this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
89 points (95.9% liked)

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

5243 readers
475 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
89
Why aren’t climate-damaging subsidies on the chopping block? (livestock and cars) (slrpnk.net)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by activistPnk@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Asking the gov to proactively shrink or limit animal products is a non-starter because there are just too many (voting) consumers who would be outraged. It would be political suicide. Same for cars. Forcing car owners out of cars would be political suicide as well.

But what I find baffling is there seems to be no chatter about the fact that the US gov gives (millions?) in subsidies to livestock farmers. And Europe gives tax breaks for “commercial” cars (mischaracterized personal cars). If the gov were to end the subsidies, there could be no reasonable complaint that the gov is interfering. Because in fact the gov would be ending their intervention.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

People would still feel like the government was interfering in their lifestyle, because they are used to the prices resulting from the subsidies as the default state of affairs, and would feel any change in prices as a result of ending those subsidies the same as if the government had actively mandated price increases. Telling them "technically, this is the government not intervening when it was before" won't make most people feel any better.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

This is why it bothers me that vegans are not vocal. They keep their head down as their taxes is used against their beliefs. Vegans should be outraged that their tax contribution is financing animal exploitation. They should be demanding the right to be vegan, which means the right to not contribute to animal exploitation. Maybe they should get a tax rebate for being vegan to effectively pull back their livestock subsidy.