this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
7 points (66.7% liked)

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

6193 readers
405 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
7
What It Will Take for Rich Countries to Reach Net Zero: You (www.bloomberg.com)
submitted 6 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I wouldn't call it a blame; it's a recognition that actually solving the problem means actually changing how people heat homes and get to work. Making that happen at scale means having public policy to make that attainable for people.

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. We need to do all the things at the same time. We need corporations to change their ways (which means boycotts, protest, and likely sabotage), we need governments to do their share (which means voting, protests, and general civic engagement at all levels), and we need consumers to accept that their lifestyles will have to change.

To actually make those changes to consumer behavior, we need good public policy decisions and for corporations to not obstruct things. Without good governmental policy, consumers will not be able to make those switches. Without consumer behavior changes and good governmental policy, corporations will kill any chance at change.

(I do think the framing could be better, but I don't think blaming the working class is a good description of what's happening.)

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Heck yes! It has nothing to do with investing in the infrastructure people depend on! Just give them no better options and they'll choose the more expensive route!

Or... we could make electricity cheap, tax carbon dependent heating systems and use those funds to subsidize sustainable options? Whenever people get to a new place, are out to save a buck, or their decade old unit breaks.. the green options will look a whole lot nicer.

So yes, blame those with few reasonable options for having few reasonable options

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 1 points 6 days ago

Ah, yes, doing the same thing while waiting for "better options" as a moral position. That's called moral opportunism! Congrats, capitalism's ideal man: "rational self-interest man".