this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024

62 points (100.0% liked)

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

149 readers

11 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

‘What if there just is no solution?’ How we are all in denial about the climate crisis (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by hanrahan@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10713443

For denial doesn’t only amount to rejecting the evidence, he argues – it also consists of denying our role in the climate crisis; absolving ourselves through “carbon offsets, hybrid cars, local purchases, recycling”. And in this, far more of us are implicated.

In some ways, this argument might not seem all that new. Multiple authors have pointed out that green capitalism, not rightwing deniers of the crisis, is our greatest obstacle to properly confronting the problem. DeLay agrees. The difference is the lens he brings to it – using psychoanalysis to explain the mechanisms behind denial.

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Oh fuck right the hell off with this despairist shit.

The fossil fuel companies want this kind of sentiment to be the mainstream because the logical conclusion is "so then why bother doing anything?"

They want your despair, they want your hopelessness, they want your burnout, you owe it to the world to not let them have it.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

I'm an engineer, so I don't agree with the despair, but also believe that what we'll have is a number of partial and not entirely satisfactory solutions that mitigate the problem but don't fully solve it. And we'll adapt because we have to. But it's foolish to underestimate the intertia of the present way of doing things. It's going to be a long slog, and the legacy indstries are going to fight and foot-drag until they're driven out of business.

[–] Kumikommunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, they want you to keep voting for milquetoast centrist liberal policies that don't hurt their bottom line. Car companies and oil companies love that the "left" party in the US only supports pro-car policies that maintain our reliance on them. Every polluting company absolutely loves the tax credit non-solution because it will cost them much less than an actual emissions-reducing solution. Plastic companies love that there is no widespread plastic ban or mandatory reduction in plastic use by manufacturers, and instead only consumer-aimed recycling programs.

Fossil fuel companies absolutely love your defeatist "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" attitude. They love these policies that make you feel like you are doing something but don't actually change anything. They love when you tell people who want actual solutions that they need to vote for the compromise. They still get to keep their profits going strong, and the Earth will only burn after the people pushing these policies are long dead.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

< gonna be real quiet when the even worse option does even worse stuff because they didn't vote because "mIlQuEtOaSt!" and "rEaL sOlUtIoNs!"

Almost none of what you said is a counterargument or even separate from what I said, you just phrased it like a takedown because the idea that this movement not give in to fatalism and cynicism pisses you off for some reason so you need to make it about letting the Right win and institute mandatory coal rolling quotas is uber l337 based praxis or some shit because "bUt DeMs BaD tOo!"

"Man I know how I'll address the climate crisis in 2000, vote for Ralph Nader! Surely letting Bush win won't have disastrous consequences for the entire world!", that's what you just tried to shoehorn in here, "surely project 2025 won't be that bad!"

That is a bet only someone who has no right to be deciding could consider making.

[–] Kumikommunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

this movement

Neoliberalism is not a "movement", it's the global hegemon. You're pretending to be a part of this small, bespoke, counter-cultural collective that needs to remain principled, and meanwhile obstinately upholding the status quo. And at the same time holding this globe-spanning conspiracy theory that international conglomerates care about your personal feelings.

The data is out there, and you can just freely listen to scientists. But you will not read or listen, because they are saying things that you don't like. Combatting climate change will require a great upheaval. It requires policies that liberal parties in major governments are not putting forward. People in the most vulnerable countries will die. But, again, you are more interested in protecting the status quo, most likely because you are comfortable and those more vulnerable don't matter enough to you.

You are trying to frame this as if the people further to your left, who want to do more to combat climate change than you, are closer to the right. But that's impossible. If it was up the right, all the countries with brown people in them will burn, and the wealthy countries will deny the immigrants. If it's up to the centrists, all the countries with brown people in them will burn 20 years later, and the wealthy countries will deny the immigrants. I would very much not like to punish those most vulnerable in the long term for a feeling of moral superiority in the short term.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Yead, I agree. I'd rather take a half-step forward than two steps back. A full step would be nicer yet, but we can't let the best be the enemy of the almost good enough.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

There is a solution, just not a capitalist one. Climate action won't generate profit and clean energy doesn't provide the same level of authority and power over labor that fossil fuels do.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.de 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So we have to take action ourselves, right? On the one hand through protest and education, and on the other hand through private action. Greening facades, photovoltaics on the roof, green power, no more meat, no more vacation flights, public transport instead of cars, building communities, all that solar punk stuff. There is no way politics will solve this in the next decade.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Individual action's nice. It won't be nearly enough. We need to organize and to overcome massive resistance.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are solutions, lol. It's easy stuff, such as buying an ebike for trips less than 25 miles away. Or better insulating your house. Or replacing a furnace with a heat pump when your furnace breaks. Buying in bulk instead of buying micro things wrapped in plastic. Buying used equipment and jewelry rather than buying new. Eating less meat, or at least less beef.

There's lots of small stuff that can have a dramatic impact on your carbon footprint. It also tends to save you shitloads of money, all green arguments aside. Up front costs might go up, but over time, you save a lot of money.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

It's just that your or some person's footprint moves the needle only a little when the problem lies in with the corporations, industries and countries still allowed to pollute or create the consumer market options, and they're pushing the narrative toward people in the environment they set. Insanity is in the illusion of choice, that something like shittier, more polluting clothing is forced to the masses because they can't choose the expensive better options even though it'd be better in the long run.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 8 points 3 months ago

"There's no solution" - says the motherfucking fucks responsible for FUCKING UP the shit and ensuring govts DON'T treat them like the criminals they are. "B-b-b-but think of ~~my profits~~ the economy!" - I love how profits for the next quarter are more important than long term survival for them.

Nobody is going after the big oil companies and ordering them to slow the fuck down. Nobody is telling the saudis to fuck off. Thanks to thinking of "the economy", we'll be on a very, VERY nasty future. But hey, that diamond studded yacht was worth it!

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 6 points 3 months ago

I read somewhere on lemmy that all the actions the government are taking are just to keep everyone calm.

We passed the tipping point. Where on our way to ruin there's no brakes on this train and the tracks fucked.

The government's are keeping a lid on it while the rich and powerful get their ducks in a row and bunker up.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's a coping mechanism if anything I guess, thinking we could do something to mitigate or at least delay the crisis.

The best carbon emission bang for buck would be making cities cyclable and walkable. The best long term carbon reduction investments per lifetime $ are by replacing car and flight intensive travel with rail, highspeed rail and bus transit, reducing our reliance on oil. Imagine if these "carbon offset" scams were instead grants to building dense, affordable housing units.

Even if humanity dies a horrible death due to our insatiable need to consume, it is better for our collective conscious to say we died trying to fix it rather than deny it completely, even if such distinction is futile or practically insignificant in the long run.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Cars are only the third largest aspect of our pollution.

Second is houses.

First is diet.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So?

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 3 months ago

The cars are pushed as the number one thing because it's something that only requires you to just drive less and puts the onus on car manufacturers to make more efficient or electric.

It avoids the #1 and # 2 factors because doing anything about those would hurt the economy.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago

It will have to get very very bad in order for the average person to support action