this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
529 points (98.7% liked)

Climate

8927 readers
222 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/51623256

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

10% of income is basically $70k/y. If you're above this line - you are the problem

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It is more complex then that. For example somebody earning over $70k/y might easily live car free and vegan in Paris, while not flying on vacation. Part of that is individual choice like living vegan and other parts are part of the system around that person, like the amazing public transit in Paris or that the French electricity grid is nearly emissions free. Somebody like that might well have carbon footprint below the global average.

In the end it is a systems problem. A well designed system should not allow people to harm others on a scale like that. But individuals do have agency and those with $70k/y more then most. If those individuals make good choices, then they might well be part of the solution and not the problem.

[–] Chaf@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

Yes and no. It is possible for someone earning 70k/year to emit below the average (let's also keep in mind that the goal is not to be below the average, but to be at 0 emissions/impact), but everything you can buy has a CO2/environment-cost related to it.

As soon as you spend more, you have a higher impact. Of course there are more and less impactful ways of consumption, so you do raise a good point, but we're not going to consume our way out of this misery.

A really nice book I shove down the throat of every single one of my friends who's not running away fast enough is The Day the World Stops Shopping, in case you have way too much time at hand ^^

[–] kamee@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also 70K net or gross is quite a big difference.

Also me not having kids and commuting using an EV that’s charged at almost entirely by solar/nuclear means I am well below that threshold.

Where I live district heating also comes from geothermal heat.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

It's before taxes.