this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
144 points (97.4% liked)

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

5177 readers
554 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
144
Americans generally support climate policy, but they think others generally don't (www.nature.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

My fellow Americans. Get off your asses and vote. In every election. Even in red areas. If we all get off our asses, we will generally win. Run for local office if you are able. Contact local officials and get them to take measures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I think this studies definition of support is flawed. Saying you support something without context on a poll doesn't translate to actual support in actions or voting.

If you don't vote, you don't support climate policy.

If you vote for politicians (especially in primaries) that oppose climate policy, you don't support climate policy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

as well as the percent of Americans who supported each of the following climate policies: a carbon tax, a 100-percent renewable energy mandate for electricity, siting renewables on public lands, and a Green New Deal (GND). Each policy was shown given the same brief description as used in polling by the YPCCC

They did provide context. The above text was from the methods section. Maybe I am missing something?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some people who say they support those policies vote for people who don't support those policies, others don't vote at all. I'm saying they don't actually support the policies based on their votes (or not voting).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you support climate policies such as ending car dependency, carbon taxes and, getting off of fossil fuels?

So you are saying the nature article is wrong because of voter turnout?

In a way, you are proving the articles point. Belief leads to action. GOP voters have a higher turnout because they think their vote matters. I think the left, particularly in red areas probably don't turn out to vote because they don't think it matters.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Well I'm in a red area and my vote didn't matter for a decade until re-districting took place and made my district competitive again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The article was saying a lot of GOP voters also support climate policy. I disagree for the reasons above.

They support the idea of those policies but don't actually vote for them.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)