this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
165 points (96.1% liked)

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

5324 readers
262 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
[email protected]
165
Stonehenge covered in powder paint by Just Stop Oil protesters - BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My point is that we waste so much resources on preserving that stuff while people are fucking dying, sometimes just a few blocks away from where these art pieces are kept.

They're objects that have no utility in keeping the world habitable and right now you've got governments and private interests more busy spending billions preserving them instead of preserving life on this planet.

You go and tell someone from Samoa that you think it's more important for us to be spending billions preserving Notre-Dame because people would rather release tons of CO2 by taking a plane to travel across the ocean to visit a church no one cared about a two hundreds years ago instead of spending that money for reforestation efforts in France in order to capture CO2 and reduce global warming that will lead to their island disappearing in the ocean.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Basically ringing a bigger bell so people react.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it's the wrong argument.

You don't need to get rid of world heritage to save the world, it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

What we need is politicians who a) actually understand science and b) care enough to push through environmental protection plans that will stop CO2 output and c) the biggest problem, voters that have a and b too.

What we got is loads of career opportunists that happily lie their ass off to become popular, happily dismantle any environmental protections to become popular and they're voted for by stupid ignorant voters that happily lao up all the crap they're being fed. World wide governments are making swings to the right, world wide, environmental protections aren't increased, they're dismantled.

Do you really believe that destroying art will change any of this for the better?

[–] Kecessa 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

We don't need to, but at some point if no one reacts don't be surprised if some people start figuring out that the only way you'll get people angry is by showing to the world how hypocritical people are.