this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
129 points (97.1% liked)

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

5240 readers
574 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]
129
EU foreign policy chief: world cannot wait on US for climate action (www.euronews.com)
submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

and while America has benefited strategically, it’s also taken on substantial costs

It was an empire in all but name and was a bit more than just a strategic benefit, but every empire gets too expensive to maintain and must shrink again.

Last start American politicians started to talk about the cost and responsibilities being too much, EU countries started cozying up to China and it freaked the same politicians that were talking "I invite you to get going without us". Let's see what happens this time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You’re absolutely right that many powerful nations have faced this pattern. America’s post-WWII global influence resembles an ‘empire’ in the sense that it shaped world economics and politics, even if it wasn’t a traditional empire. And sure, the U.S. did get more than just ‘strategic benefits’ — having the dollar as the dominant currency, for instance, came with clear economic advantages.

But the other side of this is that America’s involvement hasn’t been purely self-serving; it’s also helped maintain relative global stability. With the U.S. starting to weigh the costs and shift focus inward, it’s natural for EU countries to explore other partnerships, like with China. That’s a smart move to balance their interests.

But whether the U.S. scales back its role or redefines it, it will be interesting to see what that means for global stability. Historically, the power shifts you mentioned don’t always lead to smooth transitions. The big question is how Europe and others will manage in a world where the U.S. might not be playing the same role as it has for the past 70+ years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Global stability of always good for trade and business. The supply chains disruption with covid shows what a bit of chaos can do to businesses, so it's not entirely altruistic.

But I'm aware that this transition away from American dominance can be wild. It's inevitable that fighting for the top dog position will happen. How that plays out with shrinking population is anyone's guess.