this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
48 points (98.0% liked)

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

5246 readers
482 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
48
We’re All Climate Economists Now | With climate change affecting everything from household finances to electric grids, economists are increasingly focused on how society can mitigate carbon emissions (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 10 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah, that's a disaster. Why would we constrain carbon emissions mitigation by neoclassical economic principles? Is the fundamental question for them how to maximize shareholder value while mitigating emissions?

Decide to what do first according to climatologists then turn to economists to make it happen. Put economics profession in its place as secondary to literally everything. It's a means to an end.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You that there are more schools of economic thought than just neoclassical, right?

Economics is the study of how resources work and how to distribute them, it kind of matters for a globe spanning problem that is highly dependent on the distribution of resources.

Ignoring the fundamental limits of what can actually be done is how you spend fifty years pouring vast sums of effort and funding into carbon capture because the climatologists say we need fuel to not have an impact on overal carbon levels, and we can turn air carbon into fuel in a lab, so just make it work already economists.

[–] hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago

I have been studying Doughnut Theory. IMO its all about metrics/measurement and Doughnut Theory gives a robust way to measure the actual health of an economy/society. You got your social foundations which you have to ensure everyone gets, and you have your ecological ceilings which are your limits on natural resource use/extraction. So the challenge is how do you build business, finance and law to do that.