this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
222 points (84.9% liked)

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

5383 readers
241 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
222
Eating less meat ‘like taking 8m cars off road’ (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I absolutely agree with you. Meat is something that has a big impact on the climate and this is something that we as the consumers actively can control. If society decides to buy less and instead higher quality meat the demand will go down and therefore the CO2 footprint. However, this is nothing that is possible without the government supporting this change.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

society decides to buy less and instead higher quality meat the demand will go down and therefore the CO2 footprint

this isn't causal

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I may have articulated myself badly. What I mean is the following: If I decide to instead eat e. G. 1kg of low quality meat every week I am responsible (by eating meat) for an amount x of CO2 emissions. If I now switch to only 500g of higher quality meat the amount of CO2 emissions goes down to about 1/2x(I know this isn't exactly true, due to the lost efficiency, but for bigger reductions its absolutely true, that the amount if CO2 you emitted goes down).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If I decide to instead eat e. G. 1kg of low quality meat every week I am responsible (by eating meat) for an amount x of CO2 emissions.

I don't think that's true. those emissions happen regardless of whether you eat it. they happen regardless of whether you buy it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Source please.

Your analysis undermines genuine science by disregarding the reduction in demand which reduces the supply and forming a data set with a sample of 1.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

it's obvious that the emissions happen before you decide whether to purchase a product. that's how linear time works.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

reduction in demand which reduces the supply

this isn't causal

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

and this is something that we as the consumers actively can control.

didn't you try that?