this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
21 points (92.0% liked)

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

5153 readers
562 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
 

IMHO the big thing that will help is actually volunteering for her campaign

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm curious, how old were you in 2000?

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not a big fan of posing PII here, but let's just say I voted that year (for Nader).

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Nader, the spoiler candidate that gave us GW Bush instead of Al Gore, the climate guy? If you're in FL you should be profoundly embarrassed, and if you're in a different state just regular embarrassed.

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

George W Bush, the Kamala supporter? Dems can't complain about W or Cheney anymore, they're the thought leaders of your warmonger, do nothing party.

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

When I think of a "do nothing party", the Greens are at the top of the list. They quite literally do nothing and have no power, except to spoil tight races in the direction of conservatism/fascism. I guess if that's you're goal, you're happy.

The Cheney cohort supports Harris not because she is a conservative warmonger, they support her because she'll broadly maintain US legal and political structures, which as they've stated, they feel are more important than specific policy. I.e., she will preserve the state of the Republic and not do the fascism thing. They're endorsement says a lot more about Trump than it does about Harris, which you probably know but are being purposely disingenuous about.

Good luck with your third parties in a system that mathematically will never support a third party though, real big brain stuff. You're literally playing a different game than everyone else.

To be clear, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, this is for anyone else that may happen upon this thread that might be smart enough to connect the dots about an alternate reality where Gore won the election with respect to climate change.

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Just saying, you can't blame someone for W and Cheney coming to power 24 years ago while your candidate literally campaigns with them and salutes their service. I mean, you CAN, but... Kinda a weird position to take.

Also, even if you think a Gore/Lieberman administration would have even bothered trying to do climate change legislation (neolibs aren't known for trying to pass non-GOP legislation so they would not) this is passing Denny Hastert's house how? He literally invented the Hastert Rule.

It's like you're willfully ignoring all context, wild.

"I helped put W and Cheney into power, now even those ghouls think Harris is better than Trump, so I guess I'll help out Trump in power" --> you.