this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2026
193 points (97.5% liked)

Climate

8941 readers
448 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Dutch people cycle an average of 2.6 kilometres each per day. If this pattern was replicated worldwide, the study suggests, annual global carbon emissions would drop by 686 million tonnes.

This mammoth figure exceeds the entire carbon footprint of most countries, including the UK, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I agree with that, but sorry I don't understand how thats related to biking more and mass transit, other than a complete rework of the layout of towns and cities across the country that would take decades or more to have an impact.

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

The rework is the suggestion, I think A gradual rework would already help and wouldn't take that long. It's just that somebody would have to start that, and I am not sure if the will for that exists.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I would have to disagree on it taking that long (as in so short) - not the change to zoning law, but the actual existing building infrastructure.

Cities are one thing, and often have better infrastructure in place (though absolutely not a guarantee), but general suburbia you wouldn't find much shift in a short time. For one, availability of sites for new construction, and two, its the most likely place for quick capitalist change (new expensive clothing store rather than say, a small grocer).

Its going to get harder the further rural you get, there is more space but won't be as much appetite. Small businesses had already been squeezed out by the likes of Walmart and their ilk, and wouldn't sensibly be able to return without other changes (like being low cost enough and affordable to the local folks to go there instead of a Walmart Super Center or whatever those giant warehouse mini mall ones are called), which means financial incentives and lower and middle class folks having more money to spend.

Which you'd need to start having people stay more local for work to grow the local community.

Its a part of a solution, but it isn't a solution by itself IMO. And its going to take time to have an impact. Time that will be on a decades-long scale, considering many towns have been around for a hundred years or more that isn't a staggering timeframe, its sensible.

It definitely can't be done in the same kind of timeline as bike lines and bus infrastructure.

(Edit: stupid mobile keyboard)

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

You might be surprised at how much pent-up demand for density there is in the inner suburbs (the ones old enough to still have been built on a reasonable grid system instead of cul-de-sacs).

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 hours ago

People really gotta start saying what they mean by "density", because I've had 4 people in 700sqft, and cannot imagine people actually want to live like that.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I'm not, I just don't think there is that much by comparison to the huge swaths of the rest of the country.

For the record, I've lived in city, suburb, and more rural, and have spent long periods of time in really rural (like a town of 200 people that my mom has family in, and a not-even-a-town where its just 50+ acres of woods between everyone's home and its only 20 minutes by car, on roads with no speed limit, to reach the highway).

The time scale for those sorts of changes is long, and need other changes to make it work.