this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
82 points (100.0% liked)

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

5233 readers
701 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
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Assuredly it will be done with little oversight, managed by a shell corporation ran be a close constituent that is over charging per a tree and will never be completed.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that even if it was "done right" it would:

  • Require three times the land area of India
  • Be a partial solution, and not the kind of complete solution that the Republicans are trying to claim it as
[–] OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly this. Impractical answers are what they live off, because it lets them stall. It’s depressing there’s no solutions apart from “keep doing dumb shit for money” on their wheel of choices.

[–] new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It let's them stall and line their pockets while being able to say government doesn't work and everything should be privatized

[–] new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is the only way this makes sense. It's def gonna be a situation where $millions+ disappear, they never plant the trees, and everyone forgets this was ever promised.

We'll point to this as an example of why we can't trust Republicans, and they'll just come back with something about Clinton's BJ

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 24 points 1 year ago

If done right, this could have tremendous benefits beyond the modest carbon sequestration.

But I doubt any plan from the Republican Party would be done right, given their outright hostility to scientists and other experts.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

....so does this mean the GOP now thinks Climate change is real, then?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 24 points 1 year ago

They're slowly walking from "it's a hoax" to "it's real, but fossil fuels didn't do it" to "we'll only push stuff which isn't sufficient" to "oops"

[–] OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

No, they’ll eventually blame the other party if left alone to long. Attempting to gaslight younger generations into believing the GOP was trying to fix it and the left wanted to watch the world burn.

[–] Spacebar@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Go ahead, plant trees. It's a good idea, just agree to the program being run by the US Forestry service. Also agree that in no way does this mean the US doesn't have to meet our net zero emissions commitments.

[–] spukas@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Critique? You mean a complex problem cannot be fixed by a simple solution?

I know what to do!!

Just plant more trees!

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My assumption is the GOP plan is to plant them in deserts for shade.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

There's actually some evidence that a variant of that would help green a desert. This is also a traditional method of farming, to farm under the shade of a tree since the partial shade helps yields of many crops by noticably reducing the amount evaporation affecting the plant

[–] Iwasondigg@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's kind of surprising, and refreshing, that they even have a climate strategy, right? Looking beyond if it's a good strategy or not, does this signify a shift from climate denialism?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Republicans have a really bad climate strategy - the idea is to gut actual action and replace it with symbolic ineffective actions, including the tree planting thing that's mentioned here.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Not really, imo. This is the standard republican MO - when it gets too hard to lie to people and have a full half of them believe you, switch it up and act like it was your idea all along. But also make sure it's the slowest, least effective solution available, which gives you the ammo to claim 1) you're doing something and 2) no one else needs to do anything.

This is 100% an attempt to capture the narrative so that they can kill it off quietly in the background, but still campaign on it.

If by chance this does get enacted, expect it to be an incredibly overpriced boondoggle where they contract with their donors' companies and throw cash at them to beef up paper mill forests.

[–] StarServal@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I agree with the plan to plant a trillion trees. But let’s not stop there.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where will they be planted? Will the trees be native to the area? How long will they be cared for and maintained, to ensure growth?

All those things matter, otherwise the trees just die and don’t do their job as carbon sinks (in this case).

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

These are the real questions and you know the answers... these are Republicans.

[–] quortez@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Mmkay.

Where are they going to plant them?

Also how will you manage them responsibly so that they don't immediately become wildfire tinder?

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

How are we going to water those new trees in a mega drought?

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

With the tears of starving children after rescinding their family's food stamps.

[–] Jambalaya@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

Or how about how they all get burned up in the numerous forest fires.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

This will just be another vehicle for #kickbacks for the #corrupt #GOP.