this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
91 points (100.0% liked)

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

7476 readers
222 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
91
Should we treat environmental crime more like murder? (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 18 hours ago by grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One day it struck me that the world would be a very different place if environmental crimes were treated in the same way as murders. So, why aren’t they? And should they be?

At the moment such crimes can, mistakenly, feel distant and abstract. If someone came into your flat and set fire to your furniture, stole your valuables, killed your pet, added poison to your water … what would you do? You’d be terrified. You’d go to the police. You might want revenge. You’d certainly want justice. It would be entirely obvious to you that a crime had been committed.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Paragone@piefed.social 5 points 9 hours ago
  1. yes
  2. you have to criminalize the ones who did the deciding, the ones who signed-off on the destruction: the executives. Nothing else will ever produce the required deterrent/effect.

_ /\ _

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 9 points 16 hours ago

Crimes against humanity, if it kills thousands of people.

Murder should be judged by its effects, not by the means. Killing other people for personal profit is at least very close to murder.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You should read The Ministry for the Future to see how they handle climate criminals (CEOs of fossil fuel industry associations, far right lobbyists, etc.)

[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 11 hours ago

Kim Stanley Robinson’s books are well worth exploring

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 6 points 16 hours ago

It would be a massive improvement if we treated their crimes like fraud and theft, but it's nice to dream.

[–] j4k3@piefed.world 3 points 16 hours ago

This assumes it is a top down decision in the first place. Often it is not such a decision. To assume an intellectual hierarchy is a fallacy. You will face an extremely grey area of prosecuting tens or hundreds of people with no clear person to blame. In other words, dichotomous logic is always wrong and reflective of a lack of fundamental logic skills and life experience. The solution is real capitalism where every infraction is cause for failure., and no favoritism exists. Size should be an insurmountable burden in real capitalism. Then a well informed citizen, like a real democracy, is the regulating factor instead of an untenable and inept authoritarian bureaucracy.

[–] klammeraffe@lemmy.cafe 1 points 17 hours ago

Like how corporations and global leaders are punished for murdering people?

L M F A O