this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
36 points (100.0% liked)

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

5243 readers
391 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 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I think it's exactly the opposite. I don't think people are nearly as fearful enough or there would actually be action. We keep thinking we can capitalism our way out of this, but it's never going to work.

I want to start telling people that this is a problem now when we need to do something right now as if our hair is on fire.

Because it is.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

It's not the people you have to convince ... you have to convince the billionaires to change their behaviour. They are the defacto ones that have all the power and control to influence society and government to do anything.

But they don't want to change because they might lose 2 percent of their wealth and they don't like that.

[–] nomecks@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Change is scary. Terms like "Green economy" sound like a huge pile of scary change to a lot of people.

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 4 points 11 months ago

Probably would go down a lot better if it was always coupled with "Green economy will bring lots of new jobs as well as provide job and financial security for many others."

[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 11 months ago

rather than energising them

Why does the author think that energising people is good?