this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
56 points (93.8% liked)

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

5278 readers
901 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
silence7
56
Where did all the climate voters go? (grist.org)
submitted 12 hours ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/climate
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Michigan and other battleground states might have swung for Trump, but they elected environmentalists to U.S. Senate seats, too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Your article is cute, but really talks around the issue, seemingly obfuscating it as "polluting investments". Those billionaires own businesses, the ones that you buy at or buy from in one way or another. It ultimately still falls back to us and our consumerism, as well as just our general way of life and necessities in our developed countries. Sure, you can tax them more, but who do you think is going to pay for those additional costs?

Remember the downturn during covid? That also came with a drop in emissions, one that would have to continue until 2035, just for us to meet our emission targets. People already went on the barricades at that time, losing their businesses and being able to afford less and less due to rising prices. And that was just after about a year of it, causing massive demonstrations around the globe. If your average voter is already fed up by being mildly affected like this, what do you think would happen if this would have continued indefinitely?

The inconvenient truth is that absolutely no one wants actual climate policies, except for a very minor fringe movement of climate "extremists".

[โ€“] dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago

Yes you are correct in that it's painful to do the things that are required, and if given the choice, nobody would do it willingly.

My point was, that if everyone has to make sacrifices, there's a tiny chance. If the deal is "you get to suffer through economic downturn" and at the same time large investors see double, triple digit gains (COVID) then that chance goes to zero/negative.