this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
168 points (99.4% liked)

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

5393 readers
577 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] elouboub@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think we will be saved just in time by nuclear fusion and nobody will learn from this, just like nobody learned from COVID. The majority will probably shrug and go "see, wasn't that bad".

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wish I shared your optimism. A deus ex machina solution is extremely unlikely. It would be more effective to attempt to forcibly sieze control of the mechanisms of pollution than to hope for surprise salvation. When you are being actively killed, sometimes violence really is the answer.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

When you are being actively killed, sometimes violence really is the answer.

Yep, "violence is never the answer" are words of those who will end up dead at the hands of violent people. Violence is the last option and should only be used when all other avenues have been exhausted, but to say it's never an option is just naive.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if we did develop fusion, how long would it take to switch to it and would it even be economical? A ton of places still use coal and other fossil fuels simply because they're cheap or were already built. It's hard to make assumptions about how much fusion would cost when we still don't have it. Nuclear fission's fuel is cheap (cause so little is needed), yet nuclear is still insanely expensive because building the plants is a difficult task mired in red tape and the general public is afraid of it (on that note, I'm not sure how many people even have a concept of fusion beyond perhaps what Spiderman 2 made them believe).

There's also the divide in the world. Even if the rich western countries got fusion, would everyone? The west also got covid vaccines early while much of the rest of the world had to wait. And further drawing on the covid analogy, some countries pretended there wasn't an issue, which already is going on with climate change.

[–] elouboub@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

If we haven't learned by the time we get fusion that climate is global and should be tackled globally, we deserve extinction.

[–] murmelade@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] SirStumps@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] msage@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

He will sort us out

[–] elouboub@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Thots and prayers