this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
23 points (100.0% liked)

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

5244 readers
449 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
23
Can We Save the Redwoods by Helping Them Move? (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

De-desertification by burying clean biomass in increasingly arid locations could be a thing, as could wetlands restoration and a lot of similar ecological enterprises. There's plenty of opportunities for humans to make the planet better. We know how. There's just no will to do so.

It's not that humans can't leave the planet better than they found it, it's that they don't want to.

It's not that humans couldn't be good, it's that they are in practice bad.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't see how this is related to the content of the article.

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Can We Save the Redwoods by Helping Them Move?"

Yes, we can. While it's easy enough to plant trees, their survival requires a certain amount of work and ecological transformation. Whether moving them ahead of trends already happening in local climates and anticipating where they will be able to exist later, or helping preserve their current ranges, extremely long lived species in particular need stability. That stability isn't going to be found in climates that continue to be affected by human's interaction with the environment.

The air was moist and cool, suffused with the briny scent of the sea. “This is a tree paradise,” Stielstra said. Barnes concurred: “This is a gold mine.”

For how long? For long enough that the mother trees they discuss in the article can become established over hundreds to thousands of years. Absolutely not.

The problem is people.

Could we? Yes. Will we? No.

Humans have always and will always care about their meager lifespans in preference of the longer lifespans of things like trees and species and ecologies. Where they have ability, they lack perspective.

'We can just move them,' they'll say, over and over and over.