this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
434 points (98.2% liked)

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

5283 readers
729 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 107 points 3 months ago (6 children)

For better or worse (definitely worse), we're going to stroll right into the horrors that global warming is going to give us. We won't start making necessary changes until it's way way past any tipping points.

The people that care have no power. The people in power are driven by capitalist profit motives.

If you're a sci-fi nerd like me we can hope aliens or a true AGI will take over and save us lol. Short of that I have no confidence, mad max dystopia by 2100 or sooner.

[–] silence7 44 points 3 months ago (5 children)

It doesn't take aliens or a true AGI; it takes stopping fossil fuel use, ending deforestation, and phasing out a few trace chemicals. Do that, and we end the rising temperatures

Making that happen is a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Oh I totally agree with you, but

a matter of seizing power from those who profit from the current system of extraction and burning.

This is the problem. To say this wouldn't be easy is a huge, gargantuan understatement.

The power and control is so far reaching and deep into the foundation of our society, I can't help being cynical. By using politics and propaganda techniques huge portions of the population have been convinced that global warming either isn't real, isn't important, or is actually a good thing. And this is only one hurdle to overcome along with many others.

The question is how do we seize power back.

[–] zqwzzle@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[–] nlgranger@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I'm a bit dubious that revolutions can be effective nowadays against a well organised oppressive state with present tools (propaganda, police, surveillance, corruption). All revolutions have failed over the last few decades (Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Tunisia then Arab Spring, etc.).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fishos@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And the odds of any of that actually happening? How exactly are you going to regulate the growth of industries internationally in a way that doesn't just end up offshoring the pollution to poor countries like it already has been for centuries?

Dudes right, we need a dues ex machina to save us. We won't make meaningful changes until it's profitable to do so. So expect to see a lot of companies transition into cooling and environmental control. Because they won't address the core problem, just sell you bandaids for the symptoms. The next advancement won't be "less emissions", it'll be "this new coolant cools 35% better".

Look at heat pumps. Its literally just an AC unit that can swap the hot and cold side with a valve. It's nothing new. But it's the new "miracle cure" to all your heating and cooling needs. Just run your electricity that most likely comes from a coal power plant and smugly think about how you personally aren't using gas to do it!

We won't fix it ourselves without major intervention.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Most studies say it's already too late to stop a lot of it. There's tons and tons of studies and models that say if we magically cut off all sources of climate forcing we'd still see an increase from the damage already done for centuries. We can obviously make things a LOT better for ourselves by stopping or limiting ourselves right now but a lot of damage is already done. Plus any significant changes will most likely take a decade plus to really get momentum and actually take place anyway.

That's why now you're starting to see a lot more research into mitigation rather than prevention cause we're starting to move into the "well how are we going to fix this" phase rather than the "we need to stop this from happening phase"

The biggest indicators are the oceans. Just take a gander at oceanic temperatures over the last like 25 years. since they absorb something like 95% of our thermal extremes we're seeing some bonkers changes out there...

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

we need both to cut emissions and to heavily invest into carbon sinks. It's doable. But would require coordinated effort where some of the money spent on mindless consumption and cars will have to go towards climate. And ain't nobody cares enough for that!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The great filter is upon you.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago

The great filter is ~~upon~~ you.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Whenever I thought about the great filter, I never considered greed, but it makes a lot of sense.

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Exactly. Does anyone care? It's more like I'm done caring.

If nobody gives a damn, me doing so will only harm myself.

Might as well enjoy commercial aviation in its prime while it lasts. And when in 10 years we will shut it down cuz the world is falling apart, I'll be happily not traveling anywhere, knowing it's for the common good.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right on. I hate being cynical and pessimistic but why struggle hard when the majority are either working against a positive goal or don't care at all.

I'm gonna enjoy the little things while I can.

But, if a time ever comes... I personally volunteer for the job of guillotine operator...lol. Although at some point this position might be very competitive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago

I prefer enjoying rail travel and bicycles. I am not going to participate in this madness, just because the others do.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

2100 is conservative. That's our world in 2040 at the latest if we don't change.

[–] humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

by capitalist profit motives.

I wouldn't say it is about profits anymore, I think it's more about their own security. Looks like we're in the start of WWIII, so cutting down carbon dioxide sources by the US/EU would mean that China/Russia will have great advantage because they won't cut their sources and because people in the US/EU will not be happy with that decision en masse.

[–] Crismus@lemmynsfw.com 75 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I hate when they seem to think that everyone doesn't care, but only the billionaires and a few corporations are causing the majority of the climate change.

Why does everyone have to give up eating meat, so that companies like SpaceX can dump more Methane than cows burp in a a year because they save money on Methane fuel?

Why does everyone have to buy new super expensive electric cars without any increases in minimum wages in 15 years?

Why do we all have to live in mega cities with mass transit and walking everywhere, but I'm disabled and walking everywhere will send me back into a wheelchair.

It bugs me that everything in the climate change news puts it on everyone, instead of calling all of the major polluters to account and their politicians who keep pushing the gas petal for money.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure most of the regular people just can't afford to make the needed changes because the economy is so top-heavy that no corporation is willing to increase their labor costs because of greed.

But, maybe it's just me.

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago

Unfortunately we have to do both. We need big industry to reduce but we also need a massive change in our behaviors. Industry must be forced to make these changes because they are purely profit driven and don't take into account 2nd order costs of their actions. People can make choices to improve their personal impact on the environment, and every little bit counts.

For example, if everyone who can uses more public and active transportation, then that leaves more capacity for those who can't. Making less cars is better than making more EVs. Personal transport is a significant source of pollution even if it's not close to the biggest.

[–] blusterydayve26@midwest.social 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That’s the thing that scares me the most, actually. That in order to ensure humanity’s survival, all we need to do is cure the dark greed in every man’s heart.

Otherwise, we’ll just end up with carbon credit style solutions that ensure we transfer ownership of emissions at a heavily discounted rate, rather than making less emissions.

[–] version_unsorted@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The problem isn't curing greed, it is using an economic and governmental system that enables the people to be intentional about production and consumption. Capitalism isn't it, it explicitly relies on markets which is an opaque tool which makes it difficult to live intentionally. Markets tell you to just "trust" that the price reflects the impact of that product or commodity.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

The problem is greed. The solution is punishing it. Severely.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

but I’m disabled and walking everywhere will send me back into a wheelchair.

...if you were disabled, a city built towards accessibility would be ideal.

perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by the above.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blazera@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nah, more oil drilling, more trucks and SUVs.

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

They're just so big and safe!*

*not for the other drivers, or the pedestrians who get nailed by a rolling wall of a frontend.

[–] laverabe@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

or in the case of parents buying SUVs to make their own children safe, children are 8 times more likely to die when struck by an SUV versus a passenger car. (ie: in their own driveway) And that's not even factoring the added risk of blindspots for children too small to be seen from the driver seat!

children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to those struck by a passenger car

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

They also have significantly higher rollover risk which is why the best deaths per million kilometer stats belong to big sedans and wagon not SUVs.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

"I like driving in a higher position, it makes me feel safer"

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Well, technically we'll reduce out emissions. Just, it'll likely be after a mass extinction event.

[–] ColonelThirtyTwo@pawb.social 22 points 3 months ago

"The planet is fine. The people are fucked."

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Will the rotting corpses cause a spike in carbon emissions or would it immediately drop?

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Rotting corpses can't order scop from Temu that ships on old bunker fuel ships, oddly in private jets that account for hundreds of cars worth of emissions per flight.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Eeyore_Syndrome@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Stupid rolling stone.

It's SO FAR. Fixed

[–] silence7 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As in "We haven't cut emissions to zero yet." We can, and will. It's a question of whether we do it quickly enough to preserve a civilization-supporting climate.

[–] original_reader@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

Likely not. The next years will be hell. Then, after 10 years or so - maybe sooner -, 2024 will be remembered as one of the more pleasant years with still bearable temperatures and comparably few catastrophes. We even still had affordable coffee and olive oil.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We should probably start with reducing the rate of increase first. Then talk about reducing emissions per year. As for zero emissions, I fail to see how we have a civilization of any sort without some emissions. Maybe that's the point. Was "Net Zero" a hidden word for collapse all along?

[–] silence7 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Emissions have been falling in the US and EU since ~2005 or so, and look to be about to start falling in China, which means that they'll be falling worldwide after this year.

But...they'll likely be falling slowly, rather than rapidly, which is a problem.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rickdg@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Did you just homer simpsoned a headline? 😅

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 3 months ago

Yes. But it makes the second sentence make more sense.

And for the answer, the Jurassic Park "see, nobody cares" meme would fit in well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago
[–] Junkhead 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

we truly fucked ourselves huh

[–] silence7 7 points 3 months ago

We're at the point where we've stepped into a minefield, where each step forward risks losing major ecosystems. We need to take immediate steps to stop walking further into it.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 5 points 3 months ago
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I care, but I'm week to week. Bread and circus.

[–] JPSound@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Jokes on you tho. I've been desperately sick and stuck inside with air conditioning and cats🫅 battling that deadly virus that shut the world down a few years ago which scientists expect may happen more and more often bc climate change (pfff... whatever nerds). It was nice and cool in here, so I don't know what the crying is all about. Just burry your head as deep as possible and the most dense and tightly packed sand you can get ahold of and, voilá, problem solved once and for all!

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I absolutely care. It's why I bought acres in place that had a high of 56f yesterday.

[–] silence7 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I'll note that moving into the boreal forest is also a high-risk decision; those are all burning, burning more intensely, and burning more often.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›