560
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Fuck yes, straight into the wall full speed. Don’t even tap the brakes.

[-] Elyndor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Why it should be otherwise? It's not like we're sentient creatures, capable of influencing our own habits. We're just mindless biological automatons, oblivious to the fact that we're marching to our horrible, painful and IMMINENT demise. It's not like I care about that either. Give me entertainment, give me food and comfort and I won't give a duck about future. Why give an effort of thought to such amorphous things when I have so much to enjoy in the present? Clearly, that would be a fool's errand, and I'm not a fool.

load more comments (1 replies)

Only positive thing I can see there is, that the last few years seem to be linear growth instead of the exponential before...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eleitl@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

No, we had precisely zero measurable impact on the Keeling curve.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

Our masters prefer profit much much much more than planetary survival.

[-] WeUnite@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

I got one word for you: Vote.

Corporations like BP push individual responsibility and personal carbon footprint[1] to try to neutralize you from achieving real policy gains which would have a much greater impact than your individual action. Time spent trying to convince people to vote for politicians who take climate change seriously is far more productive than time spent trying to educate people about their so-called carbon footprint. Of course we all play a part but seeing this chart it's clear we need more action and that's why I'm saying this.

[1] https://www.nprillinois.org/2023-12-18/how-big-oil-helped-push-the-idea-of-a-carbon-footprint

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

politicians who take climate change seriously

lol

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] tenacious_mucus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

So how do we have readings going so far back, like even in the late 1800s? Is this just an assumed average for back then?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] sirico@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago

Incapable until directly affected

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
560 points (98.6% liked)

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

5441 readers
255 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