this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
196 points (99.0% liked)

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

5245 readers
359 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
196
Project 2025 says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ‘should be broken up and downsized’ (www.poynter.org)
submitted 1 month ago by grue@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

We should be subsiding more things that are in the public interest

Very much agreed! But...

programs that benefit the public should never be run by for-profit corporations.

I wouldn't go that far. In fact, I would actually go so far as to say kind of the opposite: that all "corporations," including "for-profit" ones, should be required to act in the public interest, as originally intended, and that any organization that doesn't want to be subject to those sorts of conditions is perfectly free to remain a full-liability general partnership instead of incorporating. Incorporation is a privilege intended to be granted in exchange for public benefit, and we need to get back to that instead of continuing to let the courts treat it as an entitlement.

[–] frosty99c@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I get your point, but I have trouble understanding how acting in the public interest and charging over operating costs can be compatible, especially in public service areas like hospitals/medicine and education.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did you read the article I linked?

Here's the part that should've answered your question:

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

  • Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
  • Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
  • Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
  • Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
[–] frosty99c@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

"Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end."

Right, that's the part I take issue with. Why is there a profit on a public good?

I agree with all of the restrictions in place, but those have gotten weaker over time, when they should've gotten more restrictive. The problem with allowing them to profit is that over time, the profit gives them more bargaining power which allows them to erode the oversight and avoid all consequences for breaking the regulations.