this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
109 points (87.6% liked)

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

5243 readers
496 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
 

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/Ngr8G

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can't simply analyze your way out of the extremely unhealthy/unsustainable/environmentally damaging practice that is fracking by pointing to CO^2^ reduction policies. People aren't objecting to fracking because of its CO^2^ emissions (not just, anyway), it's a problem because it poisons aquifers and causes untold amounts of harm to subterranean and geological systems. Saying 'but look at all the other good stuff they're doing for CO^2^ reduction!' is only compelling if CO^2^ was the primary concern of the practice (it isn't).

And anyway, you could have that conversation without constantly complaining about certain factual statements not aligning to your prejudiced electoral motivations and without coming into every conversation accusing people you disagree with of misrepresenting reality

the current congressional climate simply will not allow a ban on fracking anyway

lmao oh well fuck me then, guess we can't expect any progress from our politicians

Why do I always find you in the comments trying to nuance your way out of criticizing democratic positions.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So then I said, Herr Thälmann, how important is nuance, in analyzing a political situation? How important is compromise with people even who don’t see eye to eye with you perfectly, politically?

And he said, ZERO. Just push for what you want. If it’s not perfect, it’s garbage; try to oppose it. Compromise is the obstacle to progress.

And I said wait. How can I hear you? I thought you died. In Buchenwald.

And from that point on, I heard nothing. Only silence.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago

"If you have nothing good to say about my party then you must be seeking to overthrow it."

'What could go wrong with compromising with fascists' he wonders