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

5212 readers

662 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin | Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are too many people on this goddamn planet. Each person that we add takes more resources. The population is nearly double what it was when my parents were born. That has a dramatic impact on the planet's resources.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thankfully it doesn't seem it will double again, population growth is already dropping tonnes. So then, what are you trying to say by saying there's too many people?

The most generous interpretation I can come up with is apologia for the biggest polluters, a smug way to continue to justify not polluting less ('it's just the result of so many people')

The worst interpretation is you are implying there should be less people..?

Or what other interpretation is there? You tell me.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying; when you expand on what you mean past just 'there are too many people' and actually suggest realistic meaningful solutions like you have here, I highly doubt that most people would 'accuse you of all sorts of things'. It's just that when you simply post 'there are too many people' this implies there should be less people, to most people they would interpret that to mean in an immediate sense, aka unaliving them.

Now that you've expanded on what you had to say I can see that clearly isn't what your intention was to convey. I would just like to say though that considering human population level is not a factor we can control without death or reducing birthrate, and birthrates are already reducing globally, you should be able to see why many would assume you are advocating for the other option.