submitted 1 week ago by silence7 to c/climate
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] runswithjedi@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

This is why people need to focus on both the costs and the BENEFITS in a cost/benefit analysis. Benefits can include reduced cost!

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

As someone with extensive experience in being politically steamrolled by rightwing conservative nutjobs, let me just say that:

#1 they will never argue in good faith. So don't use logic or reason as they'll only attack and keep spouting their talking points. It's a waste of time. Once the basic premise has been stated, it's time to disengage. "discussion" will never enter into it.

#2 they will never stop as long as someone stands to lose money and someone stands to gain money (occasionally power, usually interchangable, but the easier metric is money).

#3 since trump, the right wing has gone apeshit all over the world in every country and the tactics and results are always the same. They get the press to allow them to be batshit, and they cheat their way into eternal power.

#4 Be safe out there Canada.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

As someone who has extensive experience in NOT being politically steamrolled:

#1) Trevor Noah and John Oliver have never changed a mind, don't emulate them. There is no audience. There are no punchlines. If you feel the urge to "dunk", stop.

#2) Avoid the association to politics and identity as long as possible. This is where all the conflict is. People have made politics their identity (this is NOT exclusive to the right). As soon as a conversation is perceived to be an attack against their identity, the productive avenues for discussion are over.

#3) Talk about things outside of the context of politics. They probably have someone in their extended sphere struggling with pain medication addiction. Or mental health.

#4) Allow them to in the course of the conversation rebuild their identity around the non political compassion for the people they know who are struggling. Because they probably have that

#5) After a discussion where you're agreeing with eachother the whole time about how crushing something has been for people that they've seen, you'll be at a point where they just assume you have the same politics. Why wouldn't you? You've had a deep conversation and you agree about the existence of some big problems... That's when you can let it slip. Not "dunk", but slip, about how this is why you're jazzed about some specific POLICY that could help. It just happens to be a liberal or NDP one.

Honestly it's not hard. If it's hard you've been watching too much media designed to sell left to left. You don't sell left to right the way you sell left to left. Step away from politics and re-learn how to have a normal conversation first.

[-] Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Well articulated! I wish we could operate in that space more often.

Healthy discourse might get us humans somewhere instead of infighting with our neighbors

[-] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Just a heads up on formatting markdown: # indicates a heading, that's why your text is huge. If you want a numbered list, just put the number followed by a period.

  1. One.
  2. Two.
[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

And that's why the Conservatives want everyone focused on the carbon tax.

this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
144 points (100.0% liked)

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

4281 readers
699 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: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

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

founded 10 months ago