this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
745 points (98.2% liked)

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

5186 readers
344 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
745
Rich People Are the Big Barrier to Stabilizing the Climate (newrepublic.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copy of the article

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] rexxit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's worth noting that Americans also must spend that income in a similarly-inflated market, so it doesn't much matter what their salary would be worth in, say, Uganda. I think any such comparison of global wealth runs into these sorts of issues.

Someone earning in the global top 10% may not be able to afford a house locally. Someone earning in the top 30% may not be able to afford rent and food at the same time in their locale. It makes the percentile meaningless.

[โ€“] fiat_lux@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Yep, this is after all adjustments using the United Nations SNA 2008. It's not perfect, but it's the closest we have for accounting for those differences.