this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
186 points (98.4% liked)

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

5240 readers
717 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
[–] Krono@lemmy.today 21 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Everyone here on Lemmy could drastically change their lifestyle and it wouldnt matter.

Chevron et al. will still destroy the planet.

We need systemic change.

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Systemic change will also require that people change their lifestyle, it just won't be as voluntary

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes change the system first, and lifestyle change will follow.

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

This would be much more effective than any campaign trying to convince people to eat less meat.

[–] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago
[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net -1 points 4 months ago

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can't post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?

You can't have systemic change if people aren't willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don't actually stop to think what that requires. Survey's also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don't really think about it; they just think "tax for company to help climate", and that's where it stops.

If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all "change our lifestyles and it wouldn't matter" and that "what we need is systemic change" in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that's my perspective.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. Fossil fuels should be 3 or 4 times more expensive. But try that and there'll be riots in the streets.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 3 points 4 months ago

Riots in the streets now is preferable to the current path where our great grandchildren all die from heat stroke.

But I agree with your point, the political calculus doesn't make sense. If politicians are afraid of riots in the streets then we need to give them something worse to fear.

Ecoterrorism or extinction seem to be the only options available.