this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
25 points (100.0% liked)

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

5293 readers
435 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
25
This climate act’s getting old | Five years after New York passed an ambitious law to tackle climate change, we’re still arguing about whether it’s too hard to achieve. (www.timesunion.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by silence7 to c/climate
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Opponents — including plenty of former global warming deniers who have rebranded themselves as economic pragmatists — have cast these steps as too ambitious, too costly or both. Which is to say, we can’t afford to save the planet.

To put it as soberly as we can, it’s that same old suicidal nonsense recast to pass for common sense.

Archived copy of the article

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Even if it is is no longer economically practical according to their definition, I have no empathy. Usually iits because of defeating one of the steps that would get you there.

Given the example in the article, I don’t know how practical the goal is to achieve since I don’t live in NY but I know that abandoning NYC congestion pricing means making less progress, the goal will be more difficult to achieve. Congrats you’ve created your own problem

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

And the only reason we argue is cause someone makes fistfuls of money the way it is currently done.