this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
258 points (98.9% liked)

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

5239 readers
1059 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
258
'The water, the sand, the mixing of the sand and the water’: Trump talks nonsense on climate (www.msnbc.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

You want to keep him from taking office and repeating his pollution-maximization agenda? Then don't just vote — get involved as a volunteer for the Harris campaign

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Kamala isn't my ideal candidate, but I would likely vote for her under normal circumstances.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online -1 points 3 weeks ago

I would not have. She is doing amazing right now at campaigning, but after her snarky sound-bite 4 years ago she has had little follow-through. e.g. she ran for President, but then when she became VP was told to deal with the border crisis, yet complained that it was "too hard" - like yeah, ofc it is, but you asked for the whole job, yet can't not complain about even one portion of it!?

Then again, there has never been a VP iirc under such pressure to e.g. remain in Washington, D.C. to break every tie vote as Congress was more broken than any previous one. Remember Kevin McCarthy? Yeesh!

And then for whatever reason, we don't hear much about her performance after that. Possibly that's our very broken news system - certainly that's at least one component of it.

Others like Pete Buttigieg come across as much more impressive. Though he's gay so unlikely to have any traction with centrist voters who might otherwise swing to Kamala, or perhaps it's that she as VP has access to all of Biden's billion-dollar campaign chest.

Anyway, ofc I may have voted "for her" in the sense of against the other side, but until the last few weeks I really haven't been impressed by anything that she's done. Still, she's not >80 years old like both of the others were, so that's a STRONG plus. Also, even if she is merely following good advice, that's not nothing: the ability to take direction from experts who truly know their stuff is a great skill!