this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
108 points (82.1% liked)

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

5184 readers
644 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
108
Shoppers say they want sustainable goods, but won't pay more (www.reuters.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Figures. ๐Ÿ™„

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People are already struggling to afford to buy the unsustainable options. If an alternative is offered but the cheaper one is still available people are going to buy the unsustainable option because it's short term better than straining their paychecks even further.

The solution isn't shaming consumers for picking the cheaper, unsustainable option. The solution is taxing the ultra wealthy and the corporation's producing unsustainable food and using that money to subsidise sustainable options and massively undercut the unsustainable products.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Throughout all this I haven't understood why the only thing central authorities seem able to do is raise interest rates. Why can't the federal or provincial/state government introduce legislation to do exactly what you propose. It's so damn obvious.

It really feels like everyone is observing the ultra rich and profiteering companies make record profits and then turning around and being like 'welp, nothing we could possibly do about that' and then the bank does what it is supposed to do raises interest rates.

I know it's more complicated than I'm aware, for example if you tax the wealthy they might just leave. Well, they would certainly leave because that is what they do.

It's probably a tricky line to pull because you can't just take money from private companies and wealthy families. If we had legislation that allowed that I feel like that would be quite intense or radical, like a course of action not available in the current paradigm. It's probably that our current system is designed to protect wealthy companies and families, maybe that's how they exist in the first place and certainly how they continue to exist and get bigger at our expense.