this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
206 points (95.2% liked)

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

5245 readers
209 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well it's too late for that, we already changed these animals to be unable to to live without us.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well, stop breeding them. Solved.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Sheep genocide! Woohoo!

Even if we stop, what do we do with the ones we still have? Sanctuaries for millions of animals are far too expensive.

How about we keep shearing them and let them graze under our solar?

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can't, and I'm not recommending, get rid of sheep overnight. That's a scenario you made up on your own.

If you would castrate all domestic sheep today, that would be akin to what we do to cats and dogs. Slowly the population would dwindle.

[–] CottonSeed@slrpnk.net -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

People who kill and exploit animals every day are always so ready to defend animals. Raising animals for killing, even if you take their wool during their lives, is genocide.

[–] CottonSeed@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

word have meaning and by diluting "genocide" you are being dishonest and cheapening real genocides

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The problem is that we don't have a word for when we commit genocide, but then force-breed the same population to prevent it from extinction, only to repeat the killing again. A perpetual holocaust. We have some euphemisms like "breeding" and "husbandry" that focus of the reproduction but not in the killing. I'm open to suggestions.

[–] CottonSeed@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] CottonSeed@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

one of it's specific meanings is raising animals for food or other products.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Raising animals to harvest is cruel and unusual punishment but it isn't genocide. Genocide is the systematic and widespread extermination of a specific group. The fact that livestock animals outnumber us and their numbers are only growing should tell you we're not genociding them. Words have meaning.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago

Gonna quote my own comment to another user:

The problem is that we don't have a word for when we commit genocide, but then force-breed the same population to prevent it from extinction, only to repeat the killing again. A perpetual holocaust. We have some euphemisms like "breeding" and "husbandry" that focus of the reproduction but not in the killing. I'm open to suggestions

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

it's not punishment. we aren't assigning moral agency.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The guy you're arguing with is the reason so many people simply tune out animal activists. He reminds me of the hippy character from Futurama on the poppers episode 😂

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You mean using reason and compassion? Yes, it's a horrible trait of animal rights activists.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What you're using isn't reason. It comes from a good place, I'm sure, but your arguments aren't reasonable.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just because you disagree does not make them unreasonable

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your solutions are unreasonable. Nobody is going to finance rehoming and caring for billions of livestock animals. We can't even do that for our own species.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I never suggested rethinking rehoming. I never once said that.