this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
233 points (98.3% liked)

Climate

8833 readers
337 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 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago (2 children)

DNC folks upon reading this, "We will not talk about climate change."

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 5 points 5 days ago

Why "win" an election and have to do a bunch of work if you can just take a huge payout under the table to throw the match?

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 15 points 5 days ago

Actual, provable TRUTHS should be the obvious "political winner," but too many people prefer hearing what they're conditioned to want to hear. Humanity is killing itself with their deliberate ignorance, and the powers that be don't care just so long as they're the last ones standing.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

They shouldn't talk about it just to win.

They should talk about it because change is needed to reduce the hundreds of thousands of people dying from the climate catastrophe that their country is responsible for.

[–] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago

This is addressing the fear that focusing on climate will lose elections.

[–] DrPop@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

The DNC is paid off to not address this.

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 days ago

But is it what my big money donors want? That's whats important.

[–] NastyNative@mander.xyz 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Considering the Northeast (US) is once again being impacted by smoke from the Canadian wildfires, with air quality reaching around 160 (Unhealthy), this should absolutely be getting more attention. It feels like we're being forced to stay indoors every summer because of it. I hate it most for my son, who should be able to spend his summer outside instead of being stuck inside.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Skeptics will point out that voters rank “the economy” above “climate.”

Yes and people probably want climate action but want a better economy (ie. More money in their pocket) more.

Questions asked in a vacuum are useless. If the answer is are you willing to pay an extra 1k a year to fight climate change Im betting the numbers drop drastically.

I'm OK with winning however then making climate legislation. They at least have what I think are sound options to discuss it (ie. Clean power is cheaper, etc.)