this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
89 points (100.0% liked)

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

5243 readers
389 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
89
Electricity From Coal Is Pricey. Should Consumers Have to Pay? Environmental groups are making a new economic argument against coal, the heaviest polluting fossil fuel. Some regulators are listening. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 5 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This economic argument has been a key part of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign since around 2010.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 months ago

Consumers shouldn’t have to pay because it disproportionately impacts people who live below the poverty line. Rich people and companies won’t care but people in poverty, with no means to move of affect change, get absolutely fucked.

Companies should be paying for it, because they are the ones that use the vast majority and profit from it. Normal people don’t profit from this shit.

Anything that negatively impacts the end consumer and not the company who dictates these things to the consumer..? Is wrong. End of.