this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
10 points (91.7% liked)

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

6440 readers
632 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]
10
China Is Reshaping Global Development. Is That Good for the Planet? (insideclimatenews.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

China is deploying low-carbon investments through its $1.3 trillion Belt and Road Initiative. But many of these projects come with risks of their own. Case in point: Two hydroelectric dams in Argentina could flood cultural heritage sites and harm one of the world’s largest glacial icefields.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Pure criticism of the impacts of these investments is absolutely useful and warranted, especially from a point of view of whether they impede or promote decarbonization and an indigenous point of view.

But the article is also rife with discussions of US-China imperial antagonisms and cites the opinions of US officials. Well, excuse me, but Trumpist America opinions about the environmental impact of decarbonization projects can get fucked. The country that drills baby drill, that pulls out of the Paris Agreement, that actively curtails renewables etc etc etc doesn't get to have a say on what other countries do or don't do for the climate.

So I don't know how to read this article. It's too hard to untangle what is legitimate criticism and what is American hypocrisy.