this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
206 points (95.2% liked)

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

5237 readers
495 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

These people always neglect to mention that their endgame is the complete genocide of all domesticated animals since they literally cannot survive on their own without human caretaking, almost like we've evolved a symbiotic relationship with these creatures and trying to end that relationship because you personally find it morally objectionable will have disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world's biosphere...well except Antarctica, those penguins couldn't care less if the cows are being wiped out because "uNnAtUrAl!!!!!!"

ETA, you can tell these people are totally not eco fascists because they didn't dispute the charge of wanting to exterminate entire clades of the tree of life, they just started justifying it by ranting about why "the bad ones" "totally deserve it" because pregarnart. I'm sure you wouldn't find any genocidal dictator in recent history who has conjured the image of a barefoot and pregnant member of "the bad ones" to rant about how they're producing too many children, or that "the nation" isn't keeping pace enough, to rile a scare out of their audience, nosiree!

Nevermind how their position also involves exterminating service animals for also being domesticated, and fuck their disabled owners for "defying nature" or "being abusers", that epileptic who needs help calling medical assistance should have thought about how it makes some internet weirdo feels to see dogs doing things before they tried being allowed to live despite their condition!

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.

Wouldn't you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world's biosphere?

[–] vxx@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Are we still talking about sheep that grass all day under the shade of solar panels?

Even the staunchest hippie wears whool.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I don't think we are - the previous comment is talking about the total genocide of all domesticated animals, which seems beyond sheep under solar panels.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Meat cows specifically should be wiped out for their methane production being so high. I've heard that if we managed to stop beef consumption we'd have something like a 10% decrease in emissions just from that alone.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago

It would actually probably be more than that if you’re talking global demand. So much deforestation is due to cattle (typically the land needed for their feed), not to mention repurposing some existing land used for cattle feed for human food.

Plus, all that feed needs to be transported, which influences the shipping industry.

[–] Longpork3@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We have billions of captive animals that will be forcibly impregnated every year in order to replace those thag are killed, and even under the most "humane" conditions will still be killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan, yet you consider cutting out the forced impregnation part in order to end the cycle of violence to be "genocide"?

You don't think that label might be more appropriately applied to the systematic killing of billions every yeat which will happen in perpetuity until we end animal agriculture?

[–] CottonSeed@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

the goal isn't to wipe them out. it's not genocide

[–] seeking_perhaps@mander.xyz 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're right, it is much worse. The goal is to breed them as quickly as possible, use them for their wool while they are useful for it, and kill them much younger than their lifespan for their meat. I think it would be a kindess to slowly stop that torturous cycle.

[–] CottonSeed@slrpnk.net -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

you can't kill something before its lifespan. when it dies, that is the end of its lifespan.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net -1 points 5 months ago

Yawn.

"Genocide" only applies to humans. The correct term for animals is "extinction".

And I remind you: we humans control when and if our domestic livestock breed. And we let specific breeds of domestic livestock go extinct all the time. There are dozens of breeds of cows and chickens and sheep that are now extinct because they were replaced by other, more useful breeds - or the cultures that bred them were wiped out. Consider the Tautersheep, for example.

Let me be blunt. If scientists developed synthetic wool that was chemically identical to sheep wool but ten times cheaper, domestic sheep would be extinct within a decade. And nobody but sheep farmers would complain. So when carnists argue we have a moral duty to the species of domestic sheep to continue breeding them for human use I just roll my eyes.