this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
94 points (92.0% liked)

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

5243 readers
408 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
94
Will Shoppers Ever Care About the Destruction of the Planet? Tactics to convince people to buy less aren’t working. A quirky new documentary by Patagonia takes a different approach. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

as if the average shopper could afford anything from Patagonia …

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de -5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What does this have to do with the thread you're responding to (besides both comments being shit takes)?

Also, for the "average shopper" in the West (as in, someone who is not actually poor), it is untrue. Buying Patagonia is simply a matter of priorities. E.g. a Patagonia vest costs between 119 and 199 USD. At that price, it's much less expensive than the most expensive thing in that "average shopper's" household.

But to a lot of people that vest will be less important than, say, a dishwasher or a car. Or maybe they actually want a vest but they prioritize buying 5 super-cheap vests to have more choice.

Nb: There are luxury items that those people literally can't afford. And there are also people below the poverty line who indeed never have 120 USD on hand at once. Neither is relevant here.

[Edit: Quite honestly, I would be interested in why I get downvotes on the observation that, above a certain wealth threshold, which items people spend money on depends on their priorities.]