this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
82 points (97.7% liked)

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

6376 readers
453 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The message is everywhere: You (alone) can save the planet

Choose a veggie burger instead of beef. Book this flight, not that one. Buy thrift over fast fashion. Shrink your "carbon footprint."

But here's what most people don't know: The very concept of a personal carbon footprint originated with oil giant British Petroleum (BP). In 2004, BP launched a carbon calculator to persuade people to measure their personal climate impacts. The campaign worked — shifting our collective gaze from fossil fuel companies, the biggest drivers of the climate crisis, to individuals like you and me.

Two decades later and with climate disasters rapidly intensifying, we're still caught in this sleight-of-hand. Choices made by corporations and governments continue to shape the speed and scale of climate disruption, while marketing campaigns around climate action try to shift our focus to consumer decisions.

New WRI research tells a different story. Our data shows that pro-climate behavior changes, such as driving less or eating less meat, could theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year^1^ — specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations.

But it also reveals that efforts focused exclusively on changing behaviors, and not the overarching systems around them, only achieve about one-tenth of this emissions-reduction potential. The remaining 90% stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)

...

Voting at both the national and local levels is key, as elections directly determine whether governments enable or hinder pro-climate behaviors.

...

Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.

WRI's research quantifies the individual actions that matter most. While people worldwide tend to vastly overestimate the impact of some highly visible activities, such as recycling, our analysis reveals four significant changes that deliver meaningful emissions reductions. In order of climate impact, these behaviors are:

  1. Shift to sustainable ground travel
  1. Shift to air travel alternatives
  1. Install residential solar and increase home energy efficiency
  1. Eat more plant-rich meals
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Pushing for the elimination of animal agriculture subsidies would do a lot to fix the market that so strongly encourages animal agriculture products over the more sustainable alternatives.

[–] RvTV95XBeo 24 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Even better, transfer those subsidies to plant agriculture so no one can complain "you're gonna make food more expensive for people who can barely afford it". And raise the minimum wage, because "barely affording food" should not be a problem in today's society.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Trouble is, the US already has a ton of plant agriculture subsidies. But they go to major commodity crops (corn, soybeans) that provide feed for livestock or, worse, ethanol.

Transfer those subsidies to plants that people eat and I'm with you.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

in some places, funds are used so people on food assistance can double their produce purchasing power at farmers markets, which increases the percentage of already allocated food subsidy spending towards fresh fruits and vegetables. Ive also seen low income subsidized community garden plots (where individual plot fees go towards the water bill, bulk fertilizer etc)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No mention at all of having fewer kids? That alone has a huge impact.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

The educated middle class of the first world that'll read articles like this are already having fewer kids.

[–] pyr0ball 4 points 3 days ago

Same for dogs and cats, but that's a hard sell

[–] Sineljora 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don’t see a mention of the #1 impact from what I understand: don’t park money or investments at BANKS that loan to oil companies. May be hard to measure that though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Do you have a source for that #1 impact claim? I want to read and share it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (4 children)

behavior changes, such as driving less or eating less meat, could theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year

Driving less and eating less meat means you'd still be driving and eating meat, so how does that work?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

It does help get people started. A lot of people truly haven’t tried anything else and don’t realize that they’ll be fine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

I don't understand the downvotes and lack of logical answers. I genuinely don't know what they could be trying to say there. Maybe that an American (way above average in driving and eating meat) could reduce their impact by an amount equal to the total GHG of an average world citizen? But it wouldn't really cancel anything out and why would it be relevant to the rest of what's being said?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

"less" is not very precise. Maybe they mean 99.99% less?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Missing the bigger issue even if we do all this we only cut what 10%.