this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
110 points (98.2% liked)

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

5108 readers
586 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
110
Shell urged to clarify climate targets as it braces for shareholder rebellion | NBIM, one of oil group’s largest investors, calls for ‘additional disclosures’ about green commitments ahead of AGM (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not very familiar with how public companies work, but I'm surprised that a shareholder with only 3% of ownership can make such demands and can excel such control. I understand they're the largest shareholder, but I could imagine a large portion of the remaining 97% would pay for now following the Paris accords since it may main less money for all investors on the future.

[–] mynachmadarch@kbin.social 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A recent study (still in peer review phase last I saw but the people who wrote it and good work) showed that the 1C rise in temperatures vs pre-industrial times (which we're already past) lowered GDP by 12% or more globally. The current 3C that many climate scientists are warning we're on track for could lower GDP by 50% or more.

Not following the Paris accords or stricter is actually going to hit stockholders hard if the study is accurate.

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

I guess it feels surprising they care about long term problem vs ignoring that for short term profit

[–] mynachmadarch@kbin.social 2 points 4 months ago

That's the part that I'm banking on, that 12% has already happened. That's 12% they've lost out on in the short present term. I'm hoping they see that and decide they want that money back. I know they're probably doing a cost benefit analysis of cost to combat climate change versus potential lost GDP. But still, I'll take any arrow in the quiver against them.