102
submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] neanderthal@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

Churchill: Americans will do the right thing after they have tried everything else.

When do British monarchs do the right thing? You had your chance, Charles, to be a leader and do the right thing. You blew it. History will remember this moment in the way it remembers the cruel imperialism of your ancestors.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 18 points 11 months ago

The standard is that the king does what the elected officials tell him to do, and holds no actual power to do anything else. The alternative is a king with actual power, which is incredibly damaging.

[-] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

The alternative is to end the monarchy entirely.

[-] neanderthal@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Pretty much l, if they are just a formality, what is the point?

Ideally, they would mostly defer to the elected officials, but use their royal stick when they try to do monumentally stupid things like this . I.e. act as a safety device. My guess is it would only happen once a decade or so.

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 3 points 11 months ago

They are pointless. But not really much different to other parliamentary systems where the head of state is just a figurehead (eg Ireland and Israel, as opposed to the USA and France). An elected figurehead would be far preferable, of course.

It would be a very fucking terrible idea to have a monarchy with actual power which actually used it. Almost all of the powers technically held by the monarchy are wielded by the govt on its behalf (eg the Royal Prerogative) and that is bad enough. Putting those powers directly in the hands of the hereditary monarch (a multi-billionaire with delusions of grandeur) would be much, much worse.

There is a 'royal stick', as you refer to it, which is the only power they have to wield unilaterally but it is almost impossible for them to actually do so, and definitely not as often as "once a decade or so". If they think the govt is becoming a dictatorship such that there is no other way to stop them, they can step in and force that govt out. But in practice they would need the backing of the entire British establishment to do so and, in reality, any British dictatorship would likely have the backing of the monarchy anyway.

[-] skhayfa@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Also the irony of a Royal sitting on a golden throne with a diamond egg on his head and a leopard mantle talking about high inflation and poverty.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

They all look fucking ridiculous.

[-] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 15 points 11 months ago

The tide has turned (sarcastic) so His Majesty himself must withdraw his environmentalist good intentions and follow the people's will.

Imagine this happening while the UK was part of the EU, how embarrassing! Luckily they left earlier.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

follow the people’s will

Or at least, some of the people.

That's apparently good enough.

[-] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 1 points 11 months ago

Yes, in the meantime I've lost any faith in humanity... 😅

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Those hairless apes are kind of over rated.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

How are we going to extract fuel from the king?

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I think kings are like olives in many ways.

[-] downpunxx@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Imagine still having a Monarch as a figurehead in the year 2023, lol

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

Imagine still believing in sky daddies in the year 2023, lol

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Those both pale against being determined to extract more fossil fuels in the year 2023.

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
102 points (98.1% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5178 readers
478 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

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