this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
648 points (93.5% liked)

World News

39151 readers
2535 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In short, we aren't on track to an apocalyptic extinction, and the new head is concerned that rhetoric that we are is making people apathetic and paralyzes them from making beneficial actions.

He makes it clear too that this doesn't mean things are perfectly fine. The world is becoming and will be more dangerous with respect to climate. We're going to still have serious problems to deal with. The problems just aren't insurmountable and extinction level.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] heeplr@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.

That's the thing I don't get. How to come to such a conclusion?

If you ever have been on a sinking ship, you know how suddenly even the worst enemies will cooperate willingly quite well in face of time pressure and a life threat. Some might even be willing to sacrifice themselves when in such a situation, even a few minutes gained can make a huge difference. But aswell if the situation seems hopeless.

It's totally atypical for most humans to just accept fate and relax in any life threatening situation. Humans tend to die fighting/ defending.

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] heeplr@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

climate change unstoppable != scary life threatening consequences

Those are two entirely different narratives.

(And I didn't get past the paywall.)

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Homie I’m trying to explain what you’re obviously not understanding about this, and you keep responding with arguments about how you’re correct to not understand or something?

Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.” We shouldn’t be acting like the scary life threatening consequences of climate change are unstoppable. That is one narrative, you silly goof.

[–] heeplr@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.”

Then he's wrong. But it's more likely you misread the study since that's not the conclusion.

[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guy I can only imagine how hard it must be to go through life completely illiterate.

“The belief that climate change is unstoppable reduces the behavioural and policy response to climate change and moderates risk perception.”

[–] heeplr@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So you are saying

"The belief that climate change is unstoppable"

is the same thing as

"a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity"

Those are fundamentially different things and you just pulled some study you think is fitting to OPs article. But allright... I'm the one who's illiterate.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they want a slow boil, keeps the panic down and diminishes the odds there will be a 'bastards up against the wall' moment for the ones responsible.

[–] heeplr@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there will be a 'bastards up against the wall' moment for the ones responsible.

i can't see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without "state of emergency") lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

we're going to have the angry people mad that their children will grow up in a hellscape, and the deniers still sticking their heads in the sand saying petroleum is fine. gonna be real fun when these two groups meet up.