this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
62 points (93.1% liked)

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

5244 readers
278 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
62
Why billionaire Tom Steyer argues capitalism is the best tool to fight climate change | Calling for more regulation to stop global heating, Steyer says we must stop letting people "pollute for free" (www.salon.com)
submitted 5 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 53 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well obviously capitalism would be a great tool for fighting climate change, if not for the fact that 99% of the control over this tool lie in the hands of the people who have absolutely no interest in fighting climate change

[–] sic_1@feddit.de 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

It might work together if the real cost would be reflected in every product. Like, if cost of pollution, emission, all consequences of everything at every step in every country would be priced in and equalized. But that's so unlikely to happen that we might as well set the whole thing on fire.

[–] SolacefromSilence@fedia.io 7 points 5 months ago

And we are!

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

What makes you think setting the whole thing on fire is more likely/feasible than pricing in environmental externalities?