this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
151 points (97.5% liked)

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

5296 readers
438 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
[email protected]
151
Advocates urge murder prosecution charges against Big Oil for heat wave deaths (www.salon.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Never happening, but even if it was wouldn't the correct charge be criminal negligence? It's not like the companies killed those people in a calculated, pre-meditated way. They're "just" externalities.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Isn't this what manslaughter is for, if you want the conviction ? I get why mens rea may not apply here, but bringing it into question may make it viable next time, which would be worthy (or likely I don't understand law well enough).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a lawyer, first of all! I'm not very knowledgeable either.

Mens rea, as far as I understand it, definitely doesn't apply here. Bringing it into question undermines the case if you're trying to build a conviction around it. Better to have a wide variety of provable smaller claims than one big ticket item you're doomed to fail, as far as I understand it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Wasn't saying it applies, just that it's required for murder (1st degree anyway) as the headline spoke. You're probably righter than me, though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Hyperbole undermines credibility