• Raiderkev@lemmy.world
    1·
    8 hours ago

    Don’t let trump see this or there’s going to be mandatory whaling operations at all offshore drilling locations

    • BalderSion@real.lemmy.fanEnglish
      5·
      5 hours ago

      In the 80’s and 90’s there was strong undercurrent that activism couldn’t actually change anything. It was the end of history, all outcomes are and always were inevitable, voting with dollars was the only vote that really matters. Hippy punching was in it’s full flower. Environmentalism was seen as self indulgent and meaningless. “Save the whales,” was spit out as a sort of, ‘go waste someone else’s time,’ dismissal.

      The 4th Dilbert collection from 94’ was Shave the Whales, which already struck me as a passe gesture at hippy punching at the time, though I couldn’t tell if Scott Adams was engaging in hippy punching or mocking the hippy punchers.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      5·
      14 hours ago

      I definitely did, maybe think of it in context like a sneering “don’t you have some whales to save?” kind of way.

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    1 day ago

    Is it really the biggest story in conservation? I would have guessed fixing the hole in the ozone layer would’ve held that spot.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      4·
      10 hours ago

      Those two can’t really be compared. Ozone is likely more relevant to humans on the whole (less skin cancer ).

      My main issue with this study is that it’s based on public sightings (no I don’t know how else they would do it). During the height of whaling when they were hunted for oil they would have changed behaviors to avoid public sightings. Is it possible this rebound was not a rebound in their total numbers but just them not being terrified to go near human activity anymore since the decline of whaling? Whales live for a long time. In the 50s there could have been whales living that survived the peak of human whaling activity.

      Disclaimer: I don’t actually know anything.

    • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
      39·
      1 day ago

      The ozone layer hole situation is another great case study in something that was fixed by humanity being proactive.

      ETA: This post I made here feels good to read but it’s not really true, unfortunately. Check out seefin’s post in this same thread for more info.

      • Seefin@lemmy.world
        351·
        1 day ago

        It is a massive success, primarily because by the time the Montreal Protocol was fully ratified it was more profitable to not use CFCs.

        However, speaking as someone who lives at the bottom of the world in the country with the highest melanoma risk in the world we didn’t actually fix it. We stopped the holes in the ozone layer growing and saw some recovery, with the hole over the Northern Hemisphere predicted to close by 2030-ish and ours by 2060-ish, but it’s nowhere near fixed.

        And since about 2013 we’ve seen a massive increase in CFC emissions again, so the Southern Hemisphere hole is probably pushing out to 2070-ish. Not that any scientific research has definitively stated that yet, it’s mostly non-committal. The majority of these new emissions have been traced to countries that didn’t have to get rid of those specific CFCs until 2010, so it’s a good indicator that those countries may view the Montreal Protocol differently in the new millennium than they did in the 80s. Or it indicates that it’s taking them longer to cease usage than predicted. Hard to tell really.

        So to say “It’s fixed!” is a little hopeful. The problem still exists, and effects are still being felt, but there’s nothing you or I can do - hence the common narrative, especially in the North, that all the hard work was done in the 80s and we’re good now.

        • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
          18·
          1 day ago

          This is so interesting. I just got done posting a similar comment to snooggums, but I didn’t realize it was just a narrative. I went looking for some sources for the things you were saying and lo and behold… looks like it’s not as “fixed” as is commonly claimed!

          Here’s NASA’s data on the hole(s).

          And here’s an infographic I found:

        • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
          52·
          1 day ago

          I didn’t say it was fixed, I said it was a success.

          As in the damage being done was minimized/stopped through a coordinated effort.

          • Seefin@lemmy.world
            1·
            10 hours ago

            I suppose I question if the Montreal Protocol and associated social movement was a success if we didn’t completely stop the damage (sorry if you live underneath a hole and have a stupid skin cancer rate as a result) and we’re backsliding (Oh you were a developing country when this was signed, keep using CFCs til 2010, but we won’t enforce penalties if you’re still doing it in 2013). It was incredibly impressive to get the buy in that the Protocol got, especially given the other stuff going on in the world at the time.

            But on reflection I’d hesitate to call the thing a success.

  • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
    423·
    1 day ago

    Why the fuck is anyone using twitter still?

    At this point if you’re on twitter you support Nazis, plain and simple. The line was drawn and crossed.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipEnglish
      151·
      1 day ago

      Social media platform addiction is a helluva drug.

      Apparently, for quite a lot of people, its hard to quit when you’re so used to getting your fix, no matter how bad it fucks up your head, ruins your relationships with other peoole, no matter how much of a shitbag your dealer is.

      Err… I mean…

      -insert babbling infantilizing corpospeak about network effect and broad market trends-

  • burgersc12@mander.xyzEnglish
    39·
    1 day ago

    We saved em just in time to see them die off again in the great Anthropocene. Drill baby drill, until we can’t support life in the Oceans or on the entire planet!