this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
52 points (96.4% liked)

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

5194 readers
1147 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
52
Climate at the Debate: Trump Ignored the Question and Harris Hedged (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's unfortunately a Catch 22. Even if Kamala has an excellent plan in mind for transitioning away from fossil fuels, she has an election to win. There's no answer she can give that would make everyone happy. Say she'll come down hard on fossil fuels, and she might lose states like PA and cause Big Oil to invest in Republican races, potentially hamstringing any chance at a three-chamber path forward. On the other hand, she can't glibly say, "Drill, baby, drill," because she'd lose the climate-aware vote she needs to win.

And I don't give a fuck about what Trump says. He can eat glass and drink gasoline, for all I care.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agreed. The problem is so deeply embedded in our society that any change that doesn't have some profit isn't going to gain traction. A real plan for climate adaptation would piss off both corporate and public and she'd be out asap for the next person who promises to keep things status quo.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have hope she'll continue to move us towards clean energy solutions, etc., but we won't see or hear any definitive plans until she's in the Oval Office.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We'd also need to see more progressive seats in both House and Senate, since legislation to spark any improvement direction would have to go through them.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 5 points 1 month ago

Absolutely. And the better she performs in public, the more likely that will come to pass.

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just another reason our election shouldn't be entirely dependent on 10,000 people in Pennsylvania.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

It might not be, since she's doing well in several swing states, but it's best not to leave it up to chance, especially when we're already seeing efforts to set up an eventual challenge to the results.

[–] Unbecredible@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I would gladly watch it all burn down if I could just see one presidential debate where the candidates answered the fucking questions.