this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
100 points (98.1% liked)

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

5276 readers
609 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
100
Why Is the Oil Industry Still Thriving? (www.splinter.com)
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We're still using fossil fuels, and not phasing out as fast as possible.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doing it as fast as possible would crash the world economy because everything is setup up for oil. So it seems obvious what needs to happen, it’s a different story when you personally are now homeless and you just want a roof and food. We can do a lot better than we are though

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The alternative, parts of the world will be uninhabitable. Always gotta think about the economy... no matter how many people this is going to kill, or how much biodiversity we lose along the way.

Is there any point of loss where we will say the economy isn't important anymore, or do we have to be experiencing the loss already?

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The problem is crashing the economy will kill a lot of people right now, no need to wait or come up with a better solution

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

If you look at it on a case-by-case basis, it's harder to catastrophize. Would the world economy collapse if petroleum-derived food additives vanished? No. Plastic bags? No. The vast volumes of cheap plastic packaging? No. Shipping? That'll take a while. Fertilizers? Partial substitution can happen immediately, but a full changeover will take years. And so on through the list. You can rack and stack each case by its social value, how hard it will be to eliminate or replace, and the lead time needed to transition. Beyond that it's engineering, planning and politics.