this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
15 points (100.0% liked)

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

5244 readers
454 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
15
Share of COP29 badges for Global South NGOs upsets rich countries (www.climatechangenews.com)
submitted 2 months ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The actual title is:

Bigger share of COP29 badges for Global South NGOs upsets rich-country groups

And the opposing argument is that the reduction of badges for NGOs from Western Europe et al. effectively makes it so that the governments of the countries with the largest emissions can control who gets to observe the conference from their respective countries. This is coupled with the fact that fewer people can attend in the first place than last time, since the venue is smaller.

To be honest, I don't know who's in the right here, but the article definitely feels like it's taking a side, and the editorialized title makes that bias worse.

I think more observers, and a larger venue, could be justified for the biggest climate conference of the world. I think this event should be more important than "you will own nothing and be happy" Davos for example.

[โ€“] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

And the opposing argument is that the reduction of badges for NGOs from Western Europe et al. effectively makes it so that the governments of the countries with the largest emissions can control who gets to observe the conference from their respective countries. [

Not really the EU is at 6.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the UK at 0.76%. ](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-global-ghg-emissions?tab=table) The more realistic reason is that Western Europe is rich, but also has a lot of different countries. So a lot of NGOs, which have enough money to actually go to COP. Still unfair though.

load more comments (3 replies)