this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
72 points (84.0% liked)

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

5289 readers
443 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 77 points 1 year ago (12 children)

If you're not disrupting anything, your protest will invariably be ignored.

The "I support the right to protest as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone" reeks of a "negative peace" ploy to stifle dissent while appearing to be reasonable in the eyes of other Enlightened Centrist hypocrites.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 45 points 1 year ago

I’m annoyed by over critical analysis of nonviolent protest tactics, rather than substantive conversation about why they’re protesting in the first place.

[–] raginghummus@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

For anyone annoyed by climate activists: wake the hell up. LISTEN to the message.

We are on course for an UNLIVABLE FUTURE. A BILLION climate refugees, mass crop failures, cities under water, temperatures too hot for human survival. Economic and societal collapse.

These disruptions damage nothing and inconvenience a small amount of people for 5-30 minutes. It's not a big deal. In a world of reactionary social media and news, these are the tactics that get attention. It is not the activist's fault for how the media reports it.

This is not "their cause". This is the fight for everything we know and love.

If you don't like what they're doing, start doing what you think works.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

bUt We jUsT wANT to WaTcH tENniS

You’ll get your fucking tennis when we start killing each other for food. Human brains are incapable of comprehending what we are continuing to do to our future. Its so fucking frustrating seeing this society being completely oblivious to the tortures we could’ve avoided by relatively small changes 60 years ago and which we still can lessen by doing something now.

buT iM GoNna gEt a TeSla fOr my NeXt Car

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (23 children)

When is it appropriate for climate protests to turn into climate violence? When is it appropriate for a victim to fight back? Or must we allow billionaires and conservatives to kill us all?

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] The_Hideous_Orgalorg@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They tried being acceptable, and nobody listens. Now they are being unacceptable, and still nobody listens.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago

The US and EU have both shifted significantly towards decarbonization. It's not fast enough, but it's getting started.

[–] Danterious@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

I don't have the answer to that question.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 1 year ago

I get the point of the question, but frankly, I think climate protestors can do whatever they want as long as Big Oil can do whatever it wants. It's way more annoying having my planet ruined.

[–] PoetSII@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, all us Lambs must march quietly and obediently to the slaughter.

[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd say climate destroyers should be less destructive.

Of course they're whiny; they're literally begging for their lives. What would people prefer instead, Ted Turner to run around in tight spandex, throwing people out of windows and screaming "Captain Planeeeet!?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago

And with "less annoying", of course they mean "powerless".

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The problem I have with groups doing things like the throwing soup in a painting thing or other annoying activities is how can we be sure these people weren't paid to make the cause look bad? It wouldn't be the first or last time something like that happens where someone will be paid to make a cause look bad.

[–] raginghummus@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If and when protests turn violent because people are desperate and there's nothing else left you'll realise how innocuous these types of protests are. They hurt nobody, disrupt people for a very short time and get the message out there.

This idea that it's funded by big oil is just ridiculous. I am in activism and I know people from JSO, they are some of the kindest and caring people you could meet. They understand the urgency of the crisis and are willing to their bodies and freedom on the line to get the message out. Being popular is not their goal, they get people talking and that is undeniable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The painting was protected by a plexiglass cover. The painting thing caused zero property damage and did good by reigniting the conversation.

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Judging by the foolishness of unfocused anger I see on reddit, tumblr, twitter, etc... I think it's very likely they're just incredibly stupid but well meaning people.

See also: "vote 3rd party", "oh you eat meat you must like torturing animals", "we should literally ban all cars" etc

[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We should literally ban all cars.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And eating meat is literally torturing and killing animals.

[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

And I live in an instant runoff country where you can vote third party without sacrificing your interests. I voted socialist last election

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bear@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago
  1. No, you shouldn't vote third party in America, or any country with a first-past-the-post system captured by a duopoly, because it flies in the face of the reality of game theory. Tactical voting is real, no matter how upset the idea makes people. Yes, this even includes deep-red and deep-blue states, or whatever your country's equivalent is.
  2. Yes, choosing to eat meat when you have alternatives means you place your convenience and consumption above the death of sentient and pain-feeling creatures. I think it's bad to cause harm when you have the option to not, even if it benefits you in some way.
  3. Yes, we should literally ban all fossil fuels, and restructure all cities such that the public transportation is more than enough for everyone. That this is even a matter of question is ludicrous.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fallenwout@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They should be less annoying to the common people. They should target people in power, glue themselves on the road to the house of parlement for example, not prevent common people from going to work or vandalize art work.

It makes them look like idiots who have no clue.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think the idea is to wake up normal people. If protesters only annoy the rich then nothing changes because it’s easy for the rich to ignore a couple of protesters.

If you annoy regular people then hopefully more people wake up. It’s a lot harder to ignore regular people especially if a lot wake up.

We need everyone in this world to be pissed off, not just a few activists. The sooner everyone is pissed the less leverage rich people have to ignore it all.

[–] CurseBunny@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Also, publicity is a big factor. You pretty much guarantee some degree of media coverage when you do something like shut down a busy highway. I don't think people consider often enough how important even negative press is in spreading the message.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] A_S_B@lemmy.eco.br 12 points 1 year ago

Not at all, we are getting desperate out here. Our margins for actions to lessen, stop and revert climate change are getting smaller by the minute. So we need to be very annoying.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I support most (maybe even all) climate protests, violent and nonviolent ones.

I still think that it might be good to shift or expand(edit) tactics, because at least to me most tactics do not feel to be actually achieving any substantial goals while putting folks at high risk of injury and repression. Like yeah there is discourse, polarization and mobilization, but those are not actually the things that will mitigate climate change, reducing carbon emissions etc. will. This is my perspective from Germany so of course elsewhere things might be different.

Are there any success stories from other countries (or Germany) that show that currently dominant climate protest tactics(non violence, blocking roads, public stunts, glue everywhere, social media all the time) leading to actual changes getting implemented from public institutions, legislation or the private sector or changes in the behaviors of large parts of the population?___

[–] thisNotMyName@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well not about climate, but if you take at the Stop de Kindermoord movement, that happened in the 1970s in the Netherlands, you can find some similarities: https://www.ejatlas.org/print/stop-de-kindermoord-stop-the-child-murder-protest-for-children-deaths-caused-by-motor-vehicles Blocking streets was one of their protest forms, too. And now take a look at the Dutch cities - it's a pain to drive a car, while walking and cycling are far superior modes of transportation, while there is real life happening. And that's not even only true for Amsterdam, but also for relatively small cities like Groningen

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›