this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
124 points (97.7% liked)

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

5053 readers
377 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]
124
Just Stop Oil activist jailed for six months for taking part in slow march [UK] (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The test to see whether you agree with an argument like this, is imagining people protesting something you are vehemently in favour of. If you'd still agree with it then, then the logic holds.

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

I feel like the complication of this is that people generally only get worked up enough to protest something, or be vehemently in favor of something that others might be protesting, if they genuinely believe the thing in question to be a moral issue, and a fairly serious one at that. If you view causing others inconvenience as bad, but view the objective you are trying to achieve as sufficiently more important as to outweigh that if the inconvenience furthers that cause, then you're left in a position where it is perfectly logical to condemn a law that stops you from protesting in a manner you believe will be effective, and support that same kind of law to stop people protesting the opposite position, because your objective in this case isn't creating consistent and fair laws (even if you do actually believe in such fair laws, but just view this specific issue as even more important) but instead furthering whatever cause you were concerned about in the first place. It's not truly hypocritical either, because in such a case one's position is not "it's okay for me to do this but not for you", but rather "it isn't really okay for either of us to do this, but (whatever cause one is supporting) is so pressing that I believe the ends justify the means in achieving it".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I guess the point of my argument isn't about whether you should or shouldn't condemn the specific action, but whether it should or should not be legal and, if not, what the punishment should be. That, at least, should be consistent, because the government response should be proportionate to the inconvenience, so if you believe your cause outweighs the inconvenience, then it should also outweight a proportionate response.

One especially helpful mental trick is to imagine you actually believe what someone you disagree with says that they believe. For example, I don't believe that actual lizards control the country and systematically rape children, but if I did... Well, obviously that belief would justify quite a lot.