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

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

5324 readers
229 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Then they send their message to the informed but poor and powerless.

I disagree, though, that the rich don't care about their toys. They may be able to afford to replace them, but it's not like they go out and buy a yacht every day. And activists vandalizing public works of art or history can and do still face legal action from the governments that oversee or maintain them.

Ultimately, the rich responsible for facilitating and encouraging climate change aren't going to feel any compunction to change if you never even punch in their direction.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's called raising awareness in society. This kind of coverage costs millions of dollars, and it only happened because they involved something visible we all care for in a way.

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

I guess, but who hasn't heard of climate change at this point?

The conversation has to go beyond that, and their desire to raise awareness accompanied by acts like this only demonstrates their conviction, not the truth of our impending doom. They have to reach the people who still don't think it's real, and what does painting a historical monument have to do with climate change?

The plot they want people to pick up gets lost and the message is out of their control if the act isn't self-evident with regard to their purpose.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

I can go through the dictionary all day. That's called activism my dude, and it was an excellent way to being attention to a particular issue they are campaigning for.

The act is self-evident in regards to their purpose lmao. They "painted" the environment (polluted it) in a way we could all relate to, in a effort raise awareness on other things happening in the environment that aren't as visible.

[–] Kecessa 0 points 5 months ago

They're sending the message to people who are ready to take a plane to travel thousands of km to go check a bunch of rocks. They're sending the message to people who vote. They're sending the message to people that use their car to get stuck in traffic every morning instead of using public transport.