this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
80 points (98.8% liked)

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

5244 readers
359 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
 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has written an op-ed piece in The Sun promising "I will not sacrifice Great British industry to the drum-banging, finger-wagging Net Zero extremists"

Which means he's willing to sacrifice all the industry to appease the fossil fuels industry.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The issue with fighting climate change is that it’s a game of chicken between all the countries. If the UK goes all out and eliminates all emissions (at the cost of some portion of its economy) but every other country stays the course, then climate change just carries on and the UK’s sacrifice is in vain.

Similarly, if every other country in the world buckles down and stops climate change but the UK carries on, the UK ends up ahead. This means there is a double disincentive to cooperate on climate change.

Canada is going through this issue right now. The Liberal government has gone forward with carbon taxes and now these policies have become deeply unpopular. The Liberal party is now staring down the barrel of a potentially historic defeat in the upcoming election next year.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Isn't it less of a game of a chicken and closer to a global Prisoners Dilemma? The best option for everyone is for everyone to do the thing, the best option for individuals is to not do the thing but the worst thing for everyone is to not do the thing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes. Chicken is an example of a prisoner’s dilemma, though with the key difference that it plays out in real time instead of a single instant.

Tragedy of the commons is usually the result of a large group game of chicken/PD.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I don't think I've ever thought of chicken that way... Questioning if I even understand it at all 😂

But yes, you're right, the whole thing requires everyone to contribute equally for it all to work properly but, since everyone can momentarily benefit more by not, and politics is painfully shortsighted, they won't do the right thing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Countries that fail to invest in new technologies like solar and batteries will be left behind economically. Their investment in fossil fuels is going to be worth less and less, and they will have nothing to replace it with.

But, we are going to prop up large vested fossil fuel interests as long as possible, of course.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, this is clear enough in the long run. But the question is: will the transition happen fast enough to prevent a climate change catastrophe?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

If we don't avoid the climate change catastrophe, then current investments are going to be even less valuable than if we do. That's no argument for continuing to prop up those industries.

I have a feeling that the fossil-fuel investors, to the extent that they trouble their pretty heads about it at all, think that, so long as they make enough money now, they can just run really good air conditioning and it won't affect them. Idiots.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, but countries are starting to implement carbon taxes on trade with each other. So countries that don't reduce would be tarriffed higher, to counteract this problem.

It is also why most agreements are multinational with targets to be met.