- cross-posted to:
- climate
- cross-posted to:
- climate
Sharing this here as I feel it’s relevant to the GE campaign.
The evidence suggests that in about three weeks, we’re going to give a landslide to the party promising the most radical green policies in this country’s history. Environmentalism is just about to win the argument in Britain, as long as we vote for it on the 4th of July. Don’t give in to cynicism and despair!
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m very cynical and I despaired long ago, but giving these Tories a kicking is giving me motivation. I live in one of those formerly safe Tory seats, so I’m going to enjoy placing my cross this year.
Remember, kids: Tactical voting is tits.
Try not to despair! Here is some more positive news to improve your mood:
-
The world already passed the peak of per capita emissions in 2012: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?facet=none&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO₂&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita&country=CHN~USA~IND~GBR~OWID_WRL
-
GDP has been decoupled from CO2 admissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp-per-capita
-
Per capita energy consumption from renewables is increasing rapidly: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?tab=chart&facet=none&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Energy+or+Electricity=Primary+energy&Metric=Per+capita+consumption&Select+a+source=Renewables&country=USA~GBR~CHN~OWID_WRL~IND~BRA~ZAF
-
Newly installed renewable power capacity increasingly costs less than the cheapest power generation options based on fossil fuels. Solar PV shows an 82% cost decline: https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019
-
Emissions in advanced economies fell to their lowest levels in 50 years: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/emissions-in-advanced-economies-fell-to-their-level-of-50-years-ago
-
Global energy related CO2 emissions could peak by 2025: https://www.iea.org/news/the-energy-world-is-set-to-change-significantly-by-2030-based-on-today-s-policy-settings-alone
Remember, pessimism isn’t useful: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23622511/climate-doomerism-optimism-progress-environmentalism
Try to stay positive, friend! https://fixthenews.com/planet/
I’m starting to feel like my best friend is a robot.
Not a robot. Just doing what I can to push back against the sea of gloom here on Lemmy.
Thank you.
You are most welcome :)
GDP has been decoupled from CO2 admissions:
There’s not enough evidence for that statement imo. We see a drop in emissions here because we see a drop in emissions in general. This is however not strictly scalable and might bottom out at a certain point, at which point GDP growth will again cause emissions to rise.
Global energy related CO2 emissions could peak by 2025:
Not a good thing (and also hypothetical), considering that we should be carbon neutral within the decade.
Remember, pessimism isn’t useful:
I’m rather pessimistic and want much more action to be taken, instead of spreading toxic positivity that causes people to slack off or shift blame.
toxic positivity that causes people to slack off or shift blame.
To be fair, the general public, even the slack ones, do not deserve much blame. It should be much much easier to live plastic-free or fossil-free than it is. We’re all under financial pressure and nice-to-haves like eco-friendly purchases are naturally the first thing to go when your other choice is to choose between heating and eating. We need to target our blame thoughtfully.
No one is pushing toxic positivity. Positivity becomes toxic when it’s based on suppressing feelings. Instead of accepting and working through negative or challenging emotions, toxically positive behavior simply pushes them away. I’m not advocating for the latter or suggesting we ignore the many problems the world is facing, only that in doing so we don’t also ignore the tangible positives to.
I’m sorry that the information I provided doesn’t meet your requirements. Personally I believe that optimism and hope is important, and that we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good - any progress is better than none at all.
Suggesting something isn’t good because it may or may not change in the future is a very negative way of looking at things. Remember, pessimism isn’t realism: https://medium.com/the-ascent/the-magic-that-happens-when-we-stop-equating-pessimism-with-realism-9480a5481540
There’s also research that demonstrates that positivity increases motivation: https://www.positive.news/society/media/positive-news-stories-bring-people-together-study-finds/
And that people are more likely to engage with positive content, and that it provides purpose and direction: https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/rn3012085
Indeed we see this mentioned in the article linked in the header:
…in this case there has long been a group of people out there who believe we should tell the worst stories we possibly can, because then the public will get it and wake up and that will enable change. That practice has not really worked.
If positivity doesn’t feel right for you, or doesn’t feel right in this specific situation, that’s okay. Sometimes we use worry and other negative outcomes to help us. Just remember to look after your mental health. There’s a lot of negative news out there at the moment and constant doomscrolling is bad for you: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/cravings/202208/are-you-negative-news-junkie
Maybe take the time to remind yourself of what is going right in the world:
No one is pushing toxic positivity. Positivity becomes toxic when it’s based on suppressing feelings. Instead of accepting and working through negative or challenging emotions, toxically positive behavior simply pushes them away. I’m not advocating for the latter, indeed you will see from my response I was simply providing additional positive content.
Yet here you are, basically trying to shut me up and go as far as accusing me of mental health issues and doomscrolling. You know what causes change? Anger. You even see it with all the far right movements gaining massively all over the West. People need to be angry at all those things that are actually wrong, people need to demand change. Yet, most people can’t even bother to vote for climate relevant parties or candidates, because they rather live their comfortable lives instead of being potentially affected by actual climate policies that would be necessary.
Indeed, anger is important as long as its channeled correctly: https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-to-channel-your-anger-into-productive-action
But getting angry at something doesn’t mean we have to be angry all the time. Neither does it mean we have to do so at the expense of other emotions, including hope and positivity. Emotional engagement with climate change is complicated, and it’s important we understand that one size doesn’t fit all. If anger works for you, great, but it may not work for everyone:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.12140
I share your frustrations about people’s voting patterns, but as I’ve demonstrated only focusing on the negative will not help change that. Motivation is important, and people are willing to change, we just need to find better ways to help them: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/09/14/in-response-to-climate-change-citizens-in-advanced-economies-are-willing-to-alter-how-they-live-and-work/#:~:text=A median of 80%25 across,or no changes at all
-
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Back in the 1970s, just the possibility of ozone depletion led lots of people in the US to get rid of spray cans and use underarm roll-on instead.
Aside from the ozone crisis, what did you learn from researching other issues such as smog and lead that we might carry forward to the fight against global heating?Over the years in America and in the UK, we developed this anti-regulation mindset: regulation is bad, the market will find the best possible solution.
And they have all these assets, whether it be the rights to go out and cut down this mountaintop and sell it as coal, or offshore oil rigs that are very expensive pieces of equipment.
But it’s interesting that the concept of stranded assets has become part of the vocabulary, and people are beginning to realise how much power they actually have, in terms of the way we make our investments – in your retirement fund, or your choice of bank.
In the Guardian last month, 380 climate scientists were surveyed and many reported feeling despair – 77% of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5C above pre-industrial levels and 42% think they’ll exceed 3C.
You see it go in both directions, but in this case there has long been a group of people out there who believe we should tell the worst stories we possibly can, because then the public will get it and wake up and that will enable change.
The original article contains 1,334 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The evidence suggests that in about three weeks, we’re going to give a landslide to the party promising the most radical green policies in this country’s history.
The article doesn’t mention which party the evidence points to or which party is promising the most radical green policies in the country’s history, and neither did you, I’d like to know.
Could you elaborate on this please? I assume the Green Party are the group that support the most radical environmental reforms, but it would be nice to have some more context and information, thank you :-)
The Greens aren’t about to win a landslide, are they?
