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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

427

World's wealthiest 10% have contributed to two-thirds of global warming since 1990, study finds (phys.org)

submitted 3 days ago by RockBottom@feddit.org to c/climate@slrpnk.net

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] 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