this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
120 points (88.5% liked)

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

5282 readers
704 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
120
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by advance_settings to c/climate
 

Some things are easier to change than others - and the really hard things often don't require money, but a change in people!

Edit: Sorry for the shitty OP, I should have known better than to post in a hurry.

It reads as if the population is primarily responsible for combating the climate crisis, while industry and government are off the hook because money has little effect.

What I actually meant to express was that technological adjustments that only cost money are easier to implement than changes to people's habits. Perhaps this is a naive idea because it assumes that there is the political will to make these investments and that the industry is forced to cooperate accordingly. Addressing the climate crisis requires many changes, and economic profitability must be secondary. But achieving this is perhaps one of the most difficult adjustments society requires.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's some truth in that but the last graph option is very easy to implement individually. Switching to a plant-based diet is easy, fun and healthy. It can also be cheaper.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a bit harder for society to change when unhealthy food options are constantly being marketed, promoted, pushed and managed by those who sell this stuff.

It's still the same crack addict analogy ... we keep saying that the addict should change but we never talk about the crack dealer that is allowed to maintain their drug house, seller network, distribution network, payoff to corrupt cops / politicians.

You are right, we are capable of changing ... I make the change myself and eat far less meat products than I did when I was younger and do a higher uptake of vegetables and meat alternatives ... but it's hard when money is short, it's hard to find good food products and hard to find reliable food products. Eating healthier is more cost efficient but what many people fail to recognize is that it is time intensive because you have to make, prepare, store, organize and manage all the food yourself.

The counter argument I often run into with people on this debate is that it is far easier to buy a cheap $2 hamburger and a $1 soft drink than it is to spend an hour or more preparing healthy food, storing, sorting, managing it all day. It isn't a terrible amount of work ... but it is work compared to just walking up to a counter, handing over money and being given a hamburger in five minutes.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

The counter argument I often run into with people on this debate is that it is far easier to buy a cheap $2 hamburger and a $1 soft drink than it is to spend an hour or more preparing healthy food, storing, sorting, managing it all day. It isn’t a terrible amount of work … but it is work compared to just walking up to a counter, handing over money and being given a hamburger in five minutes.

This is an indirect way of saying that your time is more valuable than that of the workers in the restaurant and food processing facility.

Similarly, the professional private childcare (babysitter) can mean some professional couple deciding that their time is more important than that of the babysitter who, as you can imagine, doesn't get a babysitter.

Transcending the ‘imperial mode of living’ – Canadian Dimension