this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
78 points (98.8% liked)

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

5461 readers
529 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
 

Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org

By switching to a climate-conscious bank, you could reduce those emissions by about 75 percent, the study found. In fact, if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers—the reduction in your indirect emissions would be twice that of the direct emissions you’d avoid if you switched to a vegetarian diet.

The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here is the analysis:

https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Saving%20for%20the%20Planet_Drawdown%20Labs%20Report.pdf

According to a new analysis, for every $1,000 dollars the average American keeps in savings, each year they indirectly create emissions equivalent to flying from New York to Seattle.

That is 235.10 kg CO2.

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx

https://applications.icao.int/icec/Methodology%20ICAO%20Carbon%20Calculator_v11.1-2018.pdf

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

On page 8 there is a claim that switching to an EV reduces CO₂ emissions, but they probably don’t realize that the old car just gets shipped to Africa where it continues emitting indefinitely.

[–] FarFarAway@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cool. I didn't even know that some of these banks were "green."

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Of course it’s important to keep in mind the most green is to not bank at all -- something I’m experimenting with myself.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here

It’s useful to cross-reference that list with the bad list. Amalgamated welcomes Tor users onto its sales website but if you register for an account and try to login you will be blocked.

That bank.green site may give a good starting point for short-listing, but it’s important to do further investigation. Note for example:

  • Beneficial State Bank (BSB) writes car loans even for city dwellers. WTF? Yeah, not green.
  • BSB also uses Cloudflare, which pushes graphical CAPTCHAs thus has an excessive CO₂ footprint.
  • BSB also uses FedEx (the worst courier for the environment).
  • BSB forces customers to get their app from Google playstore (Google, who helps Total oil company find places to dig).
  • BSB uses a variety of Microsoft products & services (linkedin, email) and MS is obviously quite bad for the environment (e.g. partnership with Chevron).
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don't know your customer. Tor makes that hard.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don’t know your customer. Tor makes that hard.

This is covered by 31 C.F.R. § 103.121, which requires:

  1. name
  2. date of birth
  3. residential address
  4. identification number (SSN for natural US persons)

That’s it. They don’t need your IP address and they do not need to track your realtime whereabouts. That may sound baffling because banks often demand much more info than that. The Patriot Act tells banks they can collect more information for KYC purposes. This ensures that customers cannot sue their banks for data over-collection. So when the bank says “we need to know where you work, how much you earn, what your profession is, etc, because ‘Patriot Act’…”. They’re being sneaky and misleading. They do not have to collect all that info, but they can, if they want. And they often want excessive amounts of info because it’s profitable.

Some banks allow Tor logins thus demonstrating that it’s legally compliant.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In practice, the banks are a lot more picky than that, and reject customers without that additional data or with a lot of cash transactions.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is indeed useful when that rejection gives a built-in way of moving your business to another bank that’s less reckless with excessive data collection.

But it does not always work out that way. I refused to answer a needless intrusive interrogation and it had no effect (which also proves the interrogation was not necessary). The bank likely made a note of my refusal… perhaps to try to use against me. They really want you to believe you’re required to answer those questions. In any case, it obviously makes sense to avoid the banks that show signs of over-collection because it hints that there could be more excessive collections going on with that bank. E.g. when you call the bank, some banks will initiate a spontaneous interrogation unrelated to the reason for your call.

There are countless ethical reasons to do as many transactions in cash as possible. If a bank were to show me the door for doing too many withdrawals, then it would actually be a feature. You don’t want your money in a bank who is protectionist against runs on the bank. It’s better to bank where your money is not trapped.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The article mentions “green” banks that don’t do this, but then fails to list any trustworthy examples.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why I provided an example and a link

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

That would be a great link to post in !climate_action_individual@slrpnk.net

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Note these banks to avoid examples.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Wow, that's an easy win we can each put up. Thanks for the share, going to look into this.

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you mean like when i fill up my car, yeah, we know

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Like when you have money in the bank or a mutual fund.