this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
28 points (91.2% liked)

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

5239 readers
443 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
28
The Right Kind of Tipping Point (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 5 months ago by bstix@feddit.dk to c/climate@slrpnk.net
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Even if every government and business in the world made combating climate change a top priority, it would still take at least two decades, and an estimated $215 trillion, to make a full transition to an emissions-free world.

Doing so, the report said, would require the immediate adoption of what would essentially be a wartime approach to constructing renewable energy and subsidizing low-carbon technologies, and a set of strict regulatory measures designed to curb emissions-heavy modes of transportation, energy production and industry. For example, BloombergNEF projects that no new internal combustion engine vehicles could be sold after 2034.

That "wartime approach" is exactly what we should do, as $215 trillion is cheaper than the alternative of letting all our coastal cities flood and turning billions of people into climate refugees.

But we won't, because the rich sociopaths in charge would rather impose those costs on the people who can least afford them instead of the people who can most afford them.

Unless we force them to.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

We will never not have a housing crisis in my lifetime.

If we start building, the displaced will fill them. Nevermind that we have so many others already vying for their own homes.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 4 points 5 months ago

I was thinking the same thing when I read that line. We should be making "war time sized investments" in renewables and forestation etc. and there's a long way to go.

However, I remain carefully optimistic. If the predictions are correct and 2023 was the top of CO2 emmisions, this positive news will finally show that the existing efforts are not futile, and that it is happening whether or not the rich sociopaths or apathetic consumers want it.