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
silence7@slrpnk.net
86
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer writes op-ed against net zero (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Countries that fail to invest in new technologies like solar and batteries will be left behind economically. Their investment in fossil fuels is going to be worth less and less, and they will have nothing to replace it with.

But, we are going to prop up large vested fossil fuel interests as long as possible, of course.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, this is clear enough in the long run. But the question is: will the transition happen fast enough to prevent a climate change catastrophe?

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago

If we don't avoid the climate change catastrophe, then current investments are going to be even less valuable than if we do. That's no argument for continuing to prop up those industries.

I have a feeling that the fossil-fuel investors, to the extent that they trouble their pretty heads about it at all, think that, so long as they make enough money now, they can just run really good air conditioning and it won't affect them. Idiots.