this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
258 points (98.5% liked)

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

5808 readers
660 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
258
Opinion: The best trade retaliation? Hit the U.S. with a carbon-tax tariff (www.theglobeandmail.com)
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

I know the title says carbon tax, but there is a shit ton more pollutants than CO2. Anything done properly is doing to look at pollution. I was in Beijing once and holy fuck at the pollution.

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

While I agree that we should be looking at other forms of pollution as well, I wonder why you're bringing China up in a discussion about Canada imposing a carbon tariff on the USA?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Seriously? Because we should be imposing pollution tariffs on everyone. Trade doesn't work so well when country A has strict environmental laws and country B doesn't. Example of the century: China.

[–] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We is Canada here? Yeah, they probably should, but that's not really relevant to this discussion, which is about Canada retaliating against US tariffs. This is not a discussion where China is relevant, because its about the US and Canada. I don't disagree with you from a policy standpoint, so I won't make any more responses, but relevance is important.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sigh. All trade from every country in the world to every other country in the world should consider pollution. To have proper trade between all countries. In the world. All countries. Every single one. All of them.

load more comments (2 replies)