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

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

5240 readers
414 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 221 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Biden literally just cancelled oil and gas leases less than a week ago. I agree he hasn't done enough, but there is some validity to the old statement that perfection is often the enemy of good.

[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 12 points 1 year ago

Our left wing party is still opening new coal and gas mines so be thankful for whatever progress you get I say.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

perfection is often the enemy of good.

I whole heartedly agree. Things don't change overnight. We can't rebuild hundreds of cities to eliminate car dependency by next Wednesday.

What we can change rapidly is behavior. It isn't hard to convince someone to eat less beef when alternatives are cheaper. It isn't hard to convince people that buying one nice 30 dollar shirt that looks better, feels better, and lasts for many years is cheaper than 2 20 dollar shirts that fade and unravel at the seems in a year.

We can't expect everyone to junk their canyoneros tomorrow. We can convince them to harass city officials into put bollards up on the bike lanes because more bikes is less traffic that they have to sit in.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WtfEvenIsExistence@sopuli.xyz 53 points 1 year ago (7 children)

We can stop global warming if we use nuclear winter!

Checkmate, Scientists! 🤓

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I don't think that's ever been in serious doubt; the same simulation mechanisms used to produce climate modeling were used to figure out that nuclear winter is an issue in the first place. It's just that most people would prefer to address global warming without mass murder.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Defiant@lemmy.cafe 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We just have to learn the hard way don’t we?

[–] Four_lights77@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

As an elementary school teacher, “the hard way” is the overwhelming choice of kids. I don’t think it changes that much when they grow into adults.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago

Or we can work to stop things that are existential crises.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 25 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The sun is a nuclear furnace. Climate change IS nuclear war!

(we should nuke the sun)

[–] hoodlem@hoodlem.me 8 points 1 year ago

Gotta nuke something

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] query@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course. Climate change is happening, and will keep getting worse until all the biggest countries agree to do and actually go through with doing something substantial about it (or to fully isolate the economies of those that refuse). Nuclear war is just an idea.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

It's doubtful curbing CO2 output will put a stop to it now. We're already seeing the beginnings of feedback loops kicking in, and with them runaway climate collapse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not exactly. Most references to 1.5C are about the long term average hitting that level, not an individual year.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Given the trend, it's a pretty strong indicator we're there. What is long-term in the context of a change over 10-20 years, that's reaching a breakaway point?

You understand that when things are steadily moving in one direction, we'd need to overshoot the difference between the start of the reference period and the 1.5 degree figure by 100%(incorrectly assuming linear change - the reality is more exponential - far worse by the time it shows up)

For example - for a 1.5C change over 6 years, starting at 0C:

  • Year 0 - real temp 0, average 0

  • Year 3 - real temp 1.5, average 0.75

  • Year 6 - real temp 3, average 1.5

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago

The year to year variation is much larger than the underlying increase. We could easily see several years with the anomaly under 1.5C before

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Then finally start making the companies that make a win out of it pay more taxes!! Like, CO² taxes, import/export taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bitmage@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago
[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The next 10 or 20 years? I just read an article that hit it already and will likely do it consistently over the next several years. The next 10-20 will likely few closer to a 3.6°F (2°C) rise.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 4am@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn’t we just hit 1.5C today?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're still some years from hitting an ongoing sustained average of 1.5°C above what it was in the late 1800s. That's what people mostly talking about when they say 1.5°C

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

This year will be above 1.5°C. Which means we did reach that.

What you're talking about is the average of yearly average temperatures. But it's not what we're looking at. We've never seen earth average temperature above +1.5. And averages don't move much. I don't care if next year will "only" be +1.49...

[–] 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 (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 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) (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

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

[–] 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Putin might save us all when he orders some confused kid to turn those keys.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

May I remind you global thermonuclear war is bad for the environment?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blazera@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Ive seen fuck all investment in solar where I'm at. Id really like to contribute labor to it, but there's nothing.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, Russia (and SA) complicate the matter. Russia earns based on the price of oil and if the US stops producing it that price goes up along with it. The world still will buy Oil and Europe especially relies on US Oil at the moment as they ween themselves off Russia’s. Oil is the main economic driver of Russia, and you can’t combat that without producing MORE. SA’s also in the mix as they have no real other (major) economic sectors to support their country and they know Oil is going away. All of this plus Climate change leave no good options on the board to choose from at this moment except to promote and support green infrastructure…which Biden has done. It all sucks.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago

Nobody is suggesting that the US suddenly and instantly stop extracting, but that it be phased out in conjunction with getting rid of the need for oil in the first place.

The Saudi royal family has an alternative at this point, which is to live off their sovereign wealth fund, which owns stocks and bonds outside the country. They are also sitting on several million barrels/day in reserve extraction capacity, and could pretty easily crash oil prices if they felt like it.

load more comments
view more: next ›