this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
91 points (98.9% liked)

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

5240 readers
357 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
91
Your Money Is Funding Fossil Fuels Without You Knowing It (www.wired.com)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org

By switching to a climate-conscious bank, you could reduce those emissions by about 75 percent, the study found. In fact, if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers—the reduction in your indirect emissions would be twice that of the direct emissions you’d avoid if you switched to a vegetarian diet.

The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In practice, the banks are a lot more picky than that, and reject customers without that additional data or with a lot of cash transactions.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It is indeed useful when that rejection gives a built-in way of moving your business to another bank that’s less reckless with excessive data collection.

But it does not always work out that way. I refused to answer a needless intrusive interrogation and it had no effect (which also proves the interrogation was not necessary). The bank likely made a note of my refusal… perhaps to try to use against me. They really want you to believe you’re required to answer those questions. In any case, it obviously makes sense to avoid the banks that show signs of over-collection because it hints that there could be more excessive collections going on with that bank. E.g. when you call the bank, some banks will initiate a spontaneous interrogation unrelated to the reason for your call.

There are countless ethical reasons to do as many transactions in cash as possible. If a bank were to show me the door for doing too many withdrawals, then it would actually be a feature. You don’t want your money in a bank who is protectionist against runs on the bank. It’s better to bank where your money is not trapped.