this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
36 points (100.0% liked)

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

5181 readers
502 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
36
You’re doing it wrong: Recycling and other myths about tackling climate change (wapo.st)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'll note that this is article is concentrated on individual action, not on political action to change policy, which has a far bigger impact than individual action can.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thbb@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also, eating industrial food over organic:

First because, per calorie produced, organic farming emits 12 to 40% more green house gases.

Second, because you'll be less healthy and die sooner.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This only works if you pretend the organic farm depletes soil carbon and emits NO2 at the same rate as the fertilizer farm, fugitive methane doesn't exist (anything with fossil gas in its upstream suplly chain has its emissions under-reported by a factor of about 3), and that the vast tracts of land poisoned and degraded by fracking are completely fine.

You also have to cherry pick small scale lifestyle blocks for your analysis and assume that the land previously degraded by industrial agriculture could be used further at the same yield.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wasn't aware of that. That is bleak.

[–] thbb@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In general, the price of a good in a competitive market is directly tied to its energy cost (either manual or machine labor), which is itself tied to its carbon footprint. If something is more expensive, it is very likely that its production emitted more GHG, or that you're getting scammed.

As an exemple, beef is more expensive than chicken, which is itself more expensive than vegetables.

That's why the best personal action to save on GHG emissions is still to become poorer/reduce your material comfort. Compensate with richer interactions with others and a sense of community.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In general, the price of a good in a competitive market is directly tied to its energy cost

Yes. That is an old idea too. This is why doing things the FIRE movement promotes to save money is also beneficial for the environment.

Check this out:

https://www.madfientist.com/vicki-robin-interview/

Go to the transcript and find the text below and read through it. The whole interview is worth listening to IMO.

"There was a World Commission on Environmental Development"