this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
57 points (89.0% liked)

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

5189 readers
343 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
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

we cant consume our way out of climate change

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But this is a perfect way to make money by green labeling."use ours because we save you 20% electricity" so therefore our brands are creating less ghgs.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This sounds like consumerism with extra steps to me, since emissions are mostly coming from industry, not individuals.

A lot of carbon has to be emitted for the manufacturing and distribution of goods and a lot of the time it exceeds their lifetime energy consumption (and its equivalent carbon emission).

Best case scenario would be making goods more modular and reliable, so it doesn't need replacement as soon, and making it so older ones can be updated or at least mantained for longer.

e: I'm not even considering material cost and extraction.

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Which is why its so brilliant. People are being forced to be consumers with a consciousness(EV). So if they can take advantage of it well more money.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

True. But we also do need to manufacture a lot. Renewables, batteries, insulation, hobs and heaters, probably houses too. Unless you want everyone to live without heat and electricity.

The best bet it government spending on public transport and communities and the reduction in work hours. That will make people do more instead of spend more.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

No it won't. We can't consume our way out of this. It'll be won in drastic legislation.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 24 points 1 year ago

So we're going to ambush oil billionaires while they're shopping for appliances?

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I love that the illustration is of solar panels being installed on a roof. I didn’t realize you bought those in the appliance aisle.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

omg nyt! sometimes you're so embarrassing

[–] krellor@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's an opinion piece, FYI.

Edit: gift link: The Climate Fight Will Be Won in the Appliance Aisle

So I went into the article with a skeptical view, but the authors point is that people's assessment of whether the I.R.A. legislation was effective will be based on their ability to navigate rebate programs easily, i.e., get rebate for things bought in the appliance aisle.

I can't say I disagree, but the article headline doesn't convey the content well. Basically the author is arguing about how you best win hearts and minds.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No it fucking won't lol

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

The fight for ad dollars will be won in the NYT opinion section

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

One of the neatest things I've learned about on Technology Connections was an induction cooktop that used 120V electricity. It had a bank of batteries in it that would provide power for cooking without overloading the mains, and you could plug appliances into it in the event of a power failure and still be able to cook.

If you had appliances storing energy like that you could level out demand curves. And you can also store energy with heat. If we had temperature regulator valves on our water heaters, we could get them to 160-170 degrees when energy is cheap and let them coast down to 120. Heating water is one of the major energy expenditures for a home, so if we could get that to be 100% renewable would be a huge advance.

[–] BuzzCola@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I've heard it said many times. There are no silver bullets to climate change. Many solutions have to be researched, discovered, developed, and implemented.