this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

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

5243 readers
187 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
2
Should Climate Protesters Be Less Annoying? (newrepublic.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 year ago (3 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.

[–] loom_in_essence@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then they should disrupt pollution rather than something totally unrelated.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, that's bullshit. If they "disrupt pollution" by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that's how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention.

At a pro tennis event in Washington DC, on the other hand, the media is already there, peaceful protest isn't called terrorism and due to the location, there's an excellent chance that some of the very representatives who are standing in the way of climate action or at least someone from their inner circle are actually THERE.

TL;DR: You seem to either have no clue what you're talking about or be exactly like the negative peace demanders that held back MLK and his fight for justice.

[–] loom_in_essence@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If they “disrupt pollution” by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that’s how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention

And there's a reason that actual disruption is illegal, and performative nonsense carries lighter consequences. The reason is that oil companies absolutely LOVE for protests to be ineffectual and just cause disruptions among leftists. Obviously these "gluing myself to stuff" protests have NOT helped the environment. Nobody ever actually thought they would.