this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
165 points (96.1% liked)

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

5229 readers
533 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
165
Stonehenge covered in powder paint by Just Stop Oil protesters - BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 4 months ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/climate@slrpnk.net
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No one should have to explain why throwing soup on a painting is a dumb way to protest - yes, even if the painting has a glass barrier

In the modern history of protest it’s the stupidest possible way.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Keeps us discussing it though

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 15 points 4 months ago (3 children)

We talk more about their tactics than the message they're trying to spread, so I don't think we're really discussing the things they'd want us to focus upon.

[–] card797@champserver.net 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This. I truly believe that humanity will not stop burning fossil fuels until the last drop is gone.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 3 points 4 months ago

I think it needs to get to a point where the public put pressure on companies and inconveniencing them will force them to choose sides. I'm not sure it's the side of common sense though.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We only discuss their tactics briefly when they do something dramatic and get on the news.

When people hear about their tactics, ask why they're going so far, and look into environmental issues as a result, I think that can have a much longer lasting impact.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 5 points 4 months ago

And that's where we disagree. I don't think anybody is researching anything. The average person does not have the drive or attention span for a Step 2.

Plus, I agree with their core ideology, yet I still think people who do this stuff are assholes, and I'm immediately annoyed on the outset. To expect people who aren't invested in climate change to look past the "asshole" is a pretty big ask.

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

I’ve seen a lot of great comments in here about climate change, the oil industry, and the mass extinction we have happening right now.