this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
341 points (97.5% liked)

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

5298 readers
540 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
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unwillingness not inability.

[–] sping@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

A meaningless distinction. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are actions we can take that would solve our predicament, we are unable to persuade the people, governments, and various powers that be to take these actions. That is inability.

To suggest that is not inability reminds me of the joke where the mathematician sees his room on fire, and sees the fire extinguisher, and declares the solution obvious and goes back to sleep. Politics is real.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

The distinction is a meaningful one.

I didn't stop the Holocaust - I couldn't. I wish I could have, but that's not on me. On the other hand, if I was able stop it and chose not to, that'd be evil.

Now scale up from what seems like an extreme example of millions of people to billions of people and a huge chunk of all the life on earth.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Inability to defeat republiQans then. We can address climate change in 1000 ways. We are able.

It’s not a meaningless distinction, it’s a key distinction. If the headline said “2023 is when republiQans publicly agreed to destroy the planet” it’d have a very different effect. It’s hardly meaningless.

[–] TheSlad@sh.itjust.works 30 points 11 months ago

I dont think there will be much looking back actually...

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Why were we able to come together for the ozone layer in the 80s but not the climate change in the 00s?

Legit question.. Like what happened?

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ozone layer was portrayed as a science issue, not a political issue. Climate change became political quite early. The fossil fuel lobby was also more powerful than the aerosol lobby. Aerosol industry also developed better cooling gasses quite quickly, but few alternatives to fossil fuels that oil industry could quickly pivot to exist.

[–] evranch@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Aerosol industry also developed better cooling gasses quite quickly

The solution was even easier than it appears. Industrial and large cooling units already mostly used a non-ODP gas, ammonia. The ammonia cycle dates back to the dawn of refrigeration and was extremely mature.

CFCs were never even necessary, being outperformed in many ways by simple hydrocarbons like propane (R290) and butane (R600a). Non-flammability was literally the only reason to use CFCs, aside from market control and big money for chemical companies.

Ultimately as common refrigeration applications only require a gas that fits into fairly loose specifications, it was easy to replace CFCs with similar HFCs and still have non-flammable gas. HFCs have massive GWP, but hey, that's a slow burn problem compared to the ozone problem, right? Looking back, we clearly should have just gone straight to hydrocarbons as a drop in and CO2 for specialized applications, as lost HFCs now make up a significant portion of the greenhouse effect.

Propellant gas was even easier with modern aerosols containing HFCs, propane or CO2 depending on application.

Fossil fuels on the other hand, have powered our world for centuries and only recently was the need to switch away from them apparent. They are a cheap, dense source of energy and far, far more integrated into all of our industries and supply chains. It's a much bigger problem to solve than swapping out some gases.

[–] pedalmore@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Exactly. And now Kigali is sort of trying to right the HFC wrong, but the chemical industry isn't going down without a fight and we'll be left with TFAs everywhere because of the new shitty HFOs. Everyone needs to just use natural refrigeratants.

For anyone reading and wondering what they can do, next time you buy a refrigerator make sure it's R600a (isobutane) and also write your elected leaders or bribe your dictator to mandate natural refrigerants. If you're in the right market, buy R290 monoblock heat pumps. Buy a car with an R744 heat pump if you can. Also make sure any product with refrigerant that you own is disposed of properly.

Fun fact - the Montreal protocol that replaced CFCs with HFCs prevented more warming than the Kyoto protocol, which was explicitly designed to do just that while it was a complete afterthought for Montreal. Refrigerants really matter.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

CFCs was only a few small industries. CO2 is a lot of really big industries, so a whole lot more pushback and lobbying and fossil fuel propaganda.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why is it a difficult concept of, "no earth, no profit"?

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 20 points 11 months ago

Because all the people that will lose profit will be dead by then so they don't care

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Tragedy of the commons, benefit to an individual incentives a larger harm to everyone.

[–] Ultragramps@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

Capitalism turned rabid via fearmongering/FOMO, and the old fux in Congress know they won’t see consequences.

[–] catch22@startrek.website 1 points 11 months ago

Amount of money in the status quo with oil + petrodollar shenanigans

[–] Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

From a volcano, per the source you linked:

"The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano — which violently erupted in January 2022 and blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into the stratosphere – likely contributed to this year’s ozone depletion. That water vapor likely enhanced ozone-depletion reactions over the Antarctic early in the season.

“If Hunga Tonga hadn’t gone off, the ozone hole would likely be smaller this year,” Newman said. “We know the eruption got into the Antarctic stratosphere, but we cannot yet quantify its ozone hole impact.”

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not to make light of the situation, but Hunga Tonga makes me laugh.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 3 points 11 months ago

I love the rhythm of this language. "Honga Tonga Honga Ha'apai" is so much fun to say.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 16 points 11 months ago

Inability?

It's the will to do something! There a lot of green washing out there like Carbon capture and hydrogen cars. I don't Private planes being be taxed out of existence.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 15 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Yeah, in a way, I still find it shocking how we've come out of a year of climate-related crisis and the COP, which could have been a crisis taskforce meetup was just a handwaving event.
There were several nations represented there, that got hit hard this year by climate change. Why are these not demanding measures to limit damages?

Honestly even, why are there still people working against this? What the hell are you going to do with your immorally amassed wealth in a world that's falling apart?

[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I've been reading about what some of what the rich and powerful openly state they believe, and it's pretty scary. They are extremely out of touch with reality. I wonder what they believe that they're not open about.

So far, I've read about:

Effective altruism

  • seems to be about exploiting people to amass as much wealth as they can, then use that wealth to "help" humanity by building space ships to launch rich people into space or something.

Effective accelerationism

  • explicitly doesn't care about humanity, only "technocapitalism." Is fine with AI destroying humanity, because that would be the natural evolution of intelligence.

Peter Theil

  • believes all kinds of crazy shit. Women and democracy are a danger to humanity because they're anti-"libertarian". World should be a collection of city-states or floating cities ruled by corporations.
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Back in the '90s I worked at an Internet startup that was playing the usual game of desperately seeking venture capital money to keep going. At one point we were wooing RJR Nabisco, a conglomerate that included the former RJ Reynolds Tobacco company that had branched out into venture capital because it was the fucking '90s and what else were they going to do with their gigantic piles of cash? One day some RJR-N executives came to visit and although we were a non-smoking company in a non-smoking building (our lease even disallowed smoking) we put ashtrays in the conference room and these motherfuckers spent the entire day chain-smoking. We had no ventilation to speak of and by the end of the day the smoke everywhere was so thick that you couldn't see the end of the 50' hallway. The office stank for weeks afterwards. My bosses almost fired me because I made a point of coughing really loudly every time I walked past the conference room door. And it was all for nought because they never gave us a penny.

The thing is, these executives had so thoroughly bought in to the corporate need to suppress factual information about the negative health consequences of smoking that they were perfectly willing to suffer those negative consequences themselves (and it's highly likely that they're all dead now thirty years on, which warms my heart a bit). It's no surprise at all that the people making gobs of money from fossil fuels have convinced themselves that global warming isn't really happening.

[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Didn't you see Don't Look Up? They're all hoping for a golden ticket to the naked people planet.

On a more serious note, it's because all the rich and powerful people killing the planet will be dead before it gets really bad.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

That's why they have no reason to care, but it's not a reason why they're actively working against humanity. They're hopefully not planning to bequeath their wealth, because of, you know, the whole destroying-the-planet thing.
So, once they're rich enough to live the rest of their lives in prosperity, just like, stop? Their life won't garner more meaning by having the bank account high score. In fact, they're destroying meaning, because of, you know, the whole destroying-the-planet thing.

I'm sorry, this rant isn't directed at you. I just get angry thinking about that asshat with his self-righteous smile.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

humanity? don't lay this at our feet, you know who's to blame

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 2 points 11 months ago

If they keep begging for humanity to stop climate change, they shouldn’t be surprised when when humanity takes action to stop climate change.

Because when the sea levels rise, when homes are lost, a lives are shattered and hearts broken. Humanity will stop caring about personal punishments in the face of a global crisis.

[–] eatthecake@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I'm not responsible!!! It's all your fault!!!

Does anyone ever say no to advertising? Is it even possible to not buy from amazon? Have you ever walked past McDonalds hungry? Noooo I must buuuuuuuy!

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Yup, God's will and the gays.

[–] sping@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm really curious - if it's not humanity, who forced us to do this? Who's forcing people to travel and over-consume? The capitalist hellscape sure facilitates and accelerates it, but it doesn't force people to over-consume, travel tens of thousands of miles a year, etc.. Most of the people who don't do these things only refrain because the system isn't allowing them the wealth to afford it.

The number of people who actually live sustainable lifestyles through choice is utterly miniscule. Most of us have the option of accepting the radical extreme poverty that would be required to sustain 8 billion people on earth, but just about none of us take it.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

the reptiles at the top who support the system, don't pass any meaningful reform, and encourage consumption

[–] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 11 months ago

It would not take radical extreme poverty to combat climate change or sustain 8 billion people, it would merely require dismantling our capitalist society and reallocating the trillions of dollars that have been stolen and hoarded by the death cult billionaires and ugh that this word ever even reached relevance but trillionaires. The average person would be better off if wealth were redistributed. Very few except the most fortunate would feel anything except relief.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Meh, that's more an "the past 5 decades" thing, and not so much an inability as much as a "don't give a shit".

We knew since well over a century ago. For the past 5 decades it was clear to all governments that this was to be THE issue that would face humanity.

What did we get?

It's a hoax! But muh economy!

So humanity is fucked, nobody stopped those in charge, we get what we deserve.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 3 points 11 months ago

Until the majority of normal people suffer, politicians won't have a real reason to do much more than providing themselves a quasi-alibi. "Look we tried, but it just didn't work out" *sips on wine in climate controlled cellar*

[–] TheDeepState@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 22 points 11 months ago

It's too late for zero impact. It's not too late to stabilize temperatures at a civilization-supporting level.

[–] Mysteriarch@slrpnk.net 6 points 11 months ago

Never too late to limit the impact as much as we can.

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 4 points 11 months ago

Well since you've been meddling in all affairs yes...

[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Nonsense. Just picture a "Mad Max: Beyond Thunder Dome" type of world.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago

or also the year in which the contradictions of late capitalism became so evident that they are no longer possible to be masked