this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
659 points (98.4% liked)

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

5205 readers
655 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I said much the same earlier today on another thread. Lib or con, too many are not willing to sacrifice to prevent what is coming. It's easy to pawn this off on just the cons, but take a close look at your own surroundings and your lib friends and see who is walking the walk.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Paper straws and bicycles won't solve the climate crisis. What my lib friends and I are doing doesn't really matter when just a handful of entities make up so much more of the environmental impact.

We could stop those entities...if it weren't for the cons constantly blocking any attempt to help the greater good.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I could tell you how to stop them, but I don't look good in orange

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

bicycles won't solve the climate crisis

Not with that attitude!

More specifically, not with that disingenuous attitude that implies giving folks bicycles and changing nothing else, trying to shame them into using a mode that's worse for them in order to altruistically help everybody else. Of-fucking-course that's never gonna work!

Instead, what actually has to change is the zoning laws that shape the built environment the bicycles are operate in. We have to stop limiting density and mandating parking requirements, which not only physically force destinations farther apart (putting fewer within walking or biking distance) and cause the space between to be filled with car-infested asphalt (making walking and biking unpleasant), but also subsidize driving by forcing an oversupply of parking, driving down the price.

Removing the regulations and allowing developers to build as compactly as the market would dictate would cause people to freely choose bicycling because it would become more convenient than driving, and that is what would help solve the climate crisis!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The vast majority of the pain and sacrifice would be on the rich—they're the ones who own bunker-fuel-burning cargo ships and fly everywhere on private jets—so there isn't much reason for the rest of us to be overly worried.

Trouble is, most people worship the rich…

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

I feel the opposite. Most environmental issues affect the poor. The rich have much more flexibility than the rest of us.

You can't pick up farmland and move it. As climate zones shift and hit those mega monoculture farms (see rice as a current example) we see increased risk of famine. The rich can go somewhere less affected. They can import their own food. They can crank up their AC. They can swim in their pools. Can you move or double your cooling bill?

Once famine hits, you will see mass migration. See how well we deal with that now across the world. Rich people don't plead for asylum. Why do you think they hoard that money? They don't need it now. But when push comes to shove, that money carries a ton of weight.

We dont really know what areas will get hit either, because environmental variable are hard to predict. Countries that fight refugees today could be asking those very people for help tomorrow.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

They were saying that it is the rich would would feel the sacrifice IF we were to actually try and do something. They are the ones who would have to change the most. They weren't implying that the rich will suffer the effects of climate change more than the poor.

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

It's industry, not individuals. So yeah, look to see who's voting to fix shit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, top down solutions are required for significant change. The more time we let go by, the harsher the austerity is going to be when we have no choice.