this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
198 points (100.0% liked)

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

5091 readers
829 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
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is the most depressing point. Why would they. They will be long gone. Why risk their profits now. Fuck humanity I want mine now.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Leah Stokes's book, Short Circuiting Policy, goes down what actually gets utilities to act: renewable portfolio standards, requiring them to generate a certain fraction of their energy via non-emitting sources. When the state public utilities commissions are given teeth to enforce those, they're incredibly effective.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Nationalize and remove corruption. That does it too

[–] EndOfLine@lemm.ee 16 points 11 months ago

Whaaaaaat? Corporate leaders don't care about honoring costly changes that will fundamentally change their industry when making those changes isn't tied to their compensation and the deadline for achieving them isn't until after they retire or are even dead?

I, personally, am shocked.

[–] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

2050 is so far into the future its meaningless. If they were serious, it would be early to mid 2030s. What's worse is that renewable energy is very viable and there are tons of tax credits to offset the investment, so it also seems like poor corporate strategy to not invest.

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah that's just playing for time. Can't do anything this year eh?

[–] nvermind@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Exactly! In the report, the companies that do have meaningful goals of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2030 do WAY better than the rest of the companies! But a 2050 goal is meaningless, and “net” zero by 2050 is even more meaningless because they can claim to fill it with carbon capture or carbon credits.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

If they were serious, they'd be making quarterly goals. Maybe not net zero this quarter or the next, but the immediate target would certainly not be more than a couple years from now at max.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

And they’re likely to purchase or play with “carbon offsets” which this video does a good job of summarizing why they don’t work

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 5 points 11 months ago

Like carbon capture before it, carbon offsets are mainly a scam that uses hypothetical mitigation to excuse increasing ACTUAL harm.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

TLDW? Is it that we haven't figured it out yet or is there reason to believe it'll never actually work?

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

"Sorry, we thought you meant net zero polar ice."

[–] kaibae@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

2050 was always meant to be a kick the can down the road kind of idea. Appeasement for those concerned - status quo for the people making money in those businesses now. There was never any idea to change, perhaps only a hope that by 2050 other solutions would have presented themselves.

[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Honda's latest commercial that says 2050 is laughable and makes me not take them seriously.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

The thing about "says 2050" that is that you need to look at more: what are they doing now and over the next few years.

People can "say 2050" and be taking action now...or not.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If they promise it already, there should be no problem when banning all fossil fuel power plants by 2050. See no problem.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago

No problem with a tax five hundred percent cost to caputre all emitted carbon being placed on all fossil plants by 2040 two. I mean they won’t still make up a major source of revenue in fifteen years, right.

[–] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Well duh, we’ve got another 26 years before we even need to start thinking about that! /s

[–] Mannimarco@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

OH REALLY!?

What a fucking suprise -_-

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 3 points 11 months ago

2050 😂 I pledge to be a billionaire by then

[–] dabu@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Of course they do, it will be a problem for future CEOs