this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

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

5229 readers
537 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
3
Shoppers say they want sustainable goods, but won't pay more (www.reuters.com)
submitted 1 year ago by archpaladin1@lemmy.sdf.org to c/climate@slrpnk.net
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Figures. 🙄

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m willing to compromise - as in, if it costs them $4 more to produce, they charge $2 more for it, we’re splitting the difference.

If a public company did this, one that has a board of directors and is traded on the stock market, the managers would be liable for not doing their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. Well, they would liable if it wasn't part of a long term strategy to capture the totality of consumer surplus.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is a common myth:

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court voiced its position in no uncertain terms. In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.

https://legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oof. That's fair. That explains Woke, Inc. and other critiques of wokism in the boardroom: because these initiatives are argued to be detracting from shareholder value by creating unnecessary inefficiencies.

So, okay, cool. Thanks for the update.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not quite understanding your point, could you elaborate?

To be fair, while companies may not be legally obligated to maximise profit/shareholder value, CEO bonus structures often do incentivise doing exactly that. And perpetuating the myth does give boards an excuse to do whatever they want.