this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
62 points (100.0% liked)

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

5086 readers
873 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
62
Low-carbon technologies need far less mining than fossil fuels. (ourworldindata.org)
submitted 6 days ago by 101@feddit.org to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Oneser@lemm.ee 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, are you saying women's rights were better in the 1700s or wars didn't happen? Or that people had less problems? Or that the ruling class shared power?

I don't mean to offend, but this is an insanely naive view of the world.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world -4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

No, I'm just saying there's way too many damn people for this little tiny planet these days, and if you let the politicians talk their rhetoric and shit, they'd just as soon try to convince you that we need more people.

They want more women birthing children, just to have more people to milk of every bit of tax money they can, and either work them into their graves or send them to war.

We're all pawns in a huge game. The more people there are, the more energy we consume, regardless of the source of that energy. That's just science.

If there was only 1/8 as many people on the planet, there still wouldn't be any shortage of people, and we'd probably only be consuming about 1/20th of the energy, because we wouldn't be gridlocked in traffic and competing so much for the finite resources on the planet.

Yes that last part is a bit of speculation, but still, isn't 8 billion people a bit too many for Earth? There ain't any more land to conquer/explore, unless you dare try living on Antarctica...

[–] Oneser@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

I would argue that your perspective is a narrow one and you need to change what info you are consuming. My personal take (if you have any interest):

  1. Most of the people on this world are not rich enough to be part of daily traffic jams. They are just trying to survive and enjoy life with what they have.

  2. Current resource competition is driven by profit seeking and not bourne out of necessity (i.e. we're not "competing" in the traditional sense, where countries at war are doing so to feed their people etc... At least, not yet.)

  3. There is definitely more space and resources available for more people, if we learn to better distribute what we have - the how of this, while keeping everyone happy, is the billion dollar question.

  4. You can choose to live in the jungle by yourself if you want, no one is (hopefully) forcing you to take part in working etc.

  5. If you can, you should go travel more. If you can't, go volunteer some of your time to your community. It tends to clear my "the world is going to shit" thoughts. Sure, there's problems everywhere, and we should fight for the ones we feel are important, but there is also a lot of great things happening.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You know who thought like you? Thomas Malthus. 2 centuries ago.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

2 centuries ago we didn't have millions of cars on the roads burning gasoline stuck at red lights in gridlocked traffic. Try again.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And yet 2 centuries ago some people were already thinking, exactly like you, that there was too many humans for the earth to sustain them. You can see how wrong he was. The fact that you refuse to learn from past mistakes is quite telling though.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

2 centuries ago there weren't anywhere near 8 billion people. Earth ain't got any bigger since then. At what point would you consider the world overpopulated? 10 billion? 15? 20?

I don't see that he was wrong at all, he was just calling it out earlier than anyone was ready to listen.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

You might as well warn about the sun eating the earth and turning it into hell. It's not too soon, only 5 billion years left.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You said people were living just fine, no they weren't and they were dying, a whole fucking lot and part of the reason why we're not dying so early now is because we have access to things that require energy to produce. Wanna go back to living like the plebe from the 1700s? Go on and move to one of the poorest third world countries and see how fine you are.