this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
106 points (99.1% liked)

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

5392 readers
189 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
106
The Polls Are Underestimating the Importance of Climate Change | The climate crisis is the ultimate "kitchen table" issue, argue activist Saad Amer and Rep. Ro Khanna (www.rollingstone.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's a procedural rule, yes it can be put back in place if Republicans want to, they don't, but it can be. This is because it has no law associated with it, no bill to pass, it's something the Senate made up to stall civil rights and especially keep brown senators in the 1800s from doing anything the extreme white minority didn't want.

It's not a 'nuclear option,' it's a return to how the country was designed to function and did function for more than a century.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 0 points 1 month ago

It was created in its current form by the formal adoption of senate rule 22 in 1917, which would explicitly take a two thirds majority to edit or remove and if not removed would leave the filibuster on the books. It’s also worth noting that filibusters were incredibly rare in the 1800s, especially pre civil war, with its use to stall civil rights legislation mainly being a 1940s and later thing.

The procedure to go around rule 22 by rasing a point of order in contradiction to established precedent is commonly called the ‘nuclear option’ by everyone from the media to reformists discussing it, and is recognized as the only likely way short of the two thirds majority needed to amend rule 22 to get around the senate filibuster. I think the name is more than a little grandiose, but it is the commonly accepted name for the procedure.