this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
48 points (72.2% liked)

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

5239 readers
561 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
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

The fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of money making us dependent on them. They have been so successful that the majority of us would not be able to survive without their products whether it be to get to work, power our cities, heat our buildings, etc.

So what’s a realistic approach to the problem:

Getting billions of individuals to change across the planet? Which requires most of them and their families to die?

Or

Changing a few dozen companies?

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So what’s a realistic approach to the problem:

Getting billions of individuals to change across the planet? Which requires most of them and their families to die?

AND

Changing a few dozen companies.

Changes like this don't happen in an empty space. If you have an Eco aware consumer base it help a lot.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Your plan is to require every individual on the planet to make sacrifices that could kill them and their loved ones? You think that’s actually achievable?

Did you forget we couldn’t even get everyone to wear masks during the pandemic?

Of course that plan would never work. We can prove it by showing that greenhouse gas emissions have still been increasing after the fossil fuel industry started this carbon footprint marketing campaign.

Changes like this don't happen in an empty space. If you have an Eco aware consumer base it help a lot.

No one is saying we don’t want eco aware consumers and the top polluting companies on the planet are not “an empty space”.

This is a systemic problem that requires political and legal action to fix.

Paper straws don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Your plan is to require every individual on the planet to make sacrifices that could kill them and their loved ones? You think that’s actually achievable?

No. I complete not registered the second half of your sentence while quoting it. No fucking idea how that happend. Complete brain fart on my end.

load more comments (2 replies)