Don't think anybody is surprised. Has anyone actually tried anything? Nah didn't think so.
Here's me not showering doing all my plastic reduction. Not driving not going on holz. Buying things from shops.
One rich person negates ally efforts
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
69 points (98.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5212 readers
534 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
We're actually doing enough that the acceleration has started to slow. There's some indications that emissions are going to start dropping in the next few years, but we're still decades from the point where concentrations stop rising.
Which is a few decades too late to avoid catastrophe
We might limit the damage enough to retain a civilization-supporting planet
I’m all for doing everything we can, but I think we may have to scale down what we mean by civilization at the point of acceleration we’re already at, we need to start prioritizing the things from this period that are useful and worth preserving. Because the way we currently live is coming to a close whether we like it or not unless someone invents some Star Trek shit
While I appreciate the sentiment, I think it’s unrealistic to expect the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere to decrease. For that, we already would need net 0 emissions AND some sort of carbon capture system in place.
For now, what must decrease is greenhouse gas emissions, and the article admits that that is what happened (but the decrease was so low it could be attributed to natural fluctuations).
There are natural systems capturing carbon as well. The problem is that it takes 10,000 years or so to capture all humans have released to date. So zero emissions would already lower concentration over time.
I'm sure spaceX has nothing to do with it.../s
You can probably lose the /s. While space launches do have an environmental impact, it’s honestly negligible compared to manufacturing or even aor travel. It can be reduced of course, most of it is in materials and transport, but scale does matter, and i feel like that ire would be better directed towards the companies that do more damage in a hour than they do in a year.