this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
109 points (98.2% liked)

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

5243 readers
392 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
109
Australian red meat industry says it doesn’t need to meet its self-imposed net zero target (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11740609

Prof Mark Howden, the director of the Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, said the sector’s net zero target is “effectively not possible”.

“It’s pretty well embedded in the public consciousness that red meat is high profile in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per serve,” Howden said.

“I suspect the industry saw this as a fundamental threat to their future … A few years ago everybody was kind of jumping on the net zero bandwagon without actually thinking through what it actually meant,” he said.

The CSIRO found the industry would fall short of meeting its net zero target, and instead recommended the adoption of a “climate-neutral” target that would require a reduction of methane emissions rather their complete elimination.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Maybe instead of blaming people for buying we should blame the companies for not doing better. After all it is the companies who are responsible for their own actions, regardless of who their customers are.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Both can and should be blamed. You can't complain that what someone is doing is wrong and then keep supporting that wrong action when you don't even have to.

Eating meat is 100% an optional and more expensive action that is demonstrably worse for the planet, even aside from ethical concerns, but which the majority of people keep consciously choosing to do even when made aware of the issues and presented with alternatives. Those people are just as responsible as the people actively doing the farming.

This wouldn't even be considered a controversial statement if it wasn't for the fact so many participate in it and want to keep making excuses. If a nation hired mercenaries to conduct military operations, you wouldn't absolve that nation of guilt and say only the mercenaries are at fault, would you?