this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
75 points (98.7% liked)

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

5972 readers
827 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
75
Study: The ozone hole is healing, thanks to global reduction of CFCs (news.mit.edu)
submitted 3 days ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

An MIT-led study confirms the Antarctic ozone layer is healing as a direct result of global efforts to reduce ozone-depleting substances.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That was the last time all of humanity came together for the common good. We need to do this for oil.

[–] Fergie434@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Unfortunately only because the better alternative happened to also be economically viable.

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 3 points 2 days ago

Is it economically viable to destroy the ecosystems while being heavily governmentally subsisted by the people? Is good healthy economic policies drafted by the people or by the corporations our government fails to regulate?

Does OPEC or any oil single oil company have our economy as its interest or does it have an interest in maximizing its profit at any cost? Is that a good economic model?

If you had argued that it wont happen because oil companies own our government I would agree with you. I would argue that destroying our dependence on oil is not only very economically sound but imperative.