this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
185 points (98.4% liked)

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

5441 readers
251 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
185
Biden Expected to Permanently Ban Oil Drilling in Some Federal Waters (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Edit: Bloomberg seems to have broken this story

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Better to have done this than not to have done this... but the republicans have the supreme court and violently do not care about the rules. The mainstream media has also preemptively surrendered to this wave of fascism.

Given that context it feels very dangerous to engage in the fantasy thinking that these types of actions will pose more than a roadbump to fascists in power, not saying we shouldn't do them just I think we are all still stuck in some way or another in a mode of thinking where we want to believe we can win the game by playing by rules that our enemy was specifically elected to destroy because the general population is angry and desperate.

Buckle up :(

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Permanently meaning ~1 week.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Probably much more than 1 week

While section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act gives a president wide leeway to bar drilling, it does not include language that would allow Mr. Trump or any future president to revoke a ban.

That was tested after President Barack Obama banned offshore drilling in parts of the Arctic Ocean and dozens of canyons in the Atlantic Ocean. During his first term in office Mr. Trump tried to revoke the ban. In 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason in Alaska ruled that Mr. Obama’s ban could not be undone without an act of Congress.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

act of Congress

They have congress

republicans have only gotten more "maga" than last time

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Maybe. That assumes the SCOTUS actually gives a damn, which they've routinely shown that they don't.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It would take months to go through court system until SCOTUS finally make a decision. In the worst case, even if they overturn the decision to protect waters, it would still delay drilling.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or he could just ask Congress to reverse it, done.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

They could indeed. I hope not.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 53 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If one president can permanently ban it, the next can permanently allow it. As if Trump cabinet will care about law, anyway.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 47 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It is based on the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which allows presidents to protect waters, but it does not allow for that permission to be revoked. So if Trump wants to revoke it, he has to change the law. The Democrats will try to slow it down and the legal system in the US works well enough to allow such projects to be put on hold for some time. It probably is not going to stop Trump, but it will slow things down, which is good.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 23 points 3 days ago

“By executive order I’m allowing you to drill here” drilling starts
Company gets sued
Makes its way to SCOTUS
SCOTUS rules it’s okay based on the earlier case about presidential acts being legal while in office

This is a perfect test for that ruling to give it credibility and make it stand up.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Or he can ignore the law and suffer no consequences...

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 days ago

Consequences! Hah! You’re joking right?

[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

By that logic Biden should make every single piece of water that touches the US protected and then force Trump to be the most pro environmental president ever! DO IT NOW BIDEN ADMINISTRATION!!!!!

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It'll just get restored by the next republican in office.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It's not that simple; it will require either courts to invalidate part of a law, or congress to change the law

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah, except that thanks to the sitouts he now has both.

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Or the companies to do it anyway, and the president gives police protection to prevent any court officers from enacting any judgement against the company.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

Check out my comment here

It’s entirely possible that’s exactly what will happen.

[–] baggins@beehaw.org 3 points 3 days ago

Does this mean the Tango Shit Gibbon will not be able to? If so why isn't Biden moving heaven and earth for things like this?