this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
85 points (89.7% liked)

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

5055 readers
587 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
85
Biden vs. Trump: Do young climate voters care? The president who signed the biggest climate law in U.S. history has also angered environmentalists by approving fossil fuel projects. (www.politico.com)
submitted 7 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

To be clear: there's a night-and-day difference between Biden and Trump, with the former having actually taking significant action, and being likely to take more if reelected. Trump will look to maximize both extraction and consumption of fossil fuels in a way that Biden simply didn't and won't.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hglman@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

They are not the same, they are both wholly inadequate positions.

If we are on a sinking ship and one person says, ill kill everyone and take the lifeboat for myself and someone else says, no lest kill 95% of everyone so that those who live wont be cramped neither is good enough. Sometimes choices should be made as a spectrum, sometimes choices should be made as a binary choice.

If you can't see how dangerous both parties actions are on climate change you do not understand the danger. If you do understand then you are writing in malice.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I would say a better analogy is if you are on a boat in the middle of the ocean that springs a leak. One guy suggests you start bailing water using your cupped hands, which will buy you a few extra minutes before you sink. The other guy suggests you jump into the water because swimming is fun. Neither guy thinks it would be a good idea to patch the hole, even though you have a patch kit with you.

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That captures the insanity of the political positions very well.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Not insane. Age-related cognitive issues notwithstanding, both candidates know what they're doing. It's impossible to make someone understand something when their livelihood depends on their not understanding it. In this analogy, both guys are paid by the sharks who made the hole in the first place to pretend the patch kit doesn't exist.