this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
427 points (98.9% liked)

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

6524 readers
317 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
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21822936

"If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50% of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990,"

The study assesses the contribution of the highest emitting groups within societies and finds that the top 1% of the wealthiest individuals globally contributed 26 times the global average to increases in monthly 1-in-100-year heat extremes globally and 17 times more to Amazon droughts.

The research sheds new light on the links between income-based emissions inequality and climate injustice, illustrating how the consumption and investments of wealthy individuals have had disproportionate impacts on extreme weather events

Our study shows that extreme climate impacts are not just the result of abstract global emissions, instead we can directly link them to our lifestyle and investment choices, which in turn are linked to wealth,"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No. It's not 2/3 of climate change caused by wealthy bastards, it's 100%.

Non-wealthy people don't own factories spewing heat and trash into the air. Non-wealthy people might own cars, but they don't design and build those cars to constantly spew dangerous & deadly emissions — wealthy people are responsible for that, and for the lack of a healthier, greener choice for transportation. It's wealthy bastards who've fought against regulations reducing pollution, wealthy bastards who oppose public transit, and wealthy bastards who profit from the climate change that'll eventually kill the rest of us.

Fuck if I'm causing 1/3 of climate change. Fuck, no.

Wealthy bastards make sure environmental protection is a punchline, and wrap everything in plastic like Laura Palmer. The rich are at the heart of every vile thing that's being done to the planet. Virtually all of man-made climate change is caused by rich bastards.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If you choose to eat meat, you're causing loads of climate damage.

Lots of non wealthy people are responsible for a non-zero amount of damage.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

You can't really blame individuals for society issues. If I drop dead tomorrow, the global emissions won't change. Still the same amount of cows, still the same amount of cars on the road, still the same governments and policies.

Not saying we shouldn't do anything as individuals, we definitely should, we can all do better. But you can't blame any one random individual for any of these issues, imo(non multimillionaire, I mean). Feels so wrong.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If all the poor people drop dead tomorrow, the emissions will change. And the number of animals will decrease.

You do have an impact. It is no negligible.

It is not sufficient to cut the emissions of rich people to zero. It is necessary and the majority, but all of us need to stop putting GHG into the atmosphere

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

Right, but I'm not all the poor people. And I can't control them either. Yes, if everyone stopped eating meat, we'd stop farming them and emissions would drop. But that's unrealistic, never gonna happen. So yes, my impact in negligible.

And I'm not saying I won't do anything because my impact is negligible. I still recycle and encourage others to do the same and so on. But realistically speaking, I'm nobody. What I do doesn't change anything. At most I may have influenced 10 other people to be eco friendly. Still didn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. But maybe once a few more million people do the same we'll be ok. We'll see.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I can't control them either...that's unrealistic, never gonna happen.

That's exactly what the coal company said about the oil company.

I do agree we need to tax meat and subsidize cheap proteins like beans, tvp, and seitan

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, this is what those companies said and did. Let's not pretend they're powerless, lol.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And let's not pretend you're powerless

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 days ago

Yeah, obviously you can't blame one individual. Only a ton of individuals in aggregate. That's why its important to change the behavior of large swathes of people.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If I drop dead tomorrow, the global emissions won’t change

Neither will global emissions change if jeff bezos drops dead tomorrow. The companies are all public and will still be led by a board of directors.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

And the private jet flights and the monster boat are nothing?

And what about all the money he gave to Trump and to other politicians to influence policy decisions?

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And the private jet flights and the monster boat are nothing?

I'm gonna be honest - yes. Those things are nothing in the grand scheme.

And what about all the money he gave to Trump and to other politicians to influence policy decisions?

You can't put a number on these kind of things, so I'm not going to count that. Otherwise, everyone that is buying nestle products is exploiting third world countries.

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

The thing is, he's got the power to influence the world for the better but he's not doing it. "Part of the problem or part of the solution" applies to him at the very least a thousand fold.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, true, but that doesn't mean he's overwhelmingly responsible for climate change.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

No, not overwhelmingly. Partly. That's what the article and a bunch of studies claim.

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Totally bogus. The effect of one person eating a roast beef sandwich and side of chips is so nearly nothing it rounds to nothing. Saying, "If you choose to eat meat, you’re causing loads of climate damage," is bald-faced misinformation.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

The average person kills about 100 animals per year. If you sum up all if that for all the 90% of the population, thats very not negligible