Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

Do phrases like 'global boiling' help or hinder climate action? (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Treevan@aussie.zone to c/environment@aussie.zone

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Last week, United Nations General Secretary António Guterres coined an arresting new term.

Or do they risk making us prone to climate doomism, and risk prompting a backlash? Australia’s Black Summer brought bushfires that burned an area the size of the United Kingdom.

If everything is a crisis, nothing is a crisis.

It can be folded into a discourse of hope and aspiration for the future, rather than of fear and trembling.

AAP Rethinking calamity Climate writer David Wallace-Wells has written that the future will be “contested and combative, combining suffering and flourishing — though not in equal measure for every group”.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter how it is described. Conservatives will always make false claims to undermine it. Always. As long as conservatives have any say at all, they will do everything in their power to prevent the normal people from addressing climate change.

To begin to fight climate change, we must first defeat conservatism. History has shown that conservatism has never been defeated by pacifism, debate or negotiation. Since normal people tend to avoid conflict with conservatives, it seems we can expect the worst possible outcome. Sometimes violence really is the answer. Unfortunately, the good guys will often decline to engage in it.

[–] kerr@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Agreed that it doesn’t matter how it’s described. And there’s a need to ratchet up language more and more if you go down this path. What comes after boiling?

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If it doesn’t matter how it’s described then why would changing its description make any difference? The language you’re talking about is just description.

Switching around terms is pointless when the audience doesn’t understand basic science.

[–] kerr@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Because changing the terms gives ammunition to the people blocking climate change action. You’ve seen the discussion about “oh it was global warming, now it’s climate change, make up your minds”. This is the same. To them it’s wavering on what the problem is. Changing terms is ambiguity. It’s being unsure. Just stick with “climate change” and “we told you so”. Maybe what I should have said was “it doesn’t matter how it’s described to people who don’t believe in climate change bc changing terms won’t change their mind. “

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

It comes down to education. Plenty of people don’t understand climate change because their education system completely failed them.

Switching one term to another doesn’t mean much when they already don’t know the first thing about climate change, or science.