this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
116 points (98.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5178 readers
768 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yup, but it's possible to slow that rate and (if we're smart and motivated) geoengineer ways to reverse it.
Again, though, it would require the rich to make less money.
But yes, in general I agree with you; even if we pull out the stops we're already locked into some kind of increase, but that worse part is that it seems like we're going to do is go hell-for-leather because the rich don't have all the money yet.
Not defending billionaires here, cause fuckem.
But it would also mean complete upending of what everyone "normal" expects out of their lives too.
No more cars, no more bananas, no more Amazon, no more Netflix, etc.
Every normal thing people expect would have to go, and be replaced with whatever local version exists,if it relies on global trade.
Again, I'm not defending anything in particular, but highlighting that getting general consensus will be very, very hard.
I personally believe most humans are good with billions dying if it means they can try to live on in their "normal" fashion.
When it really gets to their doorstep, the option to make changes will be fully, fully gone