this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
48 points (82.4% liked)

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

5244 readers
187 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
 

Piped link | Invidious link

“Because green skyscrapers and high-rises are a bullshit non-solution to serious systemic problems.”

“But if you want greenery on a building nonetheless, do I have an idea for you – a portable, modular, scalable solution called ‘potted plants on your balcony’.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (24 children)

I just like the idea. It don't solve anything. However more greenery is better than less.

Sucks up pollution. Hells with depression. Hells with pollinators and bugs. Can't really see a downside

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (23 children)

Can’t really see a downside

The downside is almost certainly structural (significant weight as well as moisture, and a need for long term structural integrity and safety, likely don't pair well. Especially not when the people doing the building are looking for cost effectiveness).

[–] Nighed@sffa.community 2 points 9 months ago

For now, if richish people want to pay for it in their flat, go for it. (It would be interesting to see the carbon cost of the extra materials though!) They can pay for the building and maintenance, and everyone else gets a cool building to look at.

The hopefully the kinks get worked out and it can be done cheaper on other buildings.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)