this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
166 points (96.1% liked)

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

5240 readers
694 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

I mean, I don't want to scare you but we've lost tons of objects that would be be considered priceless if they still existed today in every single revolutions. Do you really think that France got rid of religion in its institutions without any destruction?

https://fresques.ina.fr/picardie/fiche-media/Picard00439/les-destructions-dans-les-eglises-pendant-la-revolution.html

The American civil war led to the destruction of tons of buildings that would be considered heritage sites today if they were still standing.

No omelette without breaking eggs, stop protecting the status quo, you're one of those who will be most affected by all that's coming, only the super rich won't have to deal with climate change.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (7 children)

And I don't want to devalue the cause because we are on the same side of it, but those bits of destruction are still legitimately incidental and not central to the cause.

To put this another way, let's suppose that we stop climate change in as sound a way as we responded to CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. Two years later, in support of women's rights, St. Peters Basilica is destroyed before lent. In support of trans rights, angel falls Venezuela is irreparably dammed on the cliffs before earth day. To bring awareness to police brutality the following year, the main chambers of the Great pyramid is collapsed.

It is all just stuff. But if your unrelated cause is justified in doing actual damage (which I know didn't really happen yet), why not the next cause? Sure, climate change is an existential threat so maybe there is leeway, but it won't be the last one. I see that you find it important to make sure we protect where we are going, but I also think it's important to protect where we have been. It's not something to be taken lightly or for the sake of "awareness" to destroy our own history.

On the one hand, the roaches may be all that's left to enjoy our history; on the other hand, if the people and nature are all that's left and our history is gone, I find that only marginally better than having not existed at all.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Well, you go tell that to the people who will lose their home because water levels are rising and some places on earth are becoming uninhabitable.

The crisis we're facing will make all these historical things seem extremely meaningless and all the time and money spent preserving them look extremely irresponsible.

I hope you'll remember this conversation when millions of people are dying trying to migrate to habitable land and when biodiversity reaches record lows and you're unable to feed yourself properly because of what we did to this planet, I'm sure at that point you'll tell yourself "Hey, at least resources were used to make sure the Mona Lisa stays good looking!"

I say that as a person that actually studied history in university.

[–] muppeth@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But how is that action going to stop the water from rising. I am too very much concerned with climate change but I don't see much point in those actions. They don't really bring anything to the table nor have any impact on the matter, apart from antagonizing people to the issue perhaps.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The point of their action is to show people's hypocrisy and to make people angry at the leaders of the world who will call it a scandal while they're doing nothing about the destruction of the world itself.

[–] muppeth@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 4 months ago

It looks like the goal will be more people getting pissed at the climate activists. Which will make it harder for those who are actually doing something more then just publicity stunts.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)