this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
52 points (98.1% liked)

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

5183 readers
574 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]
52
A Test for Harris: How to Talk About the Green New Deal: In the Senate, Kamala Harris backed an expansive climate plan. Young activists want her to embrace it again, but so do Republicans. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I love this line, talking about the Green New Deal:

It called for converting the electric grid to 100 percent clean energy this decade, declared clean air, clean water and healthy food to be basic human rights. But it also endorsed free health care and affordable housing for all Americans.

The use of "but" suggests that either the first part of that statement, or the last part, is a big negative, e.g. "She wants to fund animal shelters, but she also wants to kill dolphins", or "She wants to kill puppies, but she also wants to clean up the oceans."

So... which half is supposed to be the bad one? They both seem great to me. I'm so confused by these discussions.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Yeah so many of the Republican scare articles have "don't threaten me with a good time" energy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Green new deal has been super popular in Europe.

But still, all she has to do is adapt her climate policy and call it something else. Even just banning new oil development and single family zoning would be a huge step up from Biden. She could also ban new fossil fuel cars by 2030, subsidize local public transport projects, and subsidize grid connections for wind and solar. None of those things are significantly propagandizable.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Zoning has been a state policy thing in the US, not a federal one, so not likely to be a Presidential campaign issue

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

That's fair. They could probably do something to adapt funding to encourage mixed-use neighborhoods.