this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
103 points (99.0% liked)

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

5212 readers
547 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
 

The pair restarted their work in Massachusetts with about 400 brook trout reared for up to eight months in tanks. The scientists kept some of the fish in waters set at 59 degrees Fahrenheit while others at 68 degrees Fahrenheit. All were fed the same diet.

By the end of the experiment, the difference was stark. The trout raised in warmer waters were on average less than half the size as the other fish.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] livus@kbin.social 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The billions of people who depend on seafood are already in dire straits with richer nations stealing coastal fish from poorer nations.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 5 points 6 months ago

The other day I read the history of the Somalian pirates. Basically corps from wealthy nations like China stole all their fish with bottom trawling, and after the initial failure of their state they had nobody to enforce the rules. They tried chasing off the illegal fishers themselves, but were declared pirates because of that. Then they went "if we are pirates anyway, we might as well", and then we get to the part when the US went in to shoot up their capital and made a movie about it.

[–] Neon@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Okay, so we're getting mad at Norway for legally buying fish from these countries but not at China for literally illegally entering and fishing in poorer nations coastal waters?

Also, what would happen if Norwegian Companies refused to buy african Products or the Norwegian Government put an Embargo on African Fish? wouldn't that be seen as racist or protectionist, as harming the African Economies?

[–] livus@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I posted that article as an example to illustrate my point not an overview of the entire topic. It's well researched and quantifies the number of people adversely affected.

I chose it because fewer people know about what Western countries are doing to the sea, than know about China. But since you asked, here's a good article about some of China's predatory fishing practices around poor nations that I posted a few weeks ago.

wouldn’t that be seen as

By whom? I'd love it if the West stopped taking fish from the mouths of poor nations, and so would the millions of people adversely affected by it.

The so called "free market" ideology that if you can legally pay elites for something, you're entitled to take it, has deepened and intrenched global inequality. It has also created grotesque distortions such as food exports from countries in famine.

[–] Neon@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

By whom?

By all the African Nations we would effectively sanction

Also i have to point out the near-colonial mindset of "we know better than you what your country needs, so we're embargoing you to protect your nature"

If anything, the local Government should impose an Export-limitation or even an Export-ban

[–] livus@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago

@Neon yeah I think you need to actually read the article before you @ me about this stuff. You're constructing a massive straw man involving embargos and local companies that has nothing to do with the real situation.

The Feedback report takes a different perspective, recommending the Norwegian government to “halt the growth of Norway’s salmon farming sector” and “ensure the domestic farmed salmon industry does not undermine its global development goals.”

The NGO based its calculations on public commercial data and company reports by the four companies that together supply close to 100% of the feed used in Norwegian salmon farming: Mowi, Dutch-owned Skretting, U.S.-based Cargill and Denmark-based BioMar. According to Feedback’s analysis, all of these companies sourced fish oil made from small pelagics caught in FAO’s Major Fishing Area 34, located off West Africa.