this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
380 points (93.2% liked)

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

5394 readers
187 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
[email protected]
380
I’m an Environmentalist. That’s Why I Can’t Vote Green. | Award-winning filmmaker and director of Gasland Josh Fox on why he will never vote for Jill Stein. (www.thenation.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, you assume there’s (or will be) unlimited funds set aside to fight climate change?
If that is so, why not plaster deserts with solar panels and the oceans with wind turbines. Would go a bit quicker than the 10-20 years it takes to finalise one nuclear power plant. The nuclear hype has no scientific basis.

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

I don’t assume unlimited funds. I know that the only way we can actually address climate change is to overthrow the capitalists driving the pollution. Ending their wars would provide far more than adequate funding, even before wealth redistribution.

I can’t imagine being so uninformed that you believe the advantages of nuclear energy has no scientific basis. On par with the flat earthers.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Jesus man, you want to end capitalism but fall for one of its biggest outfits? Also, right now there is just the capitalist reality and within that science tells us, that nuclear is economically not good enough to support the green transformation. I am fine with overthrowing capitalism, but till then we have to somehow manage with a reality that is inseparable from it.

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

Nuclear is not capitalists’ “biggest outfit.” You’re thinking of oil, and they pay astroturfers to convince people like you to be anti-nuclear.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m talking about the Energy Companies

Edit: the claim that the oil industry paid anyone to stop nuclear is a right wing lie. Please look it up, I don’t have the nerve for it anymore.

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

the claim that the oil industry paid anyone to stop nuclear is a right wing lie.

Oil lobby bot confirmed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

show me your proof that the oil industry paid for anti nuclear sentiment. And try to avoid right wing propaganda. then you may claim whatever you want.