this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
419 points (98.6% liked)

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

5197 readers
703 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
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Wait... Ebay is merely a marketplace where people or vendors use the platform to sell their goods.

Shouldn't the individuals be sued?

Or maybe it's because they could be in another country, so they go after the platform itself for allowing such devices to be sold?

[–] Vode_An@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Going after the marketplace is a more efficient strategy than playing whack a mole with individual sellers.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also being a marketplace they do have a duty to make sure that people are not selling illegal items on their platform.

Because if platforms didn't could you imagine how bad the Internet would be for buying things.

[–] Vode_An@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't disagree. I am generally in favor of keeping markets on a short leash. As you said, it could be a lot worse.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly, keeping markets on a shorter leash is also something I'm generally in favor of

[–] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The correct way would be to go after the buyers

[–] DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The war on drugs would like a word.

[–] 520@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

As would the RIAA's war on piracy. Despite the exhorbitant fines being handed down, I don't believe they've made any profit from them.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a political bomb though. This accomplishes the same end goal and is a strong enough warning to prevent similar markets popping up in the future

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Well they are illegal, although enforcement is up to the local jurisdiction. If you try to install these in California for instance, you will have a bad day and they can and will impound your vehicle.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed, but I hope they go after the sellers, too.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Merketplaces can be held liable for third party sellers merchandise as it's ultimately up to the marketplace to chose what is allowed and prohibited to be sold.

Imagine a marketplace allowed vendors to sell human slaves and the government tells that marketplace that is very much not okay stop it. If that marketplace continues allowing third party vendors to sell human slaves then that marketplace has now also broken the law along with the third party vendor and potentially even the purchaser depending on how the law was written.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago
[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not go after both?

They should then request all purchases of the devices, and go after the buyers too.

As a bonus, a lot of the people buying these are probably wife beaters or toxic f**wits. So, screw protecting them..

[–] emptiestplace@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's confusing because I kinda agree with some of your stereotyping and I'm not confident that is a good thing.

[–] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

It's anti-social behavior.

[–] fckgwrhqq2yxrkt@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

It's not a good thing, its a way to divide us and make us hate. Don't fall into that.

[–] sik0fewl@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I dunno, the article is pretty weak on details. Curious what comes of it.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I agree, hitting a couple of these sellers and manufacturers with multi-million dollar fines would be fucking great. They have to go onto X and complain to their drifting buddies that the only way to support Trump would be to bail them out of jail.