this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
113 points (98.3% liked)

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

5240 readers
449 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

One thing to bear in mind, is that the draining of the water tables in the western U.S. is completely artificial, as in we could easily refill them with correct management. The issue is a crazy, CRAZY amount of water (inefficient flood irrigation farming accounts for 75% of water use out west) is wasted on growing alfalfa for export, or almonds, and farmers are able to do this due to water rights from 100 years ago.

If we just stopped the farmers from wasting water alone, we'd have enough water to replenish and drastically refill our aquafers.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We could. It's a totally solvable problem - until it isn't. If an aquifer is dry and you're already rationing the water, what can you do? Presumably ship in enough water to keep people alive, if not to sustain commercial needs too

Which is going to drain water from somewhere else, and what if they're having the same issue? Take it from further. Salt lake City was looking into the idea of building a pipeline from the Mississippi, and I'm sure someone is looking into building a fleet of water tankers and checking if there's profit to be had

Now, where's the part in all this where we take back water rights? Where's the part where we start to fix the problem?

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Realistically the rubber will need to meet the road at some point, and the wasteful alfalfa and almond farmers need to be cut off straight up, because there's no way a handful of wealthy farmers is going to be prioritized over a city of hundreds of thousands if that city is seriously considering trucking in water.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago

It's like the Irish potato famine - Ireland had the output to support themselves. You'd think capitalism would bow to survival - but it doesn't

Will we cut off exports to keep people alive? The people with money won't.

The rubber has met the road. Physics has caught up with creative accounting. If we don't act now, will we act when people start dying?