this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
155 points (97.5% liked)

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

5237 readers
533 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
155
New Zealand turns to the right | The populist National-led government is undoing many of Jacinda Ardern’s progressive initiatives, including environmental protections. (wapo.st)
submitted 4 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Article is free with registration (use a throwaway email account)

It is reversing a ban on oil and gas drilling, and is proposing a “fast-track” for big projects, including mines, that bypasses environmental checks. It has cut climate programs and jobs, scrapped electric vehicle subsidies, abandoned plans for one of the world’s largest marine sanctuaries and set aside a world-leading cow “burp” tax as it questions the science on methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I didn't say I don't consider roads as critical infrastucture, I specifically said "mega roads", i.e new multi lane motorways that are a waste of money because they will encourage more driving, more sprawl and make traffic even worse in the long run (and I imagine local roads will deteriorate as they did the last time this happened).

Unfortunately the time to deal with the alternative here was 30 years ago. We aren't a 15 min city (none if them are) and changing this will take decades.

Three waters, the ferries, state housing, public transport are all better options right now that are woefully underfunded and in fact actively sabotaged by this govt.

Agreed, moving on.

The "we don't have the density" argument is often pulled out against funding public transport and it's unfounded. We're one of the most urbanised countries in the world. We could absolutely build more PT if we chose to, we've had far more extensive networks in the past than what we currently do.

Sydney has 6 million people compared to Auckland 1.2., Melbourne 5 with similar land area. If you look at % then yes, look at people per sqkm we are no where close.

Overall, saying what's happening is a symptom is just an attempt to claim what's happening right now is inevitable imo. Different choices can be made that would be far less damaging, they'd be positive even and actually address the underlying problems you highlight instead of this "better things aren't possible" fatalism.

Yes, better choices can be made, they will improve the country in the long run, but people struggling now get to vote. Balanced books get votes on confidence, ease of lifestyle and business as usual get votes, getting kicked out if my car and more regulations lose elections.

[–] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah like I said, "better things aren't possible" fatalism.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sydney has 6 million people compared to Auckland 1.2., Melbourne 5 with similar land area. If you look at % then yes, look at people per sqkm we are no where close.

So you don't need as many buses to achieve the same coverage. Public transport infrastructure costs are not fixed for a certain land area, they are also proportional to potential ridership.

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

Backwards- if you want to cover areas your network needs to be the size to cover it. Its much more comparatively expensive when you have 3 people riding each route rather than 18.

You're correct on main lines, however you can also run larger busses.