this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2026
550 points (95.4% liked)

Climate

9076 readers
77 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
550
If So Many Americans Care About Climate, Why Don’t They Vote Like It? 11.2 million. That’s the number of Americans who rank climate as a their top priority but didn’t vote in the 2024 US elections (coveringclimatenow.org)
submitted 6 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
494 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

People who don't eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don't eat at a restaurant that doesn't exist. You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 days ago

This is what your commitment to your narrative has done to you. It has made you believe that there is a category of people who don't vote because that is what they prefer, and you're so committed that you are willing to make nonsense arguments that posit the existence of people who eat food but specifically will not and never will eat food if it's in a restaurant.

Nothing about your narrative is reasonable. Give people something they want and they will pursue it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist.

Legitimately don't understand this word salad.

You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.

Someone who doesn't currently eat at restaurants might start eating at them if the restaurants find a way to appeal to them. That's not a complicated concept.

If I'm vegan, and no restaurants in my area offer vegan options, then I am someone who doesn't eat at restaurants at all. If a restaurant opens up that does offer vegan options, or if an existing restaurant adds a vegan option, then I might start eating at restaurants. Do you not understand this concept?

Likewise, someone who doesn't vote might start voting if they're appealed to. This is equally uncomplicated.