Nein, ich sehe mich nicht als West-Deutscher, aber um ehrlich zu sein fühle ich mich nicht mal Deutsch, sondern einfach Mensch.
Allerdings kann ich sehen, dass es nach wie vor Unterschiede in jeweils Ost und West gibt. Ein klassisches Beispiel wäre die unterschiedliche Bezahlung bei gleicher Arbeit.
Hehe, ich kann das sogar. Aber dennoch ist doch wohl eine Reparatur Garantie besser, wir müssen ja nicht hin. Aber es gibt Menschen, die können das nicht und denen wäre geholfen.
Das ist toll! Aber weil du das jetzt kannst, sollte ich das auch können? Oder was möchtest du damit sagen?
Fear often sits behind anxiety, and there’s been growing attention to climate anxiety. We don’t see that climate anxiety is really widespread among populations, but it is higher among younger people. Often it motivates action. What we found was that there is a positive relationship between climate anxiety and taking action to tackle climate change. Fear can be a motivator in the same way that we were just saying about anger.
This could be interesting to be studied more. All too often I hear "we need to stay optimistic to act" and "doomerism leads to inaction" without anything to back that up.
Decades of optimism about climate change have lead to hardly any action.
Personally I believe the average person needs to worry much more than they do now. While more people know about human made climate change now, most of them do so only superficially and very optimistically.
I think we can use "will" or even "is going to" instead of "might" here without problem.
Also, I don't wanna hear and don't care anymore what nations pledge. If governments want my attention, they should deliver active plans and changes in the legislative, not hollow promises.
Now, what I don't understand, maybe somebody can explain this to me: we are currently at 1.2 °C above the baseline. But several sources say that global dimming is currently cooling somewhat between 0.5 and 1 °C. In other words, if we stop all pollution today, we'd quickly face 1.7 to 2.2 °C above the baseline, so at least the 1.5 target would be already technically breached.
Now my question: Is global dimming modelled in any of these scenarios? Because I still see possible pathways just above 1.5. Or are they modelled but the plan is to reduce GHG but not the pollution that causes global dimming? That's pretty much the only explanation that makes sense to me.
Yes, that could have been written. That there are some people who are readily throw humanity into the biggest crisis for their own profit.
The situation is very dire. There is hardly done anything to improve the situation and there are people who misinform and spread doubt. Scientists and activists get ridiculed and attacked.
That all can be written. I just don't find the comparison to pre WW2 very matching.
It's a human decision as it's humans who can make this decision.
However it's a decision that only a very small minority of humans can do, most of us have no say in this.
The article compares the years before WW2 to now. How England failed to properly judge the threat from Germany and didn't get the army ready. As written in an essay by George Orwell. Compared to how we currently fail to realize the threat of climate change.
I don't know, it doesn't make much sense to me. Of course there are parallels, like inaction now means bigger problems in future. But that's pretty much it. I don't like to compare the climate crisis to war.
Nature isn't fascist. Earth doesn't arm up. Yes, disasters get stronger and more common. But this is no war. Nature isn't expanding and invading neutral countries. We are not fighting and should not fight against our planet, instead we should learn how to live sustainable on it. The climate isn't the aggressor, it's simple reacting to our action. Nature doesn't have ideals nor any agenda, it doesn't have morality.
And again a very common thing: humanity should not be semantically separated from nature! The two aren't opposing parties or something, we humans are part of environment, while being dependant on the environment. We can't save or help environment, when we say so, we merely mean that we don't harm it.
If we think nature is waging a war against us, we can only lose that war. We need to realize that we are a part of nature and that we harm nature and that we need to stop! We need to do the opposite than fighting, we need to stop destroying!
You mean the Pope who stood up so firmly against sexual abuse in his own house?
Dream on.
No, no, I've never said that. I am myself highly worried about many countries going further and further right.
I just thought that maybe there is a either European or international law that prohibits hindering people that help dying people. I'm pretty sure that there used to be a naval code, that sailors must help sailors.
I am not so crazy to think that it would have a high impact, but maybe Europe could threaten cutting financial aid or whatever.
But I see your point. With many countries going racist and with even a European border militia (Frontex), it's probably only in the interest of Europe to look away.
Das ist halt der Brechmittel-Olaf. Der "ich Schlingel hab alles vergessen"-Olaf. Unser Gangster-Olaf aus ner ganz bösen 'hood.