this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2026
180 points (97.4% liked)

Climate

8941 readers
428 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
180
Cycling like the Dutch would slash the world’s carbon footprint (www.euronews.com)
submitted 7 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] Sheldan@lemmy.world 5 points 5 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 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 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)