this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
84 points (94.7% liked)

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

5229 readers
511 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
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 61 points 2 months ago

Environmental activists are strong backers of Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign despite a lack of detailed policy plans because they fear GOP nominee Donald Trump would set back U.S. efforts to combat climate change.

And they're almost certainly correct. This is what's called "strategy" and "foresight." Nice to see some people actually taking their heads out of their asses and realizing you can't make forward progress if you're constantly cutting yourself off at the knees.

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Huh, some other groups could take a cue from that.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 months ago (5 children)

If you’ll forgive me for tangenting pretty hard here:

This is the level of pragmatism and realpolitik that is appropriate in this context (that is: an election wherein one of the outcomes is “the fascists win”). I staunchly support environmental causes, but losing the forest for the trees (a hilariously accurate metaphor, here) is one of the enormous weak spots of the American left.

And (at the risk of hitting the hornet’s nest), the distinct lack of pragmatism found in the pro-Palestinian movement vis a vis Harris is more than a little infuriating to me. Don’t get me wrong: I find Biden’s handling of the situation thus far, and his usage of our UN vote to block any meaningful action to constrain, discourage, or halt Israel’s genocide they’re conducting in Gaza to be categorically reprehensible, and one of the most categorical failures of his administration. But that’s Biden, not Harris.

Thr fact that so many are refusing to support Harris because she’s being intentionally vague on Gaza, and simultaneously ignoring the fact that she’s being intentionally vague because AIPAC basically has a campaign funding knife to her throat is just so idiotic and self-defeating I have difficulty expressing it.

I get that the genocide is happening by the second. It’s fucking awful, and should be halted immediately. But Biden is definitely not going to do that. And Harris has precisely zero authority to set and enact national policy until she’s sworn in (in reality, the president-elect starts setting policy shortly after they win, but the enacting part NEVER comes before being sworn in). Ignoring these subtle procedural constraints and attributing guilt to Harris for shit she has absolutely no real control over at the moment is a self-defeating strategy of the highest order. Her hands are tied because money runs our elections (which, to be clear, needs to be remedied), and AIPAC has a shitload of money they’ll throw at anyone who’s even mildly critical of Israeli policy. I hope and expect her to be a lot less friendly to Israel after the election is over and settled - or at the very latest, after she’s sworn in (and if she doesn’t, my opinion on her will change drastically).

TL;DR: I deeply wish people who feel strongly about the Gaza Genocide would take a page out of the playbook being used by environmentalists this election cycle.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Actually it is even worse then that. Trump has called Netanyahu to ask him to keep the genocide going, so Harris looses the election. HE is openly calling for Israel to finish the problem. Biden for all his faults in this, has actually send aid to Gaza and has been at least rhetorically pushed for a ceasefire.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Oh, I’m well aware.

Its just absolutely bonkers to me that people can say with a straight face “Harris is going to be just as bad as Trump because she is not openly diverging significantly from the party line at the moment”.

Like… what? What the actual fuck? How is “I’m going to not give much detail on my Palestine/Gaza policy because I don’t want to make an overt enemy of AIPAC this close to the election” the same as “let’s send a few squadrons of B-52s to Gaza to ‘help defend Israel’ by carpet bombing Gaza into grade #8 gravel, which has the serendipitous side effect of clearing beachfront property to build a Trump Tower Gaza”? How are people not seeing that that’s the dichotomy here? I’m absolutely flummoxed.

[–] an0nym0us@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 months ago

This person’s brain has been replaced by a Bloomberg terminal.

[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Reality requires pragmatism.

That’s really all I’m saying.

The unfortunate truth is that pragmatism sometimes requires choosing between suboptimal options, simply because the long term ramifications of the other options are far worse - even if those other options have better short term outcomes.

It’s all well and good if we can stand on principle and stop the genocide right now… but if the long term ramification is that the genocide starts up again in 3 months with a vengeance, it’s pretty clear that that strategy isn’t the best one. It’s a horrifying thing to have to wrap one’s head around... But it’s basically the trolley problem, writ large.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

I've been saying pretty much the same thing about Biden. It's almost "yeah, whatever, he's not trump" but you can add to that that part of his decisions may lie in the fact that Biden (and Harris too, btw) didn't wanted to alienate the voters that have a close stance with Israel. If he loses those votes, he might lose, Trump wins, Palestinians are effed beyond. Politics sucks that way, but us politics with the "winner takes all" makes it so much worse

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 12 points 2 months ago

Yes, it's all about being smart, harm reduction, smart voting and so on. We will never get another Al Gore, we will never get a perfect candidate or party.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

Okay good! I'm glad that climate activists are feeling that they are heard, while giving Harris space to make a case for people across the political spectrum to vote for her.

Once she's in the Oval Office, that pen will get right to work, and if a favorable Congress backs her, America is going to accomplish so much they didn't think was possible. Then, just like in Minnesota, they are going to see all the fears Fox was peddling to them melt away... a Green Revolution will shower rural America with jobs, and make a number of things in life more affordable, accessible and self-sufficient.

Before: Democrats purity test, Republicans trick their way into power, Democrats are forced to compromise to get anything done.

Now (TBD): Democrats spread a broad message, Republicans stay on the weird fringes, Democrats have the seats and votes to enact an uncompromisingly progressive agenda.