• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • “We totally would have saved the climate if you had only paid us enough.” Bitch, please.

    The trillions the oil industry has earned over the years were not enough?
    You had enough money, you had the knowledge of the problem and what you could do to fix it and you had enough time to change your strategy from lieing and denying.

    The only thing you didn’t have was the will to give up a single cent to help clean up the damage you have done.

    Imagine what could have been done with half of the 52 trillion the oil and gas industry earned in the last 50 years (that’s without coal, even). Imagine how far we could have developed renewable energy sources. What we could have achieved with carbon capture. What could be done today if the fossil industries propaganda hadn’t turned climate change into a question of political opinions.

    Fuck that guy. He and his ilk created this mess and they got fat of it. He doesn’t get to shift blame.




  • Don’t actually tear down church buildings though.

    Many of them are beautiful and even if the morals of the Organisation(s) that built them are, to put it mildly, “outdated”, it is still a huge part of our cultural history.

    Use the spaces to open “sexual health centers” (like Planned Parenthood on steroids), libraries, and in like 1 or 2 per continent you could create memorial centers to keep alive the memories of the suffering created by organized, doctrinal religion.

    Moving past a phase of our cultural development has to include remembering that phase. The church buildings turned to useful purpose will be powerful monuments.





  • Actually, no.

    The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you’d read it you would have found the following paragraph:

    Their results showed that we’re not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.

    Basically they are saying “this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system”.

    They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.