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

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

5240 readers
357 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
[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think people dislike moderates because they can be more realistic. Cars are one of the biggest contributors to GHG in the US. Most people literally need to drive cars due to how our transportation infrastructure is built. It will upwards of a decade to undo because it will require a lot of large construction projects. Those take time.

Change requires support of the electorate or the current officials will get replaced. This is why people like Koch and Murdoch invest so heavily in propaganda.

Militarily, the only real threat to the US by a foreign invasion is nukes. Our naval and air power is on a whole other level. China has way too much control of manufacturing, so going after the other problem child results in a global economic catastrophe.

The BEST thing anyone can do is winning hearts and minds of US citizens to get them on board with what needs to be done. More moderate action is an easier sell. Once hedonic adaptation kicks in and people adjust to the new normal, we can move further. We are really close to being there. Look at my post history and read the nature article.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think people dislike moderates because they can be more realistic

No, we dislike them because they don't understand negotiation on a fundamental level, or anything about the republican party.

Republicans rush full steam towards their goals with no hesitation or thoughts for consequences.

So to stop them, compromising 50% before you get to the table doesn't accomplish a single thing. We gave them Mitt Romenys healthcare plan after making it more conservative and Republicans called it communism. It doesn't matter what we start out with, so we might as well start out with more than we want. It's like walking into a car dealership and saying the most you'll pay is 10% over asking price and negotiating from there.

Children understand this point when asking for candy.

I didn't read the rest of your comment, because you started out with something so ridiculous I figured the rest wouldn't be any better. And if you dont understand that first point, there's zero reason to talk about anything else till you do.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't say anything about negotiating with Republicans. I'm not talking about negotiating at all. I'm talking more about selling ideas and change to the population.

I didn't read the rest of your comment, because you started out with something so ridiculous

I don't want to interact with you if you have that kind of attitude. Bye!

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I don’t want to interact with you if you have that kind of attitude. Bye

Good thing you replied to tell me you don't want to reply...

Otherwise how would I ever have figured that out?