this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
139 points (96.6% liked)

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

5203 readers
1348 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
139
Denmark to charge farmers €100 a cow in first carbon tax on agriculture | Coalition government agrees annual levy on emissions from livestock after months of fraught negotiations (www.ft.com)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by silence7 to c/climate
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pound_heap@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Raising the cost will reduce demand, and prompt producers to either reduce supply to avoid overproduction or find a way to keep costs down.

In first case, there will be less cow farts, and less meat and milk on the tables of poor people. There will be public health consequences, but emissions will be reduced.

In the second case, the government will get more taxes, emissions will be the same, and there will be possible public health issues due to lower meat/milk quality resulted from cost cuts.

In both cases, big manufacturers will likely keep their profits, small farmers will be impacted more and may go out of business, and public health will be at risk.

Where am I wrong? I have no economic expertise and no data, and the government should have both, at least in theory.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I did some math and logistics on the subject. Rather than repost it again, I posted it as a top level comment in this thread.

https://lemmy.world/comment/10829248