this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
16 points (90.0% liked)

Climate

8896 readers
396 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
16
Alexandra Fasulo says she’s protecting farms and wildlife. How much of her rhetoric is actually true? (heated.world)
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NamedUser@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

TLDR: Article seems shady. Article claims she doesnt support solar at all, one of the linked references ironically shows her supporting solar, instantly debunking articles own claims..

This article needs more scrutiny than the bare minimum i could provide. Its well written in the way it presents its logic, ill give it that. ——- After giving it a thorough read, theres something off about this article.

It rightfully makes an attempt to make a sketical case about fasulo and shows that she was a Q follower, but that shouldnt make anyone close the book and view her as guilty.

The article it doesnt seem to use anything thats current which supports the writers claim that shes against solar.

In fact the writer claims that Fasulo does not support solar at all but the very same reference piece to her website shows Fasulo in support of “smart solar” as she describes putting solar on buildings, freeways, parking lots, anything that seems to already be in place and to spare farmland or forests.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

Which is to say she doesn't support any utility-scale solar, which is necessary if we are going to stop burning fossil fuels

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

This is either nimby syndrome or fossil propaganda

[–] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

According to the fine article there was a solar farm going up near her that would have interfered with protected wildlife, and she was upset that the local government was unresponsive to the people. This is the same justified anger people have at data centers being built near them.

However, she moved from that to claiming we don't need solar anywhere. She doesn't believe in human caused global warming, so from her completely unscientific worldview solar is just evil. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] jafra@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

Her initial fight doesn't seem legit, i guess she is fossil money from the start? A beatiful face with some semi-credibility that can be influenced easily. I wasn't able to find much on photopholtaic-related dangers for birds, why are there so much concerns? The FortEdwardProject wasn't on protected land, just next to it. So fair game for any oil or datacenter project, so again this is quite irrational. This basically leaves peoples fears as basis of her popularity, like the article shortly mentions.

[–] NamedUser@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Last edit: never mind i thoroughly read the article and it falsely makes claims that she did not make such as her not supporting solar when she does in-fact support it.

Sure be skeptical of her past but dont let that blind you in to imagining more than it is. Thats where this article is good at, leaving important details for imagination. ——- Edit: finally got to reading it, saw that she was a Q follower thats enough to convince me thats shes not to be trusted. Thats quite disappointing

——

Ill edit and leave my original point since its still a valid reason for someone genuine to oppose solar farms.

Solar panels belong in cities wheres there’s plenty of rooftops. So its valid to be against solar FARMS

[–] thethrilloftime69@feddit.online 2 points 1 week ago

It's insane the way influencers are bought to lie. There's no way to know who is earnest and who is an idiot.