this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
86 points (98.9% liked)

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

5239 readers
595 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
 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has written an op-ed piece in The Sun promising "I will not sacrifice Great British industry to the drum-banging, finger-wagging Net Zero extremists"

Which means he's willing to sacrifice all the industry to appease the fossil fuels industry.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Mainstream politicians cannot afford to tank the economy or they are soon out of a job.

How can they achieve net zero without regular folks losing their jobs? It’s hard to put into practice.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You can't just make and sell cars as a superior mode of transportation and propose policy that effectively is net zero horses as human and cargo transport. Think of all the ferriers, oat farmers, and veterinarians that would put out of a job.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you proposed to ban horses in 1904 you’d get laughed out of parliament.

Democratically elected politicians don’t have the ability to impose top-down policies opposed by the people who elected them.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

And yet, somehow, this doesn't stop surveillance bills?

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s really not that hard. It might take time but wind and solar (plus battery backup) are already the cheapest forms of energy. And not doing it is going to be way more expensive. The UK already gets the remnants of Atlantic hurricanes. Have fun dealing with them not being remnants. Or if the AMOC collapses and it’s 30°C colder in parts of Europe.

We already have the technology to get there. It’ll take time/money to manufacture and deploy it but the UK could probably cover its energy needs with wind alone. Sorry if that means BP goes under but they had an oil spill near where I live so zero pity from me.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 month ago

This is a lot more complicated. The jobs in the oil and gas industry are well paid and will be hard to replace for a number of communities. A refinery creates a lot of union jobs, with great pay for example. Combustion engines also provide more jobs then electric drive trains. So fewer jobs in the car industry. Also companies like Rolls Royce. It is hard to find a replacement for jet engines, which can do something similar. Airbus in general is a big employer in the UK, especially with the entire supply chain.

That is just some stuff coming to mind. It really is not that simple. Obviously there are new green jobs created, but those jobs are not necessarily in the same places, as the old fossil fuel ones.