Climate

8925 readers

848 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 3 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

Revolution is inevitable (www.youtube.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by atomo@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

On BBC’s HARDtalk 5 years ago, Roger Hallam was slammed across the board for saying billions of lives were at risk. The liberal climate movements tried to refute and play down the existential risks ahead. The last few months have shown ever more clearly that he was right. After all, what do we actually think the “end of civilization” will look like?

Several new scientific papers from Ripple and Pearce have outlined that not only are billions of lives on the line, but that “richer humans will be responsible for [the] killing”. This month, the NASA Climate Scientist, Peter Kalmus, also added his voice to that position. The time for shying away from our existential reality is over. The precautionary principle dictates that these realities form and guide the mission of our lives - that only a revolution to change who makes the big decisions is going to save us.

Join resistance at 4billiondead.org

‪@Revolution21c‬
#revolution

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Again, that sounds great in a random comment online, but take that line of thinking to ground.

What does that actually look like? It will inevitably be violent. Historically, based on every revolution or attempt at revolution, the end result is worse than the starting point. The most dangerous, violent, charismatic person makes it to the top and they become a dictator.

There's no mechanism to ensure we actually end up in the desired point. Too many variables that are unaccounted for, even in Halam's like 40-part lecture series. It all sounds great but it's not realistic.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Historically, based on every revolution or attempt at revolution, the end result is worse than the starting point. The most dangerous, violent, charismatic person makes it to the top and they become a dictator.

This is only the case for revolutions with authoritarian marxist-leninists at the helm, which do exactly as you describe without fail.

However, anarchist revolutions which are built upon decentralizing power as much as possible so that there can be no centralized leadership from which dictatorship sprouts, has shown the opposite; that it can result in a long-term egalitarian society where there is no charismatic dictator or vanguard. This was demonstrated most clearly with the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, who documented how they organized in a horizontal, egalitarian way.

Rojava in northern Syria and the Chiapa Zapatista movement in Mexico (both inspired by Anarchist political theory) also demonstrate that an egalitarian society can function well for long periods without a decent into dictatorship.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah I'm well aware of Rojava, Spain, and the Zapatistas. Think about the entire culture of the West, do you think anarchism would spread further than a few percent of the population?

Side note: if you're not already aware you'd probably like the Cool Zone Media podcast network (Behind the Bastards, Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff, It Could Happen Here, etc.)