this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
159 points (98.2% liked)

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

5091 readers
969 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
159
Emma Thompson and Greta Thunberg among critics of Shell’s Greenpeace case (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 months ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

More than 30 public figures including Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton and Greta Thunberg have written to Shell criticising its “callous and vindictive” lawsuit against Greenpeace after activists occupied a moving oil platform last year.

In one of the biggest legal threats in the environmental charity’s 50-year history, Shell is suing it for $1m (£790,000) in damages, with costs that could run into the millions.

The move follows a protest in January last year in which four Greenpeace activists boarded a platform north of the Canary Islands that was being transported to the Shetland Islands, holding signs stating: “Stop drilling – start paying.”

Monday’s letter , signed by dozens of prominent musicians, activists, and lawyers as well as more than 100,000 members of the public, calls on Shell to respect the right to protest.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

OMG. Is money the only thing that Shell has on their mind ?

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 25 points 6 months ago (1 children)

... yeah? Thats kind of the entire basis of our economy.

It fuckin' sucks, but not exactly revolutionary information.

[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

There is a difference between making money to survive as a human being and going for profit at all costs. After Shell and Exxon ignored the risks in Groningen for years, they recently wanted money from the Dutch government. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dutch-govt-shell-exxon-ignored-groningen-risks-years-inquiry-finds-2023-02-24/

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

There is a difference between making money to survive as a human being and going for profit at all costs.

True. Unfortunately, the latter is the norm when it comes to corporations in general and ESPECIALLY when it comes to industries that shouldn't even exist anymore in the first place, such as the fossil fuel and tobacco industries.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

There is a difference between making money to survive as a human being and going for profit at all costs.

Yes, the former is a necessity because of the machinations of those striving for the latter.

[–] zout@fedia.io 12 points 6 months ago

You're talking about a Dutch firm (Shell is founded on colonial heritage through the Biliton company) which left the Netherlands after a very generous tax ruling was passed there, who are now based in post-brexit UK. I hope you are sarcastically asking this.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social -4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Greenpeace are problematic enough in their own right for so many reasons and really don't need saving, and Shell are doing so much worse elsewhere, this seems like such a poor choice of where to invest time energy and influence..

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

and Shell are doing so much worse elsewhere

you've got all the pieces but havent put it together yet. Shell, and every fossil fuel business, are doing awful things all the time all around the world. Greenpeace is opposing them.