this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
551 points (98.4% liked)

Climate

8652 readers
341 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dan69@lemmy.world 89 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Why? Most democratic officials are closeted republicans.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Right. How else is Jeffries and Chuck going to afford their beach front property in Gaza if they don't receive million from the fossil fuel lobby.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago

This isn't really true, though some are. It's just that both Democrats and Republicans are almost all owned by the owner class, so support any corporate protections. That isn't anything that Republicans own. It's both parties.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] core@leminal.space 79 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

If they remove our legal recourse, do they think we'll just shrug and be like "guess we have no options"?

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 54 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That seems to be exactly what Americans are doing right now about everything. So yeah.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

You’re right. No one is throwing molotovs at techbro houses or burning down warehouses or anything.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Yuccagnocchiyaki@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Makes it easy to call us all "terrorists" before they drug us and send us to "wellness farms"

[–] MolochHorridus@piefed.social 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That’s exactly why you all need to stop acting like sheeple and start a revolution.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 points 3 weeks ago

I mean you're preaching to the choir but the seething mass of liberals don't even know what liberal means

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

Oil burns a little too readily for them to be taking non-violent options off the table. A paper warehouse is nothing compared to this potential.

[–] D1re_W0lf@piefed.social 30 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Frankly? The United States is not a two parties country. It’s a no party country. Ever thought about why monopoly laws from the eighties no longer exist?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 8 points 3 weeks ago

Reagan was an antichrist, yes

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 5 points 3 weeks ago

There is a communist party. And a green party. And like 10 more, depending where you live.

The problem is not that there are not progressive parties. The problem is that the US is not a democracy, and it's designed so only one party can win elections

[–] Steve 27 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Democrats aren't saying anything because on the real issues that effect everyone (economics) the two parties are almost perfectly aligned.
Have been since Clinton won.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

on the real issues that effect everyone (economics) the two parties are almost perfectly aligned.

Is that why one has a good track record with the economy and the other absolutely fucking tanks it every fucking time?

And it's "affect" not "effect". Yes, I'm being that asshole.

[–] Steve 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

They differ in the details slightly, accounting for performance differences. But every time the interests of the asset class conflicts with the interests of the consumer class, they both make sure the asset class is happy.

Whenever I see affect I think of people making faces. And any single economic decision effects people, while the economy as a whole affects people. With my phrasing I can see either works.

[–] Ageroth@reddthat.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Affect is a verb: the rising grocery and gas prices are affecting my spending choices.

Effect is a noun: the effect of rising grocery and gas prices are changing my spending choices

In your example: any single economic decision has an effect on people, while the economy as a whole affects people.

[–] sunnie@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Except when affect is a noun (disposition or emotion) and effect is a verb (to bring about or make happen).

Just to make things more difficult. :)

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

clearly the only option is killing all of the politicians

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Congratulations, you have made The List.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Conservatives. The comic book villains that came to life and terrorize an entire planet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zd9@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Do they realize that this will lead to more physical sabotage against oil infrastructure? If they get rid of any non-violent means of mitigating concerns, they leave only one option.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

After what the americans have mustered against a fascist takeover I don't think the rich are very scared about someone trying to "sabotage" the oil infrastructure...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] fira@lemmy.today 19 points 3 weeks ago

Another unpopular move by the party of pedophile supporters

[–] Yuccagnocchiyaki@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

When will people realize that these are actual enemies to our country and are KILLING US

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

100%.

No other nation/individual/extremist group/ideology on this planet could be causing America more harm than the Republican party. They are oppressive. They strip rights. They flagrantly violate the Constitution. They crush the middle and lower classes.

They are absolutely America's enemy and the enemy of Democracy in general.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

After a handful of perfectly preventable climate disasters if we had acted with force 10 years ago, people will suddenly go "how could God do this to us!! Why couldn't da gubament have done anything to protect us!!"

Fucking idiots. I hate these people with a cold passion.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Forever" is not possible, a future Congress can just repeal the law.

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But what if they add a "No Takesy Backsey" clause?

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 7 points 3 weeks ago

They takesy backsey the clause first

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

I'll be honest, I don't really care. None of these laws mean anything if the government is completely rebuilt from the ground up. Every single thing this admin does will be worth so much burned toilet paper. All the grifts ill gotten gains will be liquidated and confiscated by whoever the fuck hangs them all in the streets, as is most likely to happen. All the bills that say shit like "no regulations on AI evar!! Lol" or "Donald Trumps name on everything, including mt Kilimanjaro for some reason" will be meaningless.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The only way this will happen is through violence, and even then it's not a guarantee.

  • conservative South loss against the north in the civil war and there were no reparations or punishment.
  • Nixon came the closest to being impeached and charges were dropped as soon as he resigned, despite the fact that the votes were there. We was then fucking pardoned because "we need to move on."
  • fucking TRUMP will "learn his lesson" for forcing Ukraine to provide opposition research on Biden in exchange for security.
  • TRUMP again when he literally caused people to storm the capitol.
  • when Biden was in office, house refused to even push more impeachment talks because "he's not president anymore" and then got Pikachu faced when he ran again.
  • when Trump finally was found guilty in New York, the judge fucking gave him no jail time.

Democrats refuse to hold Republicans accountable and we need to start acting like they are part of the problem.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

democrats are just potty trained republicans, it seems to me. as an outsider america seems to have just one party that is divided.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

They should be making people aware of this, but those stupid laws can be repealed just as easy as they are made.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tiny_hedgehog@piefed.social 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I thought this picture was a before/after transition photo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

how is it that Cruz has not been lynched already?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Congressmembers typically have bodyguards at public events.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Yuccagnocchiyaki@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Cause Texans are pussies

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

They framed it as a way to “protect American energy from leftist legal crusades punishing lawful activity.”

Aren't lawful actions already protected by, you know, the law? By definition, the only legal punishments that could happen are for illegal actions. This doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense as reasoning. They didn't even try to manufacture justification.

Anyway, when the justice system no longer can be relied on to provide justice, extra-legal methods must be taken to ensure a just society. Them doing this could be either of two things, or both. It's them actually protecting dirty energy companies, as it sounds, or it's them requiring vigilantism to stop it, which gives them justification to crack down on "the left" and anyone else who stands against them.

Edit: Also, they consistently say that climate change isn't real, and yet they feel the need to pass a law that explicitly is there to protect against the harms of climate change. Either it's real, and they should pay (especially since they knew about it and mislead the public, which this also explicitly protects), or it isn't real, and this law is pointless.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 9 points 3 weeks ago

the actual way to solve “leftist legal crusades” (if they exist): anti-SLAPP laws that punish frivolous lawsuits… but that would hurt them more than “leftists”

[–] ZpbkPEcaHhIveqdR@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You sound as if you think the democrats are a progressive party

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 9 points 3 weeks ago

aside from like only 2 dems in congress, almost every other one is complicit.

[–] notsosure@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Another question: is that Cruz in drag?!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 8 points 3 weeks ago

You mean progressives? Because Dems as a party are not against carbon

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

They will express greatly concerning concerns, and send a moderately worded letter.

[–] CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments
view more: next ›