this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
235 points (99.6% liked)

Climate

8362 readers
415 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
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Feature, not a bug. Supreme Court is openly corrupt.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 hours ago

We can make it into a bug if we're able to pressure him into recusing himself.

[–] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 47 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Members of Congress shouldn't own stock, neither should Supreme Court Justices. It's effectively a life appointment, they are well compensated, and there's obvious conflicts of interest. Money and justice don't mix well.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 hours ago

They should be allowed to invest in broad index funds. Shit that goes up when the economy is good and down when it's bad.

And maybe gvt bonds.

[–] bright_side_@piefed.world 5 points 11 hours ago

Or any politician...

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

That's why the court declared Trump tariff illegal, because the judges obviously own stocks and hated it when their portfolio went down.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Alito’s individual stock portfolio

His what now?

One issue we have now isn't exactly insider trading: it's that insider trading has been happening for so long that it feels like simply requiring no conflicts of interest, as should be standard operating procedure, now feels like inventing an entirely new system.

And of course, we have to contend with all the people who are worried about disenfranching the people in these positions.

Or, maybe, just maybe: the people who should be representing the public and running the country are those who would do so without worrying about their self-enrichment first.

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

a·li·to /ˌʌˈli toʊ/ v.

To act with abject incompetency, such as to draw question regarding fitness and ability concerning not just the current moment but respecting the subject at large

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 21 points 16 hours ago

It's almost like high level public servants shouldn't be allowed to own stock...

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Public servants shouldn't be allowed to own stock, except maybe through some sort of arm's length diversified portfolio managed by a third party. Like, you can put money in Vanguard's index funds, but you can't pick individual stocks. Maybe. I would also accept that you just aren't allowed to own stock. Put your money in government bonds or something.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

You mean design policy to prevent corruption!?

[–] CreamyJalapenoSauce@piefed.social 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I think it was Technology Connection's Alec who pointed out something I never thought of. When he talked with people about oil, he realized that he had a preconception that oil was a stepping stone. He assumed that everyone agreed that at some point THE goal in energy production is to replace oil, not add more power sources to it. When he said that, my matching bias was suddenly put in the spotlight. Since then I've wondered how people like Alito don't see this as the obvious next step.

[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 4 points 13 hours ago

that was such a good video.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago

Most bribery happens where insiders just tell politicians which stocks to buy

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 2 points 14 hours ago

I see nothing wrong here, move along citizen.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Just sell it. 1 phone call.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

So long a he holds it, he is supposed to recuse himself from cases that affect those stocks. This has meant one less vote in the Supreme Court in favor of the oil industry

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Has he actually done that though?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 12 hours ago

In the past, yes, but not this time

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who had recused himself in a prior petition in the Boulder case (possibly because he owned stock in ConocoPhillips) did not indicate that he would be recusing himself from the case. ConocoPhillips, which is not named in the Boulder case, is a defendant in other climate lawsuits.

[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] derry@midwest.social 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 1 points 12 hours ago

Tolito, talito... What's the difference!