Why are we worrying about something that isn't anywhere near feasible?
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
7 points (76.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5022 readers
389 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Every step we take past 1.5°C means increased risk of losing major ecosystems and habitable areas.
Paris called for limiting the long-term average temperature increase to 2°C which remains attainable.
Are you guys using the same definition of "overshooting the target"?
You seem to refer to it as "shooting over the 1.5C goal", while the other commenter above might interpret it as "overshooting the reduction needed to get to the target", so more like "having too little CO2".
The headline is confusingly worded and allows both interpretations.
The article makes it clear that they're talking about going past 1.5°C
And my comment makes it clear, that I'm talking about the headline.
Are you actually surprised people react based on a headline?
What a stupid headline... The article is about how the Paris accords aren't aggressive enough