this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
43 points (100.0% liked)

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

155 readers
19 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
43
Never mind the planet’s fate when the jet set feel the urge to seek out some winter sun | Self-denial will save the Earth, we’re told. But big emitters seemingly haven’t had the memo (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For the present, research indicates that the public still underestimates, to a degree hugely convenient to the richest groups, their contribution to global warming. The majority of respondents in a four-country study overestimated the carbon footprint of the poorest 50%, and underestimated those of the richest 10% and 1%. One of its authors, Dr Ramit Debnath, commented: “These countries are very different, but we found the rich are pretty similar no matter where you go, and their concerns are different to the rest of society. There’s a huge contrast between billionaires travelling by private jet while the rest of us drink with soggy paper straws: one of those activities has a big impact on an individual carbon footprint, and one doesn’t.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is why I get pissy when people who can afford to take vacations tell me that I need to reduce my footprint. The most I've ever flown was a couple years ago where there were three funerals in sixteen months.

The local progressive scene is full of rich fuckers that think their non-native lawns and vacation homes come out in the wash because they buy 'climate neutral' marketed goods. It's like that bizarre argument I had once where somebody was saying that replacing monoculture grass with a native garden was less beneficial for the environment than buying wind credits from the power company. His logic was that plants only temporarily store CO2, whereas wind credits actually remove carbon permanently, and I don't know whose ass he pulled that from.

[–] camerondakota@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I know it’s semantics but those sound like nimby liberals and not progressives. Also yeah interesting argument on this part. I think easy climate action always starts in our homes and backyards!