this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
163 points (100.0% liked)

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

149 readers
22 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ElcaineVolta@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago

living vegan has never been easier!

[–] OnU@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago

Plant based for the environment, vegan for the animals🖖

[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My recommendation is learn to love lentils. Replace the beef in your spag bol with them. So good and so much cheaper. Also beans, there are so many good things you can do with them.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lentils r amazing, although they severely lack protein. Plus, they alone do not have all 9 required amino acids. To get them, u need to consume lentils AND beans.

The daily RDA for me is around 56 grams of protein. If I had to meet this demand via lentils and beans alone, then I would need to consume around 460 grams of lentils and beans DAILY. Yeah... Imagine the AMOUNT of gases after that lol.

HOWEVER, there still is a solution that I found. Say hello to "TVP", ie., "Texturised Vegetable Protein". This basically concentrates all this protein, while having all 9 required amino acids. To meet my RDA, I would need to consume just 120 grams.

I still do have lentils and beans sometimes. However, TVP is still always present in some form.

[–] currentbias@open-source-eschaton.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@UraniumBlazer @Nonameuser678 56 grams of protein from all sources. There is protein in almost everything you eat, and it combines to reach that goal. You don't have to get all 56 grams from just lentils and beans

Also, it's rice or some other grain you want to pair with lentils to achieve a complete protein, not beans -- beans are legumes, and most legumes have a similar amino acid profile

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Well wheat and rice have like under 4 gm of protein per 100gm. Vegetables are even less than this. I would have to eat kilos and kilos of stuff to meet my RDA this way.

Also, it's rice or some other grain you want to pair with lentils to achieve a complete protein, not beans -- beans are legumes, and most legumes have a similar amino acid profile

Oh yeah, I looked this up. I don't see the beans lentil thing that I mentioned anywhere. So ig u'r right. I think I saw this in some YouTube video.

[–] soupcat@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

This, I basically never buy any 'vegan' products. I just sub mince with red and yellow lentils and barley, it's great and cheap. Add lots of veggies and you've got a delicious meal.

[–] Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 year ago

Eat...Rich...Eat the rich! Ok!

[–] soupcat@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago

So many good reasons to eat less meat.

[–] jayrodtheoldbod@midwest.social 11 points 1 year ago

The good news is that the methane emissions are so damn bad that it also means that relatively modest reductions (in global percentage) will go a long way toward the problem.

[–] AEMarling@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A reminder that oil companies invented “carbon footprint” to distract you while they continue to pollute. Form unions and solidarity networks to overcome harmful systems. Don’t argue over hamburgers.

Reminder that this doesn't absolve you from your personal responsibilities. You do need to be making choices that move the world towards a better future.

Besides that the number one reason for land loss, the loss of biodiversity, nitrate pollution, and methane production is still the bio-industy. Let alone the ethical implications of killing billions of animals a month.

You can do both. No, you're obliged to do both. Stop supporting bio-industy and fight for rights.

[–] Akisamb@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These companies pollute to satisfy a demand. If people stopped driving cars, TotalEnergy and Shell would sell less oil.

Where these companies are evil is when they try to influence people and politicians. For example jay walking is a crime because of them.

That said taxing the hell out of these polluting industries is a solution, as it will raise the oil price and force people to consume less.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

It's not only cars, there are power plants running on oil, nearly every "small" backup generator runs on diesel. Also logistics, trucks, trains and ships needs boatloads of diesel.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'll take things that are never going to happen for $500, Alex

[–] OnU@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Do you think it will never happen or that it's gonna take a lot of time and education? There seems to be a trend that societal change that reaches 3,5% take over an manifest themselfs. (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world)

[–] Destraight@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, stop being billionaires, and give your money away

[–] MayonnaiseArch 4 points 1 year ago

Yep. I can stop eating food entirely without it making a dent. But if fucking musk could stop flying to the corner store it might help out a bit

[–] rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I really think that, if we are to get this to work, we must start with the ranchers as well. I live on one of those 'more cows than people' areas, and I don't think any rancher is going to hang up that income opportunity until they have a viable alternative. Some of them have already diversified to meet ends, but I think most have not.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Georgism would solve that problem. They wouldn’t be able to make a profit just letting cows graze

[–] rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow, I just did a brief look at Georgism (on Wikipedia) and there too many new terms and concepts for me to form an opinion right now.

Thanks for introducing something new! It will take me some time to grasp it.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I still don't fully grok it either, but it sounds like a pretty decent solution to a lot of our issues.

[–] Teon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

No! Make them eat MORE meat. All meat all day, 5x a day. +meat snacks.
Clog those arteries as fast as possible and we are finally rid of these idiots who think meat is an essential ingredient to their masculinity.
This is why they need viagara!
And someone send them some cigarettes, unfiltered.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

carbon tax wouldn't fix this, meat tax?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it covered methane emissions on the basis of CO2e, it could.

A carbon tax has been politically really tough to pass in the US though.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah, would never pass federally. there's got to be a state where this type of thing could get a foothold.

if it were me, if start in a place with a high gasoline tax, eliminate it, and replace it with a carbon tax that costs less.

now there is precedence. a foot in the door

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The highest gas tax in the US is California, at $0.51/gallon. That's not high at all.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I found 78¢ in CA. CA is a top three fuel consumer, so a carbon tax there would impact lots of folks. once someone does it, others may follow

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what happens when you add in sales taxes, which are applied to everything. It's not going to happen so long as it looks like a backdoor way to increase the tax over time.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so many reasons why it won't happen:

  • backdoor to increase rates
  • hurts automotive industry
  • hurts ff industry
  • hurts poor people
  • hurts agriculture
  • hurts manufacturing
  • hurts retail
  • hurts small businesses
  • hurts big businesses
  • etc

ultimately, one cannot make an omelette without cracking eggs

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

You need to get it past the WSPA first, and they know what it is.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Have you met a rich person who can't avoid taxes? No but seriously even if every steak cost them $1000 it would not deter them because of the current wealth concentration.