this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
107 points (99.1% liked)

Climate

8758 readers
282 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EtnaAtsume@lemmy.world 58 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Won't somebody please think of the productivity?

[–] Laser@feddit.org 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're joking, but unfortunately this is the only logic some people respond to.

[–] snoons@piefed.ca 5 points 1 day ago

For some yes, but others will only start behaving responsibly when it impacts their bottom line. Until then it will mean nothing to them. They will hear it, and read about it, but they'll ignore it.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I do, that's why I work public sector. I work well because it's going to make someone else's life easier

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I like not paying high prices for food though.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 23 points 2 days ago

Oh no not the productivity

[–] inspxtr@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

people are suffering, but it’s more important that the line is not increasing, peasants!

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 day ago

Fuck growth, that's what got us into this mess.

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Wait wait wait, you're telling me all the money that was gained not fixing problems was short-sighted? You're telling me there's downsides?

Why haven't people been talking about this for 20 years!!!

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Won't someone think of the growth!?

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Didn’t some economist joker get a Nobel prize for saying the climate disaster wouldn’t cause much economic harm?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago

He did. By assuming that damage was proportional to the fraction of the economy that a given sector represents. Which is an ok representation at very small amounts of warming. But when temperatures rise, the fact that the agriculture sector was, say, 3% of the economy, doesn't mean that damage is only 3% when the amount of food goes to zero.

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 5 points 1 day ago

I guess because the economy is made up, whereas the climate disaster is not.