this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
464 points (84.5% liked)

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

5237 readers
412 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
464
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It (sentientmedia.org)
submitted 10 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
401 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works -4 points 10 months ago

As I said to the other guy, accusing the large percent of studies that disagree with you of being false is bad-faith far-right bullshit, and we had enough of that in 2020 with the anti-vaxxers. I have sworn off EVER giving that style of bullshit any more respect than it deserves.

Do you also give BP the same benefit of the doubt too?

I never said "benefit of the doubt". You're the one picking research based on whether you like its results. I'm the one reading the articles and studies on both sides.

Actually, let me use your reference to show my point. Do you know who the BIGGEST opponent of farm subsidies is? FARMERS.

You tell me why, and we'll continue this discussion. Otherwise, you just showed your hand, and it's a 2-7 off-suit high card.

The obvious answer is to stop breeding them

Till when? In my country, the total methane impact from agriculture is only 20% higher than pre-colonial ecostasis. We will reach those numbers in 10 years. Are you saying my country needs to have LOWER methane emissions than it had 500 years ago all so we can support BP continuing to do whatever the fuck they want and still have a global temperature continue to rise? Because if the worst GHG footprint was my home country's agricultural industry, global warming wouldn't be a problem.

Which one of us is giving BP the benefit of the doubt, now? What percent of environmental spending are you really willing to do to reduce GHG emissions <5%?