this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
50 points (94.6% liked)

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

5278 readers
806 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
50
Where did all the climate voters go? (grist.org)
submitted 7 hours ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/climate
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Michigan and other battleground states might have swung for Trump, but they elected environmentalists to U.S. Senate seats, too.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 8 points 3 hours ago

The article clearly states that voters who prioritized climate doubled this year. It was just not enough to overcome economic headwinds at the presidential level.

Pair this with the article regarding bullet voters who only vote for the President and not down ballot races, and you start to paint a picture of what happened here.

The economy and Trump’s rabid fan base won the presidency, but past that, the electorate still cares about more complex issues like climate change, likely more than ever.

We’re a bit screwed at the national level for now, but this highlights that the states need to take charge until we can get our federal house in order.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Where did all the climate voters go?

Long time passing…

Where have all the climate voters gone?

Long time ago…

The politicians ignored them, every one…

Oh when will they ever learn?

When will they ever learn?

Sorry you gave me a Pete Seeger Flashback

[–] kvasir476@lemmy.world 27 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Where did the fucking climate messaging go? If democrats wanted to be elected because of their stance on climate change maybe they should have said something about it.

[–] positiveWHAT@lemmy.world 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but it's obvious that Trump is abominably worse on the topic. Only hope is that the tariffs vastly minimize global trade.

[–] can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io 2 points 3 hours ago

This is a big part of the Democrats problem, it feels like their stance on every topic is "Trump is worse". Harris supports genocide in Gaza, yeah but Trump is worse. Harris embraces fracking, yeah but Trump is worse. Harris embraces the criminal migrate narrative, yeah but Trump is worse. Running to the right and yelling but that guy's worse has always been a losing strategy for Democrats but they just keep doing it. Why did Bill Clinton and Obama win? They embraced progressive policies and offered a vision of hope. Why did Biden win? He tried to go right but between some early issues like "working with segregationists" and the crime bill along with Bernie's success in the primaries he was dragged back left and there was meaningful policy separation. Why did Hillary Clinton and Harris lose? They ran right and yelled "but the other guy is worse."

[–] Rookwood@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Dems didn't run on climate change. And also just simple doomerism doesn't motivate people. They would have needed a solution, which the Dems aren't willing to offer.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

which the Dems aren't willing to offer.

Of course not, because it would affect voters negatively. And voters don't give a shit about the climate, unless it is just something they can contribute to with token gestures.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Of course not, because it would affect ~~voters~~ donors negatively.

FTFY.

[–] dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I think voters do give a shit, but absolutely don't see why they should be the only ones it affects negatively.

Billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime

Headline as of 29. October 2024 (https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime )

I understand why voters may not be so willing. At the same time, anyone actually imposing actual, effective, enforceable sanctions on carbon pollution either goes bankrupt or brings upon armed conflict. Wars have been waged for much lesser threats to maintaining wealth (see RUS vs. UKR, oil/gas reserve competition). I personally don't think we'll manage it meaningfully until things get really bad, so I'll do my best, but will definitely not go out of my way to not eat a steak a few times a year, when theoretically I could punch a billionaire so they have to stay in bed a day and have balanced my family's CO2 footprint.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Your article is cute, but really talks around the issue, seemingly obfuscating it as "polluting investments". Those billionaires own businesses, the ones that you buy at or buy from in one way or another. It ultimately still falls back to us and our consumerism, as well as just our general way of life and necessities in our developed countries. Sure, you can tax them more, but who do you think is going to pay for those additional costs?

Remember the downturn during covid? That also came with a drop in emissions, one that would have to continue until 2035, just for us to meet our emission targets. People already went on the barricades at that time, losing their businesses and being able to afford less and less due to rising prices. And that was just after about a year of it, causing massive demonstrations around the globe. If your average voter is already fed up by being mildly affected like this, what do you think would happen if this would have continued indefinitely?

The inconvenient truth is that absolutely no one wants actual climate policies, except for a very minor fringe movement of climate "extremists".

[–] dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago

Yes you are correct in that it's painful to do the things that are required, and if given the choice, nobody would do it willingly.

My point was, that if everyone has to make sacrifices, there's a tiny chance. If the deal is "you get to suffer through economic downturn" and at the same time large investors see double, triple digit gains (COVID) then that chance goes to zero/negative.

[–] chillinit@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 6 hours ago

The climate voters voted against climate change because Democratic propaganda is of increasingly low quality.