this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
30 points (89.5% liked)

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

5243 readers
388 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
30
Inequality ensures that feared financial losses moving away from fossil fuels will fall most heavily on the wealthy, and not on the poor and middle class (www.scientificamerican.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago

But based on a recent analysis, we argue that high-income governments need not worry about triggering these financial losses. That is because most hits from stranded fossil fuel assets—lower production volumes or sales at lower prices than investors expected—would fall primarily on the wealthy members of these countries. That ain’t most voters.

This article seems ignorant of the fact that policies in western "democracies" don't follow voters but money, partly because companies and shareholders have enormous power and sway over elections, and also because that wealthy class makes up most of the political class.

Like most neoliberal slop, there's no analysis of power and an assumption that the entire system can be trusted to work as its own propaganda says it should.