93 points

yeah, but…

permalink
report
reply
15 points

I can’t even…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Guess we’ll just have to deal with things being slightly more inconvenient for awhile then, or we’ll be dealing with an inhospitable planet otherwise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Guess we’ll just have to deal with things being slightly more inconvenient for awhile then

“we” wouldn’t even have to be inconvenienced, and would likely have our quality of life actually increase if only a small group of people would be willing to part with money they’re hoarding that they couldn’t use even if they lived a thousand lifetimes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Sudden drastic population reduction would solve the problem as well. Historically that’s been how these things are done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

This has not been true ever, nor is it a reason to avoid replacing what can be replaced for cheaper.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

and for many what we do have is still cost prohibitive.

only because profit is prioritised by a handful of people over the wellbeing of the planet and everyone on it, not because there is an actual lack of money (or even need for it, but I digress) to pay for these things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

My idea is to put up as many renewable energy gatherers devices as safely possible. Sure it’ll look bad for a while, bit once we have unlimited amount of energy we will come back with better looking, more efficient devices. Line every sunny sidewalk with solar panels and open fields with wind turbines. Sorry about your view for right now. But it’ll look better in 50 years, especially if we can start to start to slow down climate change

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
55 points

Might be a hot take, but I for one think we should be far more extremist in our climate fight against corporations.

Just yesterday I was thinking about how I can’t open my window for the weekend because of the smoke in the air. This thought process is fucking insane when you step back and think about it, but yet it’s becoming our daily lives. No window day today -> no outside day -> oh we only go out at night now etc. Progression is slow so we get used to the hindrances we have to live with.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

My main point: if you’re going to go after ‘climate extremists’, make sure it’s the ones who don’t care about your children’s future, not the ones trying to do something about it.

Agreed. It’s an important thing to remember.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

Yes but think of the profits

permalink
report
reply
7 points

I’m fine with eco-terrorists when they target fossile stuff. I’m very much not fine when they target nuclear, public electricity companies, or even GMO research.

permalink
report
reply

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

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 3.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 6K

    Posts

  • 28K

    Comments

Community moderators