this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
175 points (98.9% liked)

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

5186 readers
551 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
 

Escalating rhetoric comes as new study shows there’s just six years left to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius at current CO2 emissions rate

Graph showing increasing use of 'climate emergency' in academic literature from 7 examples in 2008 to 96 in 2018 to 862 uses in 2002.

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is no avoiding 1.5c — achieving it is predicated on lies; carbon offsets (accounting trick to continue emissions) and carbon capture (won't be viable for at least 50+ years, after we're already at 2-4c).

The oligarchy, and their corporations, are LYING to you so they can continue profiteering all the way up until the shit hits the fan. If they were honest about the reality of the situation, they'd have to genuinely worry about guillotines. Right now we need to focus on avoiding 3c, because 2c is also likely unavoidable, even if we were spending triple on decarbonisation than we are right now.

All renewables to date have only dampened emissions from humanities increasing energy consumption. We've still emitted 25% of all CO2 since the year 2000, and are still emitting the most in history per annum. If we continue at the current peak, we'll add another 25% in 15 years. There are still 700+ million ICE cars on the road, still thousands of diesel container ships emitting more than all those cars combined; still tens of thousands of coal, gas, and oil power plants. All of that can't simply be "replaced". It will take dozens of trillions in capital across decades, and we'll have to consume significantly more energy to mine and manufacture all the renewable tech to replace them — energy that will still mostly come from fossil fuels.

[–] Ordoabchao@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

We are boned and Earth is going to ice-age us, eventually. After raising the sea level and flooding many inhabitated areas, turning arable land into desert while our weather system takes a dive.

Winter hasn't even properly set in where I live, and it's basically November. It's still 13c outside...

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we don't start turning things around rapidly, global warming is going to be saying to WW2: "You think YOU are the master of death, despair, suffering, and destruction? Hold my beer and watch this!"

[–] bloopernova@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm slightly more optimistic now than I have been. I recently learned that economic growth will be stalled soon. I think that the big money interests will demand that growth continue, which necessitates mitigating the climate crisis effects if not the cause.

It's still going to be a horrifically shitty time for 99.9% of humanity, but I don't think we're going extinct.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm slightly optimistic.

What we really need is a widely recognized and transparent organization to lead the effort. Like the red cross for blood donations. I've looked at various groups, but they tend to be opaque regarding funding. The transparency is vital because without it, we could be easily misled into supporting a group that is created by say oil companies designed to have us chasing red herrings.

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

Citizens Climate Lobby, maybe?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Death .. Especially death of hundreds or thousands

No one cares until people, lots of people start dying ... because it implies that everyone is at risk of getting killed by these events.

In the meantime, when there's just damaged houses and people calling in their insurances .... it's all just a curiosity and a neat headline.

No one will care until we see the death toll rise

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know, i used to think that too. Then Covid happened and it turned out that even more americans dying every few days than did during 9/11 from an easily preventable disease still saw outright denial and anger at anyone who took even the simplest and smallest of precautions.

[–] interolivary@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yup. I'm fairly convinced that once things do get bad enough, those same people will do the same thing they did during the early times of COVID, ie. lash out violently at anyone trying to fix the situation and even blame the "liberals" for creating it.

I doubt they'll literally ever be able to adjust to the idea that maybe all this shit that's going on is humanity's fault, not to mention that at this point they're the ones most staunchly against doing anything to fix the situation so they bear even more resposibilty. Or they should bear more at any rate, they just won't – it'll be easier to murder leftists and concentrate on making everything worse so they'll have even more excuses to murder us.

[–] Ipodjockey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah... Sadly this is the most likely outcome.

[–] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There's no stopping this trend without nuclear energy. Renewable are great, but they can replace nuclear in 100 years. We need nuclear power now to replace greenhouse gas polluting power plants.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

People are deploying much more renewables than nuclear because they're cheaper for the first ~80% of decarbonization. Nuclear might get used for the last 20% if it can be done more cheaply than large amounts of storage.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sadly, no matter what you call it... those in power to make changes, won't. Cataclysmic events are cresting the horizon. Much sooner than people realize.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's on us to force them to make the necessary changes.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, or take the power from them and destroy it and make the changes ourselves.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

You're smokin' crack if you think that'd ever happen.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing. Unfortunately, too many people feel the need to peacock, and act like dickheads simply to try to stand out.

And a lot of those dickheads also chose to not pay attention during high school, so they overcompensate for making a lot of noise about their "evidence", which isn't based on critical thinking.