this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
34 points (100.0% liked)

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

5040 readers
924 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]
34
The "3.5% rule" needs protesting (www.theneweuropean.co.uk)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A note of caution about the 3.5% rule that has received a lot of focus in recent years:

People will, of course, find reasons to explain away why one or the other of the protest movements don’t count – but what’s important is that both show there is nothing magical about a 3.5% threshold, even in exactly the context to which it was originally applied.

The animating theory of modern protest, then, has been extended well out of the context of its original research, and doesn’t hold up even in its original context when we look at the biggest non-violent protest movements of the last decade. And yet this goes entirely unexamined.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

The two examples they point to share an obvious commonality that doesn’t apply to the climate movement. Both protest movements were brutally suppressed by a much larger and more powerful external force. If the protests has been across all of China or Russia I am sure the outcome would have been different. But 3.5% of Hong Kong or Belarus are both small compared to China and Russia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

A caution, having just learned of this 3.5% observation.

In the past, things like this have been reversed to justify anger against the masses. I.e. If the movement is not a current success, it therefore has less support than 3.5%. Therefore, we can do something bad to everyone that is not us.