Have we gotten past the point if irreparable damage? Yes. Does that mean it's pointless to reduce further damage as much as possible? Not even a little.
this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
314 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6226 readers
276 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
We will not be able to reduce the impact unless we completely dismantle capitalism. And we frankly don't have a long time to do it if the goal is to reduce the impact before we're all dead.
That's completely not true. Yes, dismantling capitalism is the most important thing we can do to reduce the impact. But you're using some really strong words there. If I ride my bike to work instead of taking a car for one day, that'll reduce the CO2 emitted by about a kilogram. That one kilogram might reduce the severity of some hurricane enough to save a life. And yeah, it probably won't. But what about a year of riding my bike? What about a lifetime? What about installing solar panels at my house? What about not taking a flight? What about eating a vegan diet? Put all that together, I can probably save a couple lives in my lifetime compared to if I just consoomed. And yeah, in between all that, I'm on the streets volunteering for anarchist orgs and building systems to dismantle capitalism.
But the way I see it, fighting capitalism is like trying to win the lottery. It probably won't work in my lifetime. It almost certainly won't stop the climate crisis in its tracks right now. Making these changes in my own life makes me a healthier person with more money and a lighter conscience, and it's guaranteed lives saved. So I'm gonna do both. I'm not gonna bet on achieving communism and only then going through the degrowth that's inevitable anyway. I'm going to degrow my own life right now, so at the very least I'm ready when the communist revolution is complete and it's time to ban cars, and if communism doesn't happen before I die, I can still say with certainty, "I was part of the solution".
We have to amputate the hand, so we might as well take off the whole arm. -- humanity right now
Liberals, lol
And both have been cast aside in pursuit of never-ending profits.
Hopefully enough of our legacy survives that some future civilization's archaeologists can sift through the vestiges of our history and learn an important lesson about the dangers of unfettered capitalism from the story of our downfall.
I think we need more positive messaging on the whole thing. We're not just fighting climate change but make life more healthy and pleasant for everybody.
Positive messaging hasn't done anything and its a polite way to be a push over. Start showing destroyed houses and dead bodies. Make pople look at the suffering without pussyfooting a feelgood message.
We need a film like Threads but for the climate catastrophe.
People don't like that and choose to look away. Blind ignorance is how we got to where we are today. The damages are irreversible in our current lifetime now.
The only viable solution these days are systemic ones where the government is actually doing its job and governing the damages done by larger companies.
But we're so fucked that if that were to be a universal law applied by every government by every country, then it will it take 100 or so years to get back to square one :)
This is a very interesting topic that would require a lot of discussions
In my opinion, we (obviously) need both BUT the messages leveraging fear will still be more spread thanks to algorithms.
So the issue here is more like “how do we reach the people that need more positive messages” rather than “we need more positive messages”
In the end, a lot of people just can’t get out of their own hamster wheel unless hard helped offline by people close to them.
It’s also true that we don’t need masses to react, just enough people… So well, as I said, it’s food for thought that requires discussions and actions, there is no end synthesis to this comment of mine :)
For how many decades has she been saying it? (I'm not saying she's not telling the truth, I'm saying we need to finally listen to her.)
The problem is human, it's us and we're not taking anything seriously. How much more ? April was the single largest increase in monthly ppm ever recorded
The climates not the problem, we have any number of solutions. Lots of really easy stuff we're not doing, like not flying and cycling and not driving cars, not replacing meat eating pets when they pass. Alll too inconvenient ? Yes ? Well that just makes my point. We assume our entitlment can continue with a few tweaks, well, we can fool ourselves and each other but nature cannot be fooled.
Ask a behavioral expert not a climate scientiest. Can't even get people to stop flying to a Taylor Swift concert or a football match what hope ?
Fuck hope, Plan for the worst.
We can afford to be a bit more hopeful if the Dems win the next election, but until then... save yourself some mental health crisis... don't think too much about it.