Tumgik
#climate breakdown
feckcops · 6 months
Text
The public wants to save the planet – as long as it doesn’t personally inconvenience them
“Back in July, Just Stop Oil (JSO) experienced something unusual – they found they were the ones being protested. An alternative group called Just Stop Pissing People Off attempted to block Just Stop Oil from engaging in disruptive protests and interrupted their events, saying that the climate crisis is real but that JSO is distracting and alienating people. The counter-protests tell us a great deal about Britain’s contradictory attitude to the climate crisis.
“Broadly, Brits understand that the climate crisis climate change is a major problem. 65% of us are worried about the climate crisis (versus just 28% who aren’t) while the same proportion supports the government’s aim of reducing Britain’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050 ... Eight in 10 back more tree planting, subsidies for energy-efficient homes and higher taxes for high-carbon companies. 62% would support a requirement for all energy production to come from renewable sources. But this enthusiasm has its limits.
“When asked if they would back policies that would impose limits on what they personally can do, Brits quickly turn against them. For instance, two-thirds oppose the idea of a limit on how much meat they can buy, and a majority oppose banning petrol and diesel cars ... Even though 62% of voters back the idea of requiring all energy to be renewable, just 39% want to ban new North Sea oil fields, and a mere 32% want to prohibit the sale of gas boilers ...
“The British public is not as supportive of action on the climate crisis as many environmentalists would hope. We favour general, uncontentious ideas – net zero, tree-planting, tax rises on high-carbon companies – but when asked for our opinion on a climate policy that would directly affect us personally, we baulk. This is partly due to worries about the cost of living, but it’s also about avoiding personal inconvenience.
“Just Stop Pissing Everyone Off perfectly encapsulates the British attitude to the climate crisis: sure, it’s a problem, but not ours. As Homer Simpson once asked: ‘Can’t someone else do it?’”
279 notes · View notes
ceevee5 · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
300 notes · View notes
saywhat-politics · 1 month
Text
By Julia Conley — February 17, 2024
Several of the 1,700 new or updated definitions Dictionary.com added to its online catalogue of terms on Thursday were inspired by recent news events.
"Climate breakdown" was identified by the website as "the collective effects of harmful and potentially irreversible trends in climate, specifically those resulting from unchecked global warming," while "energy poverty" is "a lack of adequate access to safe, affordable sources of electricity or fuel for warmth, light, cooking, etc."
Another, "greedflation," was informed by growing evidence that has shown in recent years how rising prices are not always the result of supply chain woes or other market pressures, but can be "caused by corporate executives or boards of directors, property owners, etc., solely to increase profits that are already healthy or excessive."
The dictionary's addition of the word, said economic justice think tank Groundwork Collaborative, solidifies "its place in how we understand" recent inflation.
55 notes · View notes
goldsasa · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
Dear Sirs!
(or have some ladies also signed?)
A few days ago, you, Mr Musk, together with Mr Wozniak, Mr Mostaque and other signatories, published an open letter demanding a compulsory pause of at least six months for the development of the most powerful AI models worldwide.
This is the only way to ensure that the AI models contribute to the welfare of all humanity, you claim. As a small part of the whole of humanity, I would like to thank you very much for wanting to protect me. How kind! 🙏🏻
Allow me to make a few comments and ask a few questions in this context:
My first question that immediately came to mind:
Where was your open letter when research for the purpose of warfare started and weapon systems based on AI were developed, leading to unpredictable and uncontrollable conflicts?
AI-based threats have already been used in wars for some time, e.g. in the Ukraine war and Turkey. Speaking of the US, they are upgrading their MQ-9 combat drones with AI and have already used them to kill in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The victims of these attacks - don't they count as humanity threatened by AI?
I am confused! Please explain to me, when did the (general) welfare of humanity exist, which is now threatened and needs to be protected by you? I mean the good of humanity - outside your "super rich white old nerds Silicon Valley" filter bubble? And I have one more question:
Where was your open letter when Facebook's algorithms led to the spread of hate speech and misinformation about the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar?
Didn't the right to human welfare also apply to this population group? Why do you continue to remain silent on the inaction and non-transparent algorithms of Meta and Mr Zuckerberg? Why do you continue to allow hatred and agitation in the social media, which (at least initially) belonged to you without exception?
My further doubt relates to your person and your biography itself, dear Mr Musk.
You, known as a wealthy man with Asperger's syndrome and a penchant for interplanetary affairs, have commendably repeatedly expressed concern about the potentially destructive effects of AI robots in the past. I thank you for trying to save me from such a future. It really is a horrible idea!
And yet, Mr Musk, you yourself were not considered one of the great AI developers of Silicon Valley for a long time.
Your commitment to the field of artificial intelligence was initially rather poor. Your Tesla Autopilot is a remarkable AI software, but it was developed for a rather niche market.
I assume that you, Mr Musk, wanted to change that when you bought 73.5 million of Twitter's shares for almost $2.9 billion in April?
After all, to be able to play along with the AI development of the giants, you lacked one thing above all: access to a broad-based AI that is not limited to specific applications, as well as a comprehensive data set.
The way to access such a dataset was to own a large social network that collects information about the consumption patterns, leisure activities and communication patterns of its users, including their social interactions and political preferences.
Such collections about the behaviour of the rest of humanity are popular in your circles, aren't they?
By buying Twitter stock, you can give your undoubtedly fine AI professionals access to a valuable treasure trove of data and establish yourself as one of Silicon Valley's leading AI players.
Congratulations on your stock purchase and I hope my data is in good hands with you.
Speaking of your professionals, I'm interested to know why your employees have to work so hard when you are so concerned about the well-being of people?
I'm also surprised that after the pandemic your staff were no longer allowed to work in their home offices. Is working at home also detrimental to the well-being of humanity?
In the meantime, you have taken the Twitter platform off the stock market.
It was never about money for you, right? No, you're not like that. I believe you!
But maybe it was about data? These are often referred to as the "oil of our time". The data of a social network is like the ticket to be one of the most important AI developers in the AI market of the future.
At this point, I would like to thank you for releasing parts of Twitter's code for algorithmic timeline control as open source. Thanks to this transparency, I now also know that the Twitter algorithm has a preference for your Elon Musk posts. What an enrichment of my knowledge horizon!
And now, barely a year later, this is happening: OpenAi, a hitherto comparatively small company in which you have only been active as a donor and advisor since your exit in 2018, not only has enormous sources of money, but also the AI gamechanger par excellence - Chat GPT. And virtually overnight becomes one of the most important players in the race for the digital future. It was rumoured that your exit at the time was with the intention that they would take over the business? Is that true at all?
After all I have said, I am sure you understand why I have these questions for you, don't you?
I would like to know what a successful future looks like in your opinion? I'm afraid I'm not one of those people who can afford a $100,000 ticket to join you in colonising Mars. I will probably stay on Earth.
So far I have heard little, actually nothing, about your investments in climate projects and the preservation of the Earth.
That is why I ask you, as an advocate of all humanity, to work for the preservation of the Earth - with all the means at your disposal, that would certainly help.
If you don't want to do that, I would very much appreciate it if you would simply stop worrying about us, the rest of humanity. Perhaps we can manage to protect the world from marauding robots and a powerful artificial intelligence without you, your ambitions and your friends?
I have always been interested in people. That's why I studied social sciences and why today I ask people what they long for. Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's a good idea to ask the people themselves what they want before advocating for them.
The rest of the world - that is, the 99,9 percent - who are not billionaires like you, also have visions!
With the respect you deserve,
Susanne Gold
(just one of the remaining 99% percent whose welfare you care about).
245 notes · View notes
humanrightsconnected · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
Our Climate Justice 🌍🌱✊ action guide uncovers the consequences climate change has on humanitarian issues beyond natural disasters. More importantly, our blog post is enriched with practical resources to help you learn how you can play a pivotal role in the climate justice movement! Be sure to check it out now 👇!
115 notes · View notes
Text
We are fucked.
Tumblr media
I don’t care if this is alarmism (it isn’t) if it gets people to wake the fuck up.
No one is listening and if we don’t do something NOW this planet is going to become unlivable. We need to start making real change right fucking now. Not in 10 years, not it 5, right now.
A pledge to be carbon neutral by 2050 is worse than useless. Electric vehicles are not the future, personal vehicles more technologically complex than fucking bicycles are not the future. A future where capitalism exists in any form is not the answer.
Stop buying into capitalist solutions for a problem caused solely by capitalism.
Tumblr media
We need to start decarbonizing now. And yet.
Politicians are still signing off on more fossil fuel production and will continue to do so as long as we allow them to.
Tumblr media
Any politician who fail to take meaningful action on climate change should be out of a job.
This shit is not a joke.
Tumblr media
There will be no future under capitalism. The sooner that is understood and accepted, the sooner the real work can start.
We don’t have time to hand hold and placate capitalists. Every second we spend doing it is a second we could be spending fighting for our fucking lives.
Humanity is self destructing and we know how to stop it.
Tumblr media
Our way of life is killing us and by the time the people in power get around to caring about it it’ll be too late.
Sorry if that’s hard to hear, it’s certainly hard to say. But all a comforting lie is going to do is ensure our collective fucking demise.
234 notes · View notes
acti-veg · 1 year
Text
All three of the key UN agencies have produced damning reports in the last two days. The UN environment agency’s report found there was “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place” and that “woefully inadequate” progress on cutting carbon emissions means the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is a “rapid transformation of societies” (…)
Prof Myles Allen, at the University of Oxford, said: “The combined profits, taxes and royalties generated by the oil and gas industry over the past few months would be enough to capture every single molecule of CO2 produced by their activities and reinject it back underground. So why are we only talking about transforming society and not about obliging a highly profitable industry to clean up the mess caused by the products it sells?”
132 notes · View notes
aci25 · 2 years
Text
A clip from Don’t Look Up, and then a real TV interview that just happened…😳🤦🏻
185 notes · View notes
sparksinthenight · 1 year
Text
70 notes · View notes
bumblebeeappletree · 6 months
Text
youtube
This street artist is painting murals to highlight the 6 young activists who are attempting to hold 32 European countries accountable over their climate inaction
#France #Europe #Court #Earth #Environment #ClimateCrisis #WatchThis #NowThis
8 notes · View notes
feckcops · 11 months
Text
Hot air: five climate myths pushed by the US beef industry
“While fossil fuel consumption has done the most to put us on our dangerous path to climate catastrophe, a widely cited 2020 study in the journal Science argued that we can no longer avoid the worst of the climate crisis by cutting fossil fuels alone. Staying below the average global temperature rise of 2C – a threshold that scientists say will lead to systems collapse, mass extinctions, fatal heat waves, drought and famine, water shortages and flooded cities – will require ‘rapid and ambitious’ changes to food systems.
“The single most impactful food-related change we can make, according to their findings, is not increasing yields, ramping up agricultural efficiency or cutting food waste, though those approaches all would help. It’s adopting a plant-rich diet.
“While building out energy infrastructure can take years, changing our diet is something we can work toward today.”
42 notes · View notes
ceevee5 · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
335 notes · View notes
saywhat-politics · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
With our food systems on the verge of collapse, it’s the plutocrats v life on Earth
George Monbiot
Climate breakdown and crop losses threaten our survival, but the ultra-rich find ever more creative ways to maintain the status quo
Sat 15 Jul 2023 05.00 EDT
According to Google’s news search, the media has run more than 10,000 stories this year about Phillip Schofield, the British television presenter who resigned over an affair with a younger colleague. Google also records a global total of five news stories about a scientific paper published last week, showing that the chances of simultaneous crop losses in the world’s major growing regions, caused by climate breakdown, appear to have been dangerously underestimated. In mediaworld, a place that should never be confused with the real world, celebrity gossip is thousands of times more important than existential risk.
The new paper explores the impacts on crop production when meanders in the jet stream (Rossby waves) become stuck. Stuck patterns cause extreme weather. To put it crudely, if you live in the northern hemisphere and a kink in the jet stream (the band of strong winds a few miles above the Earth’s surface at mid-latitudes) is stuck to the south of you, your weather is likely to be cold and wet. If it’s stuck to the north of you, you’re likely to suffer escalating heat and drought.
In both cases, the stuck weather, exacerbated by global heating, affects crops. With certain meander patterns, several of the northern hemisphere’s major growing regions – such as western North America, Europe, India and east Asia – could be exposed to extreme weather at the same time, hammering their harvests. We rely for our subsistence on global smoothing: if there’s a bad harvest in one region, it’s likely to be counteracted by good harvests elsewhere. Even small crop losses occurring simultaneously present what the paper calls “systemic risk”.
Number of people going hungry has risen by 122m since 2019, UN saysRead more
Already, regional climate shocks have helped cause a disastrous reversal in the trend of global chronic hunger. For many years, the number of hungry people fell. But in 2015 the trend turned and has been curving upwards since. This is not because of a lack of food. The most likely explanation is that the global food system has lost its resilience. When complex systems lose resilience, instead of damping the shocks that hit them, they tend to amplify them. The shocks amplified across the system so far have landed most heavily on poor nations that depend on imports, causing local price spikes even when global food prices were low.
If this happens when harvests are affected in just one country or one region, we can only imagine the results if extreme weather simultaneously hits several major growing regions.
Tumblr media
We face an epochal, unthinkable prospect: of perhaps the two greatest existential threats – environmental breakdown and food system failure – converging, as one triggers the other.
There are plenty of signs, some of which I’ve tried to explain in the Guardian and, with a sense of rising urgency, in a presentation to parliament, suggesting that the global food system may not be far from its tipping point, for structural reasons similar to those that tanked the financial sector in 2008. As a system approaches a critical threshold, it’s impossible to say which external shock could push it over. Once a system has become fragile, and its resilience is not restored, it’s not a matter of if and how, but when.
So why isn’t this all over the front pages? Why, when governments know we’re facing existential risk, do they fail to act? Why is the Biden administration allowing enough oil and gas drilling to bust the US carbon budget five times over? Why is the UK government scrapping the £11.6bn international climate fund it promised? Why has Labour postponed its £28bn green prosperity fund, while Keir Starmer is reported to have remarked last week “I hate tree huggers” (a pejorative term for environmental campaigners)? Why are the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and the Express competing to attack every green solution that might help to prevent climate chaos? Why does everything else seem more important?
The underlying problem isn’t hard to grasp: governments have failed to break what the economist Thomas Piketty calls the patrimonial spiral of wealth accumulation. As a result, the rich have become ever richer, a process that seems to be accelerating. In 2021, for example, the ultra-rich captured almost two-thirds of all the world’s new wealth. Their share of national income in the UK has almost doubled since 1980, while in the US it’s higher than it was in 1820.
The richer a fraction of society becomes, the greater its political power, and the more extreme the demands it makes. The problem is summarised in one sentence in the resignation letter of the UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith: instead of attending a crucial environment summit, Rishi Sunak went to Rupert Murdoch’s summer party. We cannot work together to solve our common problems when great power is in the hands of so few.
What the ultra-rich want is to sustain and extend the economic system that put them where they are. The more they have to lose, the more creative their strategies become. As well as the traditional approach of buying media outlets and pouring money into the political parties that favour them, they devise new ways of protecting their interests.
Corporations and oligarchs with massive fortunes can hire as many junktanks (so-called thinktanks), troll farms, marketing gurus, psychologists and micro-targeters as they need to devise justifications and to demonise, demoralise, abuse and threaten people trying to sustain a habitable planet. The junktanks devise new laws to stifle protest, implemented by politicians funded by the same plutocratic class.
It could scarcely be more screwed up. The effort to protect Earth systems and the human systems that depend on them is led by people working at the margins with tiny resources, while the richest and most powerful use every means at their disposal to stop them. Can you imagine, in decades to come, trying to explain this to your children?
Looking back on previous human calamities, all of which will be dwarfed by this, you find yourself repeatedly asking “why didn’t they … ?” The answer is power: the power of a few to countermand the interests of humanity. The struggle to avert systemic failure is the struggle between democracy and plutocracy. It always has been, but the stakes are now higher than ever.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
© 2023 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. (modern)
273 notes · View notes
signpetitions · 5 months
Text
The Biden administration’s Willow project would emit more hydrogen dioxide than a third of the coal plants in USA. It is absolute insanity to start more fossil fuel production when the planet is already far beyond its limits. Sign the petition to stop this madness!
4 notes · View notes
humanrightsconnected · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
Learn today with our action guide how you can fight for climate justice 👇!
84 notes · View notes
Text
We’re all gonna fucking die
Capitalism is bleeding this world dry and we’re gonna let it as long as we can still get same day delivery.
Tumblr media
If you don’t understand that by now I hope your denial is a cold comfort to you as you watch the world crumble around you.
Tumblr media
You call climate activists alarmists because it’s easier than acknowledging that they are correct.
Tumblr media
People will be dying from the impact of climate change while firmly denying that it exists just like the Covid 19 patients gasping for breath in their hospital beds while insisting that the pandemic is a hoax.
Tumblr media
The rich are building bunkers and stockpiling resources because they see what they are doing to us all. We need to stop idolizing the rich and start fucking taxing them.
Tumblr media
This world is going to burn and our leaders are going to let it as long as their pockets get lined on the way down.
If you think capitalism will allow itself to be dismantled you’re vastly underestimating the greed and all consuming selfishness of the wealthy elite.
120 notes · View notes