this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
53 points (98.2% liked)

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

5310 readers
463 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
53
How I Can Green Up My Investments | It’s not that hard, and there’s a bonus: Portfolios without fossil fuels have generally performed just as well as the broader market. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You've gone from a passive fund to an active fund there I think, with the associated far higher expenses. You can get close to divested from the fossil fuels industry via the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund would get you an expense ratio of 0.14%, which is about where index funds were charging when they didn't have the same economies of scale they do today.

[–] Steve@communick.news 2 points 1 day ago

True. That was just the first fund (That doesn't require 100K) on the first link in the article.