this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
125 points (98.4% liked)

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

5240 readers
363 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
[email protected]
125
Largest US oil trade group to sue to block Biden's EV push (finance.yahoo.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

This echoes generic fear mongering of regulation from the conservative side.

No it acknowledges that changes that can be made from one administration to the next.

What are some bad things the EPA has done in your mind?

This took nearly 30 years.

Saying the government shouldn’t have the power to regulate emissions that are destroying the biosphere is absurd.

I haven't said that nor would I but $GovernmentAgency isn't a synonym for "The Government". What's being discussed are the limits of an Agency attached to the Executive Branch relative to the power of the Legislative Branch.

What does “but will it always” do good things even mean?

This, this right here is what it means.

The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules.

That's what can happen when an Agency of the Executive "does things" on its own authority.

If the EPA ever start doing truly asinine things, then we elect leaders to change the laws dictating their mandate.

How's that been working out for the last 20 years?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

The reality is everything is at risk with a fascist anti-environmentalist leader, especially if they have a majority of Congress and the courts. I just don't see how exercising additional restraint with respect to fuel economy standards, as if that creates opportunities for abuse down the road, helps anything here. The EPA is following the law, and should keep doing that. Your example with asbestos is just the EPA not regulating harder, so let's applaud harder regulation.

As to the last 20 years, considering the makeup of Congress, I'd say the IRA was monumental.