this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
85 points (98.9% liked)

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

5381 readers
203 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
85
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer writes op-ed against net zero (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has written an op-ed piece in The Sun promising "I will not sacrifice Great British industry to the drum-banging, finger-wagging Net Zero extremists"

Which means he's willing to sacrifice all the industry to appease the fossil fuels industry.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You can't just make and sell cars as a superior mode of transportation and propose policy that effectively is net zero horses as human and cargo transport. Think of all the ferriers, oat farmers, and veterinarians that would put out of a job.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you proposed to ban horses in 1904 you’d get laughed out of parliament.

Democratically elected politicians don’t have the ability to impose top-down policies opposed by the people who elected them.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

And yet, somehow, this doesn't stop surveillance bills?