this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
110 points (87.7% liked)

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

5053 readers
489 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)

How about everyone who says it's the job of the little guy to fix the climate problem kicks a rock and governments, shipping companies, cruise lines, airlines, industrial farmers, etc PUT DOWN THE FORK.

Every individual in every country is not responsible for allowing year over year profits in industries that ignore the writing on the wall.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You can change what you do without input or veto from anyone else.

That is not true for governments.

You can do both. You can go vegan for the environment (if abuse of animals isn’t enough for you) AND vote for a/lobby the government for larger sweeping action.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure.

At the same time, I can enjoy a great steak every now and again, and I can travel with my children to make sure they know their great grandmother in a different country every two years. And I can do those things and not feel bad because 80% of the time we do our part. Corpos, by comparison, are not pulling their weight, and they are already most of the problem.

[–] danciestlobster@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I totally agree with this notion, everybody should do what they realistically can, and it will look different for everyone. Some can be vegan and it will work out great, others will struggle to give up meat. Some can bike/walk to work everyday, or avoid air travel, and some can't. Anyone doing well 80% of the time is probably doing just fine.

All that said, it is worth remembering that these industries are (mostly) funded by consumers, and while giant corporations are obviously the way bigger issue, consumers have more power than we often give ourselves credit for to restrict those companies. In a hypothetical world where everyone stops eating beef, it isn't like the beef industry continues to pollute. They will directly produce the amount of beef people will buy. Even if everyone has their steak now and then but doesn't make it an every night staple, that alone would already do a lot to limit the emissions of the beef industry. It's not a whole solution, but it is the one that is easiest and most obtainable, because convincing the government to stop subsidizing beef is not on the agenda of any major politicians at least in the states, even if I wish it were.

[–] leftytighty 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

One problem with "voting with your wallet" like this is some wallets are bigger than others and it's not always easy and affordable to do the sustainable thing. Add to this that powerful lobbies (oil and gas, dairy, animal agriculture) use regulatory capture and other means to make their products the cheaper option for the consumer.

State action to drive green technologies down in price like that of China is met with tariffs and other protectionist measures that drive those prices right back up.

This is yet another tragedy of late stage capitalism sucking all wealth out of the working class, people may want to live more sustainably but they have to buy the cheap, disposable, subsidized options. Voting with your wallet isn't easy when your wallet is empty.

I'm fairly privileged and I lead a vegan lifestyle, and I can pay extra to have some luxuries like the meat substitutes, vegan restaurants, or non-fast-fashion clothing. Others might be able to do the same, cheaper, but at a lower quality of life.

If we tackled wealth inequality with any vigor at all, more people could do this.

[–] danciestlobster@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

That's true, and a big part of why what is possible for everyone varies. There is some silver lining, chicken is cheaper than beef and significantly lower carbon footprint, some vegan options can be very cheap too if there is time to cook.

But yes, for this who have the ability and inclination to vote with wallets, great, with acceptance for others who don't have that option

load more comments (8 replies)