this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)

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

5245 readers
206 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
87
Shell’s legal victory is disappointing – but this is not the end for corporate climate litigation (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SolacefromSilence@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago

It's all politically motivated judges who try to appear above the fray, but they're not. It's an inherently political position as a judge and we'd be better off seeing things how they are.

My moment was looking back to how the federal government passed a law to strip highway funding if states didn't raise their drinking age to 21. The same logic was used to force states to expand the ACA in each state, where other federal medical funding would be cut if states didn't take advantage of the ACA in their state. Ooopsies, as we know now, Republican judges struck that down and we have a half-baked medical solution. It's still better than before though, albeit hobbled.