this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
144 points (98.6% liked)

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

5205 readers
721 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
144
California regulators cut incentives for rooftop solar even further (www.canarymedia.com)
submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blandfordforever@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I get the feeling that people who are actually rich have successfully tricked you into blaming the "not poor".

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Whose blaming anyone? For what?

[–] blandfordforever@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I may be misinterpeting but the tone of your comments seems to imply frustration towards the financially secure. If this is true, I am suggesting that your frustration should be directed towards those who are actually wealthy and not those who have enough money to buy a house and solar panels.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Thanks for the consideration and explanation. I'm definitely not supportive of the ultra wealthy. What I would offer you in return is the idea that perhaps "the rich" aren't a small clandestine group of the 1%.

What if they are the homeowners in California with solar panels who prevent low income housing from being developed in their neighborhood because it might impact their property value?

Certainly Jeff Bezsos sucks, but he and his friends cannot be responsible for all the inequities we see.

[–] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Jeff bezos laughed so hard at you calling people earning 150k rich that his life extended by 5 years

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

who said 150k?

[–] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No one I just took a guess. What income were you thinking?

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

id probably start with one half a standard deviation above mean income for a particular region and then make adjustments for dependents