the only difference between a billionaire who believes in climate change and one who doesn't is that one of them is gonna spend more on a sweet apocalypse bunker with gold plated slurpee machines. neither would do anything about it if it hurt their bottom line.
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
21 points (92.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5197 readers
712 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Yes. Musk will stop believing in global warming because he’s Trump's bitch.
Also, Musk seems to be relying on not addressing global warming to accelerate his ambition of colonising Mars.
The problem with people like Musk is that they have this wild abundance state of mind in terms of technological advances to the point that they may be concerned about something, but more convinced that we'll be so advanced that we'll have something to deal with it later, so it becomes some moot point to them, basically a gamble.
"Can't we deal with it in 50-100 years when we'll have even more tools to deal with it?" basically, but yeah if we don't reach that point we're very much fucked
I've heard this called "soft climate denial", and unforntuately it's widespread.
People like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi say that they believe in climate change. But let's imagine that we're roommates and you told me that there's an out of control wildfire a few miles away and the governor has told us all to evacuate. One roommate says that they don't belive it and they're staying. And I say 'Shame on you for denying this! I firmly believe in the wildfire. It's urgent that we act now, which is why I've ordered travel maps on Amazon so we can begin plotting our evacuation route as soon as they arrive.'
Would you characterize this is accepting the crisis, or being in a state of soft denial?
Not directly addressing the crisis yesterday is just boneheaded. That's my 2 cents. It's a pandora's box that will surprise us in many ways because we have no way of ascertaining what will exactly happen, and we also don't know if or how it's possible to reverse half of it.
Musk just being his usual recklessly optimistic self imo
Edit: but to answer your question, yes that is denialism, and I think anything short of actively boycotting the worst offenders in order to deprive lobbyists is denialism or indifference, but I always get called an asshole for thinking the onus should be partly on the consumer. But hey, we vote in progressives and they give us laws and suddenly the Escalade needs a frontal camera because it's so big. That's the world we live in, corporations have too much money and too much influence. If you wanna eat the rich it helps to starve them first imo