this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
89 points (94.1% liked)

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

5276 readers
701 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]
89
The U.S. Election Is a Choice Between Climate Action and Retreat (www.worldpoliticsreview.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes. But realistically, "other" has a near zero chance of actually happening. You can vote third party if your conscious is really begging you to do that, but you need to understand that it's WAY more nuanced than that - 99% of the voting population will be voting either red or blue, whether you like it or not.

So how about instead of throwing your vote away to the 1% with the near zero chance of winning, vote blue to prevent trump from taking over the situation and resulting in many, many more people being killed?

You'd rather take the moral high ground on something that literally has two outcomes, A "genocide" or B "more genocide" by choosing C which isn't even an option and reduces the likelihood of A and increases the likelihood of B. So really that makes A the moral option, despite you calling it "enabling a genocide", because otherwise you are performing a real action to make B more likely.

TL;DR, when trump wins because you and a bunch of self-righteous morons decide to vote third party in protest, YOU are actually at fault for the genocide worsening and the death of many more people.