this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
184 points (91.1% liked)

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

5316 readers
332 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]
184
As the waters rise, a two-year sentence for throwing soup. That’s the farcical reality of British justice (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)
  • What defines “irreplaceable art” and why do we have a legal or moral obligation to protect it? Why does this allow for the private ownership of art?
  • How much of the earth’s resources are we willing to dedicate to “culturally significant, irreplaceable things” such as buildings, artwork, graveyards, and civilizations? Who gets to decide what from modern times needs to be available in ten thousand years?

I come from a hoarding home where everything was important. My approach to preservation is colored through this lens. At some point we either exist solely to preserve artifacts created before us or we learn to let go. Not every Van Gogh or Picasso in a museum’s collection will be put on display and many museums struggle to maintain their hidden collections full of what curators would honestly call junk art of interest to only the most specialized of scholar. Assuming we only keep the “best” samples (that’s another debatable topic) there will be a point when we simply cannot collect any more art or culturally relevant things any more, similar to the eventual trade off between graves and arable land.

Hoarding aside, why are you not arguing to prosecute oil as hard as these folks? The number of indigenous cultural sites across the world destroyed by drilling astronomically outweighs the number of paintings with soup on them. Sure, we can prosecute both, but I don’t see you saying that either.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What defines “irreplaceable art”

A good place to start would be art made by a great artist that can't make it anymore, usually because they are dead.

How much of the earth’s resources are we willing to dedicate to “culturally significant, irreplaceable things”

I don't think the footprint of the world's art museums would even show up on a chart when you consider waste or climate impact.

I'm not arguing to "prosecute oil as hard as these folks" because that's not the discussion we're having. That's just what-about-ism. But since you asked, I think just about every C level in the oil industry should be in prison for the harm they have caused and the coverups they conspired to perpetrate while doing it. That's not relevant to the discussion of 'activists' trying to destroy art to get headlines.

I agree with their message, I completely disagree with the method of delivery.

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

So only art in museums is culturally significant? Made by artists who are dead? What about buildings? Religious places? Graveyards? Note that these are things I called out in my first comment so I’m not trying to move the goalposts here. You highlighted the Taliban destroying cultural places so, by your definition, we must include those and since we can’t displace any new ones must be added.

I completely disagree that the footprint of the world’s art museums is minuscule. Museums today already have problems with storage. In order to meet your definition for art, museums must continue to expand their collections. As the number of people grows, the number of artists grows, increasing the supply of art. How do you define “great artist” without proportionally increasing the number? As fields specialize, so too do the “great artists” that define mediums.

What about books? Records? Movies? How do we decide what to keep here?