this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
489 points (98.0% liked)

Climate

8606 readers
615 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
489
Plant-Based Mince Now 29% Cheaper Than Beef at Tesco as Meat Prices Climb (vegconomist.com)
submitted 1 day ago by usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml to c/climate@slrpnk.net
192 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pfried@reddthat.com 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

If the meatless option is 29% cheaper, the meat option is .29/(1-.29) = 41% more expensive, not 29%. Meatballs in the article are .41/(1-.41) = 69% more expensive than plantballs, which is close to your target number.

I remember the days when a veggie cheeseburger was a grilled cheese sandwich. Progress.

[–] texture@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

this math hurt my head, but i thank you

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 3 points 14 hours ago

Never too late to get better at anything. I'll give it my best shot, but if it still doesn't make sense, ask an LLM to explain anything that doesn't make sense, and keep digging, and you'll know it inside and out.

Basically, if the price was p currency units and is now 29% off, the price is now p-.29p = (1-.29)p currency units (by the distributive property). The old price is .29p currency units higher than the new price, and as a fraction of the new price, that is .29p/[(1-.29)p] higher. The p's cancel out, so this fraction does not depend on the starting price. Write that fraction as a percent (per 100), and you get your answer.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

It's not obvious when looking at it. Numbers can be inconvenient.