this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
223 points (84.5% liked)

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

5394 readers
266 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
223
Eating less meat ‘like taking 8m cars off road’ (www.bbc.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/climate@slrpnk.net
166 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Each child born produces as much CO2 as 71 people going vegan for life. That ignores all the other ways humans pollute. Given that 130M babies are born each year, even if the entire planet went vegan right now (forever), it would only offset the next 324 days. If you care about the environment at all, you would focus all of your ire on the the real danger: countries with high birth rates.

However I suspect this has nothing to do with the environment for you. There is a duplicitous tactic employed by vegans which seeks to hijack the environmental movement for moral aims. People such as yourself have a moral problem with eating meat, and you know that many others care about the environment, so you attempt to wed the two. I am of course happy to be proven wrong.

[–] hitwright@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Isn't the calculation misleading? It looks like it calculates the modern lifestyle CO2 and applies it to a baby. So the argument just goes, if no people, then no co2. Which is correct, although completely skipping anything about the actual underlying systemic issues for producing this much co2 in the first place.

This isn't an argument about morality or veganism, the link just seemed like a hit peace against environmentalism

[–] fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Which in effect tells me that we need to be even more radical in policies to bring this to net-negative. It just doesn't help when there are a lot less people in the future as we need to get net-negative. Fewer people means also potentially less leverage here.

But I agree that we need to split between moral and environmental factors (though it doesn't help when these are often correlated).