments important to the rich with what's happening in the world right now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. The key there is "important to the rich," not "important to humanity." Break all the rich people's toys, make some noise. Go sabotage a SpaceX rocket or something.

But the fact that I'm focused on the act despite being effectively on their side means a ton of other people who aren't on their side are too, and I can almost guarantee they can't see past the act to really grasp the impetus behind it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

You think the Louvre and what's inside isn't important to rich people? Stonehenge isn't important to rich people?

You and me shouldn't give a fuck that these things get destroyed because if things keep going the way they are there won't be any humans from the working class to enjoy them anymore in a century, so what's the point of preserving them in the first place?

Destroy all that shit so people have to face the fact that our governments and rich people are ready to spend billions to restore a church in Paris while people in the same city are starving.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you put more focus on the act instead of the reason you don’t have your priorities straight.

So you would be totally fine if people took a shit on your front porch as long as it's to protest climate change, right? Clearly you wouldn't get upset about the act if there is a good reason.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Is my front porch a destination to international visitors on which we spend fortunes in order to preserve it while people are starving? 🤔

[–] RedditWanderer 6 points 6 months ago

I thought the headline was a bit misleading, because obviously environmental activists wouldn't "paint" or vandalize something like that.

Anyone who thinks they are assholes for doing this to a monument should be thinking about what oil companies are doing to less visible areas that are just as important.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

And it works, and may actually be effective at spreading your cause, the first couple times

After that, everyone already knows who you are and what you want, so the only thing they think of the next time you come up is "these assholes again?"