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
306 points (97.8% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5316 readers
287 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 1 year 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
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.
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.)
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 :)
I think that message tends to not resonate well. e.g. in USA politics liberals tried that and conservatives freaked out, thinking that "those (out-of-group) people" might actually get some help, even in situations where "these (in-group) people" would have gotten more.
Hate and fear are more primal, and people are trying to get the message out to the widest possible audience.
I think you're skewing terminology here between liberals and progressives. Liberals have not actually cared much at all about climate change. Not enough to do the changes required to see it mitigated.
You cannot compromise with the capitalist class that is suffocating the planet.
As I mentioned in another reply in this chain, Kurzesagt is among the sources that are attempting to inform people about the effects of climate change. They are based in Germany iirc.
In the USA, the definition of "liberal", like "conservative", has changed greatly over the years, skewing ever more towards the latter, but it was not always that way. Also, I am making a distinction between Democrat politics vs. liberal philosophy.
You cannot compromise with the capitalist class that is suffocating the planet.
This is something that I do not understand: are you advocating for a radical overthrow of the entire government, in the very next USA presidential election in the coming months? Or are you advocating for a protest vote for like an independent, exactly like what happened with Clinton, before which more than anything else is what put Trump in office then? If not, it seems to follow by your definition that we would be "compromising" to vote for Biden, who "ha(s) not actually cared much at all about climate change. Not enough to do the changes required to see it mitigated."
So we either compromise or we... do what? It reads to me like childish "tough talk". Maybe that's not what you meant, hence getting back to how I do not understand it. And at a bare minimum, it suffers from being a statement of what to not do, yet never states what should be done in its place. Therefore, it seems likely to result in helping Trump win again.
Which seems to me to not be ideal either?
I am advocating for our survival. I don't think we make it out of this on the current trajectory. We need something new, radical, and different, something actually willing to tackle the climate crisis to the extent that it needs. I don't think that's a crazy thought.
We aren't gonna get out of this by sticking our head in the sand and I feel like that's what a lot of the techno optimists are doing. I actually find Kurzgesagt's content incredibly dangerous for this reason.
Fear is an incredible motivator and we are placating the masses right now, acting like the capitalists of the world are gonna be our saviors. Related to this thought, I always find it rich how everyone wants to look to the stars as if we are going to escape this planet, and that will be the solution, as if the more logical conclusion is not just to sustainably live in the planet we already have that we are perfectly adapted for. Something that their channel seems to advocate for is just blowing off into space and leaving it all behind.
Upvoting, since while I do not agree (though I haven't kept up with their latest videos, e.g. damn do they really advocate for leaving Earth behind? I never saw that but in that case, I would agree with you that's not great - though just b/c they have videos about aliens doesn't mean that they are advocating that as their solution? can you send me any examples to look at?), in any case I do thank you for explaining your POV.
Fwiw, I do see that Kurzgesagt's newer videos do have a "forced" optimism injected into them that their older ones did not - example. As you see, it wasn't even that they were "all doom & gloom", they were simply factual & even slightly positive, but they were not positive enough, so people complained and stopped watching them for that reason, therefore this was their response. Here is where we could argue that capitalism won... but they do exist in a capitalist society, and had to find a way to move forward, and anyway I actually don't think that's it (though I have no direct proof here).
As that famous saying goes, there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
I think they opted for the latter (walking the path), so as to have at least some hope of reaching people. And it worked!?! In the sense of solving that immediate issue of concern, i.e. at least they made really fantastic videos. If someone could not understand their 5-minute blurb of e.g. the vaccination process (What Actually Happens When You Are Sick?, then as the premise of how this whole conversation string started, they really aren't listening and won't hear no matter how simply it is explained. This is a service that they provided, b/c it needed to have been at least tried before abandoning all hope from that path.
Mind you, that path overall may have failed, but we cannot say that it was from lack of trying, in large part b/c of Kurzgesagt's videos - free, easy to watch, funny cartoonish graphics make them pleasant to look, they are nicely paced, have great voice-overs, etc. Most importantly, anyone from a child to an octogenarian could handle 10 minutes of that, even if they have to pause and rewind, or watch many times, etc. - if they really did want to know, such a video leaves no excuses to not knowing after having watched it.
Keep in mind that Kurzgesagt's goal wasn't to solve the problem - their goal was to educate the general populace, which I don't know if they accomplished, but they did at least make the videos.
Similarly it is up to scientists to monitor - which they likewise are doing - and for governments to enact policy change and... shit, yeah that's where it all breaks, isn't it?:-P But Kurzgesagt at least did their part admirably, imho (I dunno about scientists, I cannot judge there but even if not, that would be in large measure up to funding which gets back to governments).
So, if our governments or even humanity itself deserves to survive, it's up to our next steps to make it happen... or not, whatever. But, and here's where I finally start to diverge from what you said, after you make a "diagnosis", the next step is to do something about it. Simply stating that we should not compromise with capitalists makes sense... so then what do we do?
Do you take think trying to appeal to US "conservatives" in any way will do anything? These people are lost anyway.
Not likely. The problem is that you can only appeal to them in person. Any appeal made through the internet or the media will miss them completely. They self isolate in the media by only watching networks that confirm their bias against literally any climate activism and online there are algorithms that do it for them. When you do appeal to them in person, they attack you as a Soros-serving, leftist, liberal and declare that everything you tell them is fake news. They won't believe it until it affects them personally and even then they'll try to blame liberals for it while continuing to refuse to take positive action.
I think people are starting to realize that now (especially after the pandemic opened people's eyes to just how many of their neighbors would literally outright kill them, not only by refusing to wear masks but preventing others from wearing one too), but it is debatable how many people were "fully" that way when climate change was first starting to be noticed, and there may also have been more independents. [Edit: in fact, I keep hearing that even in the USA that is known for being so bipolar, only ~11% are on the extreme right and another ~11% on the "left" (for us, setting aside how right-leaning that is on the global scale, but at least it is the side that doesn't want Trump... which isn't nothing, see e.g. the funding sent towards Ukraine, even if so late that it may have cost the defense effort, yet still an enormous amount), leaving 3/4-4/5ths that are in-between. So not every conservative is a Republican. Don't forget: the media lies. Not equally, but indeed on both sides, and both sharing at least one of their myriad of reasons - profit.]
Also there is tremendous value in telling people things - whether they receive it or not is on them, but at least your own conscience is clear, if you shared what you knew. Like if you yelled "Fire!" but someone ignored that and went into the building (but never came out), you may feel terrible but not nearly as bad as you would have if you knew but chose to say nothing, for whatever reason.
Also, the more I think about it, I was being simplistic in my earlier comment: regardless of how pleasant life is or could be, whether humans (or even most large mammals) will continue to exist is a much more pressing concern. So it is not merely an issue of the choice of messaging, it is also about talking about the things that matter most. e.g. Kurzesagt has leaned much more towards the positive side of the message than they used to, but they still focus on the more realistic side of e.g. after our modern technological society collapses what could we expect to look forward to after that - like in a few hundred to thousand years, could we ~~recover~~ [edit: rebuild], especially without access to fossil fuels anymore? Here are two videos both from Kurzesagt:
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.