this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
443 points (99.3% liked)
Climate
8570 readers
969 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Aren't lawful actions already protected by, you know, the law? By definition, the only legal punishments that could happen are for illegal actions. This doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense as reasoning. They didn't even try to manufacture justification.
Anyway, when the justice system no longer can be relied on to provide justice, extra-legal methods must be taken to ensure a just society. Them doing this could be either of two things, or both. It's them actually protecting dirty energy companies, as it sounds, or it's them requiring vigilantism to stop it, which gives them justification to crack down on "the left" and anyone else who stands against them.
Edit: Also, they consistently say that climate change isn't real, and yet they feel the need to pass a law that explicitly is there to protect against the harms of climate change. Either it's real, and they should pay (especially since they knew about it and mislead the public, which this also explicitly protects), or it isn't real, and this law is pointless.
the actual way to solve “leftist legal crusades” (if they exist): anti-SLAPP laws that punish frivolous lawsuits… but that would hurt them more than “leftists”