this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
134 points (100.0% liked)

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

6547 readers
593 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]
134
It’s Possible to End Global Poverty Without Compromising Climate Goals, New Research Shows (www.ecowatch.com)
submitted 15 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Ensuring that everyone on Earth has a decent standard of living is possible in accordance with reducing emissions quickly and decisively.

More info: Closing decent living gaps in energy and emissions scenarios: introducing DESIRE

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Is this a call to action?

We are absolutely part of the solution. Specifically, we have the power to hold the 0.1% and their petit quislings to task.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm just saying that yes the 0.1% pollute more individually, but most people in first world countries pollute way more than they should and if they're told to reduce their emissions they won't be ready to do their part.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I see your point.

Yes we'll all (all of us reading this anyway) have to do our part, but we've already had decades of individual, consumer-focused mitigation efforts (reduce-reuse-recycle, etc). There are too many political and market forces guiding your average person to continue consuming.

The corpos with the real money uphold a system that will only ever incentivise keeping the consumption treadmill going, no matter what some individual consumers might think about it.

I'm curious what you're proposing. My idea is to soak the rich until there are no more billionaires, and use the cash to pivot hard into a publicly funded green economy. I think people would get into it pretty quickly once they saw it wasn't just a green washing cash grab.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I 100% agree that billionaires shouldn't exist. I also believe that governments will need to take actions and adopt laws that people won't like at some point because we can't expect people to cut on luxury stuff by themselves (like air travel for example)...

There are some things which the rich can't force us to do, eating beef isn't mandatory for example, neither is buying a car with a big engine instead of the more economical option, but realistically people won't stop by themselves...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

Agreed, there needs to be some kind of push or pull at play to get people to choose better, until it becomes ingrained anyway.