this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024

185 points (98.9% liked)

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

5598 readers

542 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

185

80 percent of people globally want stronger climate action by governments according to new survey | University of Oxford (www.ox.ac.uk)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] heavy 21 points 7 months ago

Governments are like but how do the wealthy feel about it though?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeah... they just dont want to change their lifestyle though

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Everyone here on Lemmy could drastically change their lifestyle and it wouldnt matter.

Chevron et al. will still destroy the planet.

We need systemic change.

[+] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yes change the system first, and lifestyle change will follow.

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

This would be much more effective than any campaign trying to convince people to eat less meat.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can't post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?

You can't have systemic change if people aren't willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don't actually stop to think what that requires. Survey's also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don't really think about it; they just think "tax for company to help climate", and that's where it stops.

If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all "change our lifestyles and it wouldn't matter" and that "what we need is systemic change" in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that's my perspective.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. Fossil fuels should be 3 or 4 times more expensive. But try that and there'll be riots in the streets.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Riots in the streets now is preferable to the current path where our great grandchildren all die from heat stroke.

But I agree with your point, the political calculus doesn't make sense. If politicians are afraid of riots in the streets then we need to give them something worse to fear.

Ecoterrorism or extinction seem to be the only options available.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I don't think that's true at all. And given that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all greenhouse gasses, blaming individuals is misplaced

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago

Never going to happen. We've lost. Major corporations have completely won. They're going to usher in a new Dark Age, a new Gilded Age.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This is an obvious lie though.no matter the words.

I've nwvwr met anyone who does.

Some evidence to supoort my assertion.

80% of Australians voted for climate deniers at the last national elections.

NZ voted for a National Givernwmt. Who had a policy fi reopening oil and gas exploration ffs

Netherlands votered for Gert Wilder's FFS.

UKnlooks set to Vote Labour another climate denying political parry..Hell, climate isn't even discussed.

US will Vote Biden or Trump, both climate deniers. Biden has approved morenoil and gas exploration then Trump did ffs

So no they do not .I'd suggest the number is closer to 10-15% based on voting polls.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can't assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election, plus the fact that neither party promises adequate action on climate change, that people don't care. In a first-past-the-post system people often feel forced to vote for a party that is not their favorite and doesn't prioritize as they would like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election

The survey says 80%... that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a "first-past-the-post system".

The argument of "only two parties that can win" is nonsensical in this context, no offense.

Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it's not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don't have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:

Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.

People don't like that, and it affects how they vote.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That assumes that the 80% of people agree on everything else too.

Say it's 30% conservatives, 50% socialists and 20% whatever else - you expect them to join forces and vote for a 3rd party because they agree on one aspect?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yes.

Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?

But I'm expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can't get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by "stronger climate action" they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I'm sure we both know that doesn't mean really mean anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Were ANY of those elections solely about climate?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?

Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want "stronger climate action", then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.

Sounds to me like those 80% don't really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That's the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Or just that they rate other issues like cost of living higher.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And so they vote republican?

Either way, not much else is gonna matter when the planet is too hot to live on, and entire Islands full of people go underwater, and no other country is willing to take in the refugees.

Sorry if I sound so evangelical about this shit, but that's because I'm fucking surrounded by these "80% who total care" people, and I see how they live their lives and the decisions they make. It's fucking lip service and pushing of the responsibly on to other people while hoping you don't have to make any changes in your life. Or, at best, it's complete fucking ignorance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Not that the 80% figure was just about the US, but last I looked, Americans voted Dems the last two elections. I think you've probably identified the issue thou: there's a difference between saying you care and caring enough to do anything about it personally