this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
137 points (98.6% liked)

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

5296 readers
576 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
 

This was the one soup-throwing which did any damage at all; in this case to the frame.

The penalty is appreciably worse than for minor violent attacks.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Redirect your resources into sinking megayachts, kids.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago

Yeah: the lesson here is that if you're gonna get punished like an ecoterrorist for harmless protesting anyway, you might as well just do actual ecoterrorism instead.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago

Ya so they threw soup on a protective pain of glass in front of Van Gogh's Sunflowers, the painting is fine. The article confirms this but tries to downplay it for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I said this before when JSO used "washable" paint on Stonehenge: they are punching in the wrong direction. Billionaires don't care about human life, so why would they care about a painting?

These works belong to humanity, and by defacing them, you aren't winning converts—you're just pissing people off. Go vandalize something that belongs to the billionaires making things worse for the rest of us; unless you can win people to your cause, you're going to remain small-time vandals that get outsized prison sentences and unflattering media coverage.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

Unless you can demonstrate an actual harm that these people are doing to the cause, I am going to give them my support for doing SOMETHING. If it moves the needle a millionth of a percent in the right direction, tear down all the art galleries. We only have one planet.

Many of these cases have had jury nullification, which means a jury of twelve people who have been vetted to remove bias, all unanimously agreed to say "fuck you" to the legal system rather than lock up JSO activists.

That tells me that there is considerable public support for them, whatever you say to the contrary.

Edit: Here's a study about the actual problems facing the climate movement. Support isn't the issue:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01925-3

Abstract:

Mitigating climate change necessitates global cooperation, yet global data on individuals' willingness to act remain scarce. In this study, we conducted a representative survey across 125 countries, interviewing nearly 130,000 individuals. Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action. Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. Countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute. Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act. This perception gap, combined with individuals showing conditionally cooperative behaviour, poses challenges to further climate action. Therefore, raising awareness about the broad global support for climate action becomes critically important in promoting a unified response to climate change. Global support and cooperation are necessary for successful climate action. Large-scale representative survey results show that most of the population around the world is willing to support climate action, while a perception gap exists regarding other citizens' intention to act.

The abstract of that paper says that the real problem is people's lack of awareness of how incredibly high the support for climate action is, because that informs how likely they are to act.

In which case, all this hand-wringing about which actions increase or decrease support is a red herring, because the support is not actually in danger.

I would suggest that the real problem is people who handwring about the support creating the perception that the cause is less popular than it is.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The worse part is that they started with a plain wrong argument, this is not to attract the attention of billionaires, altough it can too. This is to catch the attention of everyone, to create a higher mass that is needed to change something, and tbh they are making more people aware of the issues, even if they get some stupid arguments against them when they are really doing no real harm as far as im aware.

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

Okay, and who hasn't heard of climate change by now? Who has been living under a rock that doesn't know that Big Oil is bad?

"Create a higher mass," ffs... You sound like a Christian justifying buying those "He Gets Us" Superbowl ads, as if nobody in the US has heard of Jesus before.

And no real harm? I guess we can just destroy history and artifacts, because who needs to learn from that shit amirite?

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

What's the point of preserving artifacts if there's no one to look at them anymore?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

There’s people (and children, who don’t need this bullshit) standing right there.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Which artifact was damaged? Because even in your link the article says:

"The New York Times’ ran an article titled “Climate Activists Throw Mashed Potatoes on Monet Painting,” further describing it in the subtitle as “the latest attack on widely admired art.” However, it is not until the fifth paragraph that the article notes that “the food did not cause any damage to the piece.” This raises the question, does the public differentiate between “damaging pieces of art” and “pretending to damage pieces of art” in their views of these non-violent, disruptive protests?

Also comparing having to make people understand the degree of damage we get from climate change vs christianity, its just an amazing analogy lol, what can i even say after that?. Have a nice day, i think you really need it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Is there any data in here to suggest what the actual effect is on level of support, rather than people self-reporting their change in level of support?

Because here's one reading of the data, which I think is entirely reasonable:

  1. The people who report "no effect" on their support, which at 40% is the largest single group, already support efforts to address climate change, and this makes no difference to them.

  2. The people who report a decrease, great or otherwise, of their support, are just conservatives who know that the talking point is "this action decreases support" and so they're answering in a way that supports that narrative. In reality, these people were already opposed to any meaningful action in the first place, and this didn't change their actual level of support.

Without further analysis, this survey doesn't say much. Even the questions dishonestly imply that actual damage is being done to art, when that generally isn't the case.

Again, that survey comes up against a tide of jury nullifications, which would indicate a very strong material support for these activists and the cause they represent. The courts are trying to penalise people for mentioning climate change in their defense, which has got to blow back in their faces eventually. In fact these court cases may be an important part of swinging public sentiment against the government and towards radical action to change things.

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

Who gives a fuck about "disapproval?" "Disapproval" is entirely irrelevant -- actually no, more than that: "disapproval" is what reactionaries do when they can't ignore you anymore, which is a sign that you're winning.

Change like this doesn't happen because the Powers that Be "approve" of the protestors. Change like this happens because the protestors have caused enough disruption to force the Powers that Be to capitulate.

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

Those people who disapprove vote. They absolutely matter, and pretending they don't is why JSO will continue to lose.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you think the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because White Moderates "voted" in favor of it?

No, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because the massive disruptions it caused made it clear that trying to preserve the white supremacist status quo would no longer be possible, and that the only alternative to negotiating concessions to the likes of MLK and the NAACP would be having to deal with the likes of Malcolm X instead.

Similarly, Just Stop Oil's path to victory has absolutely fuck-all to do with popular "approval" of their tactics, but everything to do with becoming so disruptive that it becomes worth it to capitulate to their demands to make the protests stop. Just Stop Oil is trying to be the Malcolm X of the climate movement. They don't want your approval, and they don't need your approval.

Spamming the false notion that approval matters all over the thread is nothing but the reactionary pearl-clutching of a concern troll.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you think the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because White Moderates "voted" in favor of it?

I hate to tell you this but that’s literally what happened.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you think the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because White Moderates "voted" in favor of it?

It would not have succeeded otherwise, since they were the ones in power.

Similarly, Just Stop Oil's path to victory has absolutely fuck-all to do with popular "approval" of their tactics, but everything to do with becoming so disruptive that it becomes worth it to capitulate to their demands to make the protests stop.

And look how well that's working out: https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/commentary/public-disapproval-of-disruptive-climate-change-protests/

Spamming the false notion that approval matters all over the thread is nothing but the reactionary pearl-clutching of a concern troll.

Sounds like somebody is butthurt that they realize they don't actually have a good defense other than nihilism. Refute my points, if you have a problem, but ad hominem attacks aren't a valid justification why my points are invalid.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

What part of your study is measuring an irrelevant thing do you not fucking understand?

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

Who gives a fuck about "disapproval?" "Disapproval" is entirely irrelevant

If you’re trying to affect public opinion, it’s extremely relevant.

Change like this happens because the protestors have caused enough disruption to force the Powers that Be to capitulate.

Throwing soup on art. Listen to yourself. The Powers that Be are not affected one iota. In fact, as the study above has made clear, these twits have helped them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unless you can demonstrate an actual harm that these people are doing

The actual harm that people are doing is making the fight against big oil look like it’s being done by clueless morons. The proof is all the comments saying this very thing.

Yes, yes, they did something, and kudos there but not all press is good press.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

No, don't just tell me the harm you reckon is happening, demonstrate it.

You want to claim some harm is happening, then show your working.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But it’s not moving the needle, not at all ! It’s only fuelling antipathy towards environmental activism, and you can bet your favourite thing rightwingers are using that to pull centrists into their side.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I've given some pretty compelling evidence that public support for these activists is extremely high, and in response you have... some flatulence.

Here, I'll respond in the way you did:

But it is moving the needle, it totally is!

See? I can say things too.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This isn't to trigger billionaires. It's to trigger EVERYONE ELSE.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Tom Nicholas is really great in this piece. SLRPNK link

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

From TFA “The pair of you came within the thickness of a pane of glass of irreparably damaging or even destroying this priceless treasure, and that must be reflected in the sentences I pass.”

Sooooo fucking close...

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago

What's the earth worth?

Ah nevermind.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

They jailed the suffragettes for pulling off ridiculous tactics. The suffragettes still won, because they were right, no matter what protest tactic they used.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Please elaborate on the suffragettes’ “ridiculous tactics”.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RvTV95XBeo 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The boycott makes a innocent sufferer of the bus company. Had the company defiled city and state laws its franchise would have been canceled. The quarrel of the Negroes is with the law. It is wrong to hold the company hostage.

-The Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery Alabama, Dec 8, 1955

The white man's economic artillery is far superior, better emplaced, and commanded by more experienced gunners.

Second, the white man holds all the offices of government machinery. There will be white rule for as far as the eye can see.

Are these not the facts of life?

Let us be specific, concrete. What is the cost is the bus boycott to the Negro community? Does any Negro leader doubt that the resistance to the registration of Negro voting has been increased? Is economic punishment of the bus company - an innocent hostage to the laws and customs of Alabama - worth the price of a block to the orderly registration of Negro voters?

-The Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery Alabama, Dec 13, 1955

Posting this for no particular reason every time I see folks complaining about protestors "not protesting the right way"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

People who get angry at Just Stop Oil tactics are just showing their ignorance of civil rights and protest history.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evehn 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm all for stopping oil, but this fills me with sadness

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

I'm all for stopping oil, ~~but~~ this fills me with sadness

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Why? Because they got some glass dirty?

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

Why was soup chosen over any other liquid?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Oil is yucky?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean they are at least right that it was painted with oil paints but painted way before oil was a problem. They should be throwing soup on gas pumps, just go around and dump it all over the pump. Dump it on oil trunks too, like inside the cabs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

I would be 100% for this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

They're barking at the very wrong tree. lol

load more comments
view more: next ›