this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
656 points (96.7% liked)

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

5240 readers
446 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
 

What Biden has done is to cut the issuance of drilling leases to the minimum required by law, pass the Inflation Reduction Act, enact a regulation to force vehicle electrification, and similarly force fossil fuels out of most power plants.

What Biden has not done: stop issuing drilling permits or impose export restrictions on fossil fuels. The former has some serious limits because of how the courts treat the right to drill as a property right once you hold a drilling lease, and the latter is simply untested.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Climate change is scary, but scarier than nuclear war? I dunno, man.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IMHO this mostly tells us that Biden is talking about climate policy with the people around him. That's enough to be a big deal.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, when all the Republicans in the last debate said it wasn't real, or whatever words were used, this is a clear difference on what's likely the most important issue for most voters.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago

Sadly a large chunk of voters don't consider climate to be their top issue

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear war is quick.

Climate change is slow.

Gimme the quick flash over the boiling frog deal Everytime.

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If you're lucky enough to be one of the minimal handful who actually die in the quick flash. More likely you'll be one of the multitudes poisoned by radioactive fallout or starved by nuclear winter.

It's not better.

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No siree, I live next to a state capitol, I'll be just fine

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just want one of those Hawaii-style text message warnings, so I can start driving toward Boston asap

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

now you're getting it

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I live near silos.

I'm getting vaporized. Hells yeah.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

IDK, climate-fueled illnesses — tied to hotter temperatures, and swifter passage of pathogens and toxins. Continuing pandemics would be no treat.

[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The scariness multiplied by the probability of it happening maybe...

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nuclear war is obviously terrible. But it's still somewhat localised between the warring nations.

Climate change is everywhere and will eventually be just as devastating and then quickly much worse if not resolved

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It definitely is. It is far, far more cataclysmic than a nuclear war. You'll discover that soon unfortunately.

I like how no one here mentioned the obvious fact that climate change disasters will only make world powers more willing to start a nuclear war. Just look at North Korea, what will happen when they have a huge famine or flood or fire or whatever and even the Kims can't fill their bellies, what then?

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

In that it is definitely happening and will be equally destructive if steps aren't taken to prevent it, albeit over a longer timeframe.