this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
87 points (79.2% liked)

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

5244 readers
283 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
 

Figures. ๐Ÿ™„

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Mangosniper@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Uh... from an economic point you just can't split the additional cost in half if it costs 4 dollar more. If something costs 20 dollars to make and they sell it for 25 to price in the other costs and a slight profit margin and then it costs 30 to make when doing it sustainable they can't sell it for 20 + (10 / 2) +5 = 30. They would make a minus then. They could sell it for 35, with gaining the same profit as before.

This is all under the assumption that the original price was a fair price.

[โ€“] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 16 points 1 year ago

They don't need to make the same profit as before. They could make $2 less profit, and charge $2 more. Frankly I don't care, and neither should anyone else who isn't a shareholder, if their profit margin is reduced slightly.

If doing that makes them unprofitable, they probably shouldn't exist, because their business isn't viable when done sustainably, and they're relying on being allowed to fuck up the planet to maintain themselves.

[โ€“] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[โ€“] Onihikage@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Profit is fine, it allows a good idea or business model to start small and grow organically to fit the need that it fulfills. The trouble begins with accumulation of capital, which is of course a core tenet of Capitalism. Beyond enough that you can reasonably expect to be fed and sheltered for the rest of your natural life, any further accumulation is antithetical to a good society. We can have currency, competitive markets, and free exchange of wealth for goods and services (for some industries, not all), but a line must be drawn at how much wealth any one person can be allowed to control.

[โ€“] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Profit is theft and good ideas can exist without the profit motive.