this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
469 points (84.7% liked)

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

5279 readers
645 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
469
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It (sentientmedia.org)
submitted 10 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate
403 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works -4 points 10 months ago

First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy

Because its results disagree with your opinion? I'm not sure what constructive can come in any discussion after a line like that.

I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.

So evidence that concludes anything other than "everyone has to stop eating meat now" is immediately untrustworthy. Understood.

But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern

Let's say someone made the brash presupposition that the only way to show eating meat isn't destroying the environment is cherry-picking corner cases.

Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:

“if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation

I agree with your statement about as much as I agree with Ronald Reagan. Like many Republicans, he was a fan of the tactic of oversimplifying an issue until it was easy enough to pretend to fix it with a trivial solution. Economy? Trickle-down! Anything more than saying "trickle-down" is adding counter-productive completixy to the equation.

The problem here, specifically, is that there are more farmers in the US than vegans in the US. You might have a point in that many farmers are already working towards improving the environment and most vegans tend to have such a shallow view of the issue that you need to reconcile veganism with the environment to get them to help the environment. But in the process you're losing environmentally conscious educated people who are in a position to take action, which most vegans are not.

This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.

And here is the problem. You just did it. You just told me I'm not allwoed to be an environmental activist because I support ethical meat-eating. Another guy (well I assume it's someone else) was attacking UC Davis, a reputable college.