this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
91 points (97.9% liked)

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

5243 readers
187 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
91
Our Buildings Were Built for a Different World | The climate crisis demands that we retrofit them—which won’t happen at scale until architects start seeing themselves as political actors. (www.thenation.com)
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

architects, looking up from their NEOM designs: No, I don't think I will

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The popularity of things like LEED seems to indicate that a lot are willing.

[–] terry_jerry@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd say the majority of architects are more than willing but there are contrarians. LEED does provide an avenue for Architects to get involved but its not without his issues LEED is an interesting program that has its issues. For example there are a lot of credit swap opportunities in LEED that allow u to bypass some of the other requirements that would be more impactful. The core tennents of what LEED is trying to achieve is great, it just doesn't seem to be rather effective where it counts, production builders that are supplying the majority of housing. These developers stray away from LEED certification due to the extra cost, it takes alot of extra documentation to go for LEED. Documentation that would not be neccissary even if you would choose to build a building that is equal or better than a LEED building. I view the program similarly to Target turning their logo rainbow, low investment for big businesses looking to posture.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The place I see LEED having a real impact is on commercial and industrial buildings. The people who are going to use the building there have a real financial incentive towards efficiency, the power to actually ask for it, and LEED is an easy way for them to specify it.

[–] terry_jerry@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

I agree, it is a good way to get the owners asking for levels of environmentalism that might be out of their expertise, I just wish it had more teeth.

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Do they view LEED as something political? Or do they view LEED as something clients want? I think it's the latter