this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
194 points (97.1% liked)

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

5289 readers
804 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
194
Climate change could return us to the pre-antibiotic era (www.salon.com)
submitted 4 months ago by Midnight@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

How would we not all starve without industrial agriculture? Not sure what you mean exactly.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think they mean more like plant-based diets where the farmers aren't using antibiotics to cause physical growth.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just because they're plants doesn't make it not industrial.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Yes, I know. They probably should have phrased it differently. Can we agree there are fewer antibiotics on the crops, though, and that is likely what they meant?

[–] Drusas@kbin.run 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Industrial agriculture, in the United States at least, relies extremely heavily on the use of antibiotics. If there is ever a future in which that is not the case, go ahead and support industrial agriculture if you want to (I'm keeping this strictly to the antibiotic problem). But as it is now, supporting industrial agriculture is also supporting the misuse of antibiotics and the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I knew crops used pesticides and stuff, why would they use antibiotics too?

[–] Dav@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I would assume hes talking about livestock farming

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not agriculture though, crops are. And crops are at least included in agriculture, even if you would expand the definition to also include animals, which I wouldn't.

[–] Drusas@kbin.run 2 points 4 months ago

Animal agriculture is absolutely agriculture. That's why there's a term for it, called animal agriculture.