this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
15 points (85.7% liked)

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

5441 readers
255 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
15
A Reality Check on Our ‘Energy Transition’ (thetyee.ca)
submitted 4 days ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/climate@slrpnk.net
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Degrowth is also based on the fallacy that economic activity has a constant or at least near-constant energy intensiveness. But real-life economies already vary by at least an order of magnitude in energy consumed per unit GDP. So as long as energy intensiveness declines faster than the population grows, it's still a net win.

And just to keep things in perspective, there's also a lot of false narratives about how population reductions are inevitably a bad thing. The underlying reason is that some of the measures of economic performance are proportional to population. But those are the wrong measures to be looking at if you want to know how life is for the average (median) person.