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

5306 readers

687 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7

Tired of feeling hopeless about climate change? Take a look at these charts. (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 1 year ago by silence7 to c/climate

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hate to be a party pooper, but for me, failed attempts at trumpeting optimism are often the most pessimistic and depressing things for me.

I’m all for gritty stubbornness and all that, but a lot of these charts looked clearly like trivial “we’re doing our best!” defensiveness to me. Starting with EV sales (which I presume are mostly cars but that could be wrong) didn’t help. And the final yearly CO~2~ emissions doesn’t look promising either.

Getting people to act makes a lot of sense. But “back in my day” that was done by talking about the actual viable solutions on offer and telling people they can demand better by demanding these solutions. A vague “hey look the system is kinda working” statement strikes me as depressingly vacuous.

Am I off base here?

[–] silence7 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

EV sales stats in this article do appear to be electric car sales, even though electric-assist bicycles make up the bulk of electric vehicle sales.

I'd say that they're pointing out that some of the things we are doing are starting to succeed in a meaningful way. That's a big deal, even if we haven't gotten to the point of bending the curve of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

[–] celticwolf@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

even if we haven’t gotten to the point of bending the curve of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Nothing else matters. This is the bottom line, period, full stop. We've had promises and technological developments and "positive trends" for decades now, and CO2 emissions have just continued going up and up and up. All the while, our governments continue to subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of trillions of dollars, approve record numbers of oil and gas drilling permits on public lands, and don't take any meaningful action to address climate change. I don't want to hear any more of this garbage about how we're "starting to succeed." We're like thirty years behind where we should be.

[–] silence7 3 points 1 year ago

The permits thing is about the US, where the courts have held that a drilling lease is a property right, so you can't just say no to permits. So Biden cut new leases to the minimum required by law.

acres leased by US bureau of land management by year, showing a huge drop once Biden took office

Getting an end to new drilling permits is going to take more votes and control of the courts than we've had.

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

The article didn't start bad. But then the author didn't get the right conclusion.

Yes, the current climate data are devastating. Yes, there is also development in some (mostly rich) countries. But to put this into perspective: while the rate of GHG emmissions need to drop faster than they did 2020 during the pandemic, they are just stagnating in developed countries while rising in developing countries. Globally carbon emissions are still rising.

The reality is: the climate is changing faster than anticipated and the transition away from fossil fuels is nowhere near fast enough. We need to stop emitting GHG basically yesterday. Instead we bury the 1.5 °C target and hope for carbon sinks to help us get to net zero. Both natural sinks as also artificial sinks. Artificial sinks are still extremely expensive and ineffective while the remaining natural carbon sinks get destroyed and turn into carbon emitters.

What would need to happen is a massive effort through all society in every country. That would also mean for first world countries to not only forgive debts of poor countries, but also at least help financing poor countries transition.

The majority of people are just starting to take climate change seriously and the threat is still underestimated by most.

No, this is not the time for stubborn optimism. This is the time for worry. This is the time for anger. This is the time to reject pledges and promises by governments and demand actual action and legislative change. Being optimistic won't help us change.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

We’ll likely not be able to stave off the worst effects of climate change, hell, we’re just beginning to feel its effects now, but we will likely survive and adapt to it (or we’ll just die, whatever). Life on Earth won’t likely be the same as what we we’ve been used to. Many animal species will likely die off though, so hopefully somebody somewhere has built an arc or a DNA storage vault or whatever so we can try to repopulate the world later on.

[–] francisco 2 points 1 year ago

Same content on archive.ph.