87
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
87 points (97.8% liked)
Climate
8585 readers
108 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
> "alt tl;dr"
> proceeds to say nothing in the actual article that doesn't mention executive salaries or China
Tankies really love to just say shit, don't they?
You can read about it here (open-access) if you don't want to listen to someone make shit up about an article and instead read about the good things China's initiative is doing.
Edit: Answering marxismtomorrow's very serious and not-at-all-ableist question below: I'm autistic. This is devastating to my case, and I formally retract all the arguments I've made here in light of this grievous oversight on my part.
Reminding people that this method DOES IN FACT WORK, when the article heavily suggests it is the method, not the people performing the method, that is the problem seems valuable to me.
There is nothing wrong with the science behind the Great Green Wall. As empirically proven in the other massive de-desertification project that is on a similar scale.
The problem is, very specifically, capitalism and its systemic failures.
Oh, so you just don't know or care what a "TL;DR" is. Very cool. (It's a summary, by the way.) Above, I've provided an open-access article highlighting the accomplishments (I'm not saying that snarkily like in scare quotes) of China's GGW initiative.
...Yes, I provided an alternative summary. Very good. I'm glad you recognized that I did that and explained it for the class, little one.
I don't know why you people (violently pejorative) get so angry when people don't mindlessly reply in the exact same way that you do, but it is something you need to get over.
You're not on reddit anymore. American Neoliberalism isn't welcome here, and soon will not be welcome anywhere on the planet after your Regime leader's actions over the last few years. You need to get over your programming sooner, rather than later.
Alternative summary feels intentionally misleading, when it's clear your intention was not to summarise but start a discussion on a related tangent (which is appreciated).
Oh, yeah, I remember the time someone provided a summary of Tom Sawyer, and when I thought it was lacking, I gave an "alternative summary" which was a crappy, nakedly biased opinion of elements not even in the book and mostly focused on how Huckleberry Finn is a way better character in his book. That's how summaries work.
If you don't understand direct on topic comparisons just say so.
If there's a story about how Hamburgers are an unpopular food that fails to satisfy hunger because McDonalds is failing, one would be correct in providing a summary of that story with the additional information that Burger King sales have increased in order to show the premise of the story is incorrect or incomplete.
I know for a fact you lower class of the Amerisraeli empire learn this within the first few years of your education, in between pledges of allegiance and Israeli-written alternative history facts.
Do I need to point you to an actual definition of a "summary"? I've been chalking it up to tankie bad-faith, but at this point, I'm wondering if it's just aggressive tankie stupidity.
"With the additional information?" Okay, I'm back to assuming bad-faith over illiteracy. Motherfucker, 1) that's outside the boundaries of a summary, and more importantly 2) none of what you said is in the article. Like that's not a summary. That's not even an analysis. A "TL;DR" isn't "here's my shitty opinion on this topic not at all explored in the article."
Serious question, do you have autism?
Yes. Did you know that the word comes from the German Autismus, coined as an alternative to the term at the time "autoerotism" (not to be confused with "autoeroticism")? Derives from Greek "autós + ismós" – "self-ism".