this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
122 points (99.2% liked)

Climate

7884 readers
86 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
122
Half of world’s CO2 emissions come from just 32 fossil fuel firms, study shows | Critics accuse leading firms of sabotaging climate action but say data increasingly being used to hold them to account (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I will note that these are scope 3 emissions, so it includes the emissions associated with fossil fuels extracted by these firms and burned by others, as well as those from electrical generation when end consumers use the electricity.

These are Scope 3 Category 11 emissions, corresponding to "use of sold products", however this has been modified to quantify emissions from each fossil fuel company’s net production of oil, gas, or coal as opposed to sold products.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zlita@europe.pub 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

As you noted yourself, this is scope 3 emissions, meaning that if I buy a ton of coal and put on fire in my garden the associated emission will be counted toward the company which extracted it.

Such accounting is useful to understand which company produce highly polluting stuff but saying that the emission come from them is highly misleading. Using this way to count emission I'm never responsible for any emission whether it is burning coal for fun, taking the plane every morning or eating exclusively beef. What it says to people is basically that they have no responsibility and shouldn't make any change.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

What it says to people is basically that they have no responsibility and shouldn’t make any change.

There's always been a sort of false dichotomy about this. On the one hand there's this idea that climate change can be solved by individual consumer choices and personal responsibility. On the other there's the idea that the average person can continue on with their life exactly as before if we just fix things "behind the scenes".

IMO the reality is that climate change mitigation requires systemic top-down change, but that change is going to affect people's lives. In some ways for the better and some ways for the worse. The kind of "individual choices" we need people to make is to choose not to throw a hissy fit when their local government removes a car lane.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 days ago

If you drive a car that burns fossil fuels than you're responsible for the emissions. But the company selling you the petrol and the manufacturer of the car are also responsible. They are lobbying the governments of the world so that they can continue selling you petrol and cars with internal combustion engines instead of investing in greener technologies.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah, this is my issue with the stats like this that come out. Individually our impact is small, but add up 8 billion people and that gets monumentally larger. While companies definitely need to be held accountable for their carbon output, it will also take collective effort of individuals. We're not off the hook either.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 6 points 4 days ago

'Hold them to account' makes it sound like they at least had to own up and honestly admit it. Maybe they have, while simultaneously funding climate denialism, us politicians for denial, and otherwise funding campaigns to deny harm from hosts of pollutants, many systematic at this point, poisoning everything.

Insect populations are down 90 pc since the 90s, something is fundamentally wrong, they know their parts in it, and pay to make sure we do not know. Poisoning everyone to save a dollar.

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Anyone got a list of them in the US just asking incase they invade