this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
14 points (85.0% liked)

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

5246 readers
607 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
14
Using capitalism to reduce emissions (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by neanderthal@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A lot of big polluters are publicly traded companies. Owning shares of US public companies means you can go to shareholder meetings, vote, and other rights.

What do all think of a non profit that runs and is funded with an endowment composed of big polluters like oil companies and using the dividends to fund climate initiatives? In the mean time, using the seat at the table to influence other shareholders to reduce emissions, which is in their long term interest anyways.

If the endowment dries up, mission accomplished. If it grows, more money to act with.

What do all think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

argument through analogy is a logical fallacy, I'm not going to engage that.

Your argument is you don't like the tool. My argument is we shouldn't not use a tool because bad actors use a tool for bad things. Not using a tool means we don't benefit from the good things it can be used for. I just gave examples demonstrating it.

you've yet to convince me that further entrenching capitalism

Explain how this entrenches capitalism? I see it as working within the environment. Buying anything from a for profit company or working for a for profit company entrenches capitalism. Using a 401k does too. You can vote, run for office, whatever, but in a capitalist economy, you can't avoid participating in it, i.e. entrenching it.

it seems to me as though you would like to eat your cake and have it too.

I don't have any love for capitalism. I'm just a person that sees a problem and is doing their best to fix it. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't question my intentions because you don't like my idea. I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt. Deal?

[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.

news flash: if you do not own capital, capitalism's essential function is not to improve your material condition, but that of the capital owning class.

edit: civility

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.

Ok. So is your proposition that capitalism NEVER serves the collective well being or that it GENERALLY doesn't. If it is the former, all I have to do is find a single case to prove it false.

Your argument sounded like it was this (correct me if I am wrong):

P: Bad people use NPO as a tool for bad things Q: NPOs are bad

P->Q

I was demonstrating that at best you can put the existential qualifier on that statement and not the universal. All I have to do is find a single good NPO. If you want to argue what it means to be good, have a PhD in philosophy as it has been argued about since Plato wrote Euthyphro. Probably before.

Edit: civility