this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
96 points (99.0% liked)

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

5316 readers
998 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
[email protected]
96
A renewable energy transition that doesn’t harm nature? It’s not just possible, it’s essential (theconversation.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ok, but where did I even suggest that we should maintain the status quo? It's always important to consider all effects of whichever actions you take. Saying that "it's important to consider the economic ramifications" does not say anything about what the conclusions those considerations should come to.

If you want real change, and more importantly effective change, all socio-political and economic ramifications should be considered, and accounted for/mitigated as necessary.

It's very simple to tear things down in name of ideals, but this type thinking has to happen (preferably beforehand) in order to actually build something better afterwards.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

My apologies if I exaggerated your response but it is one that I have often come across when I have this same debate with others around me.

My main point is that if we keep doing what we are doing now, then problems will persist.

We need societal change on a global level and although that carries a certain level of risk of whether or not it would make anything better or worse ... I believe it is far better than the alternative of certain demise if we keep doing what we are doing now.

I would rather prefer we take the chance at global change ... rather than stay where we are with certain future disaster.