this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
48 points (72.2% liked)

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

5267 readers
515 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago (11 children)

In 2005, fossil fuel company BP hired the large advertising campaign Ogilvy to popularize the idea of a carbon footprint for individuals.

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

Don’t fall for it. Only corporations pollute enough to matter. Only corporations can provide alternatives to fossil fuels. Only corporations can make a meaningful reduction to greenhouse gas emissions.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago (8 children)

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

The article discusses this, yes - along with how the carbon footprint is a good metric for individual consumption even if corporate propaganda abuses it.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

I agree with you that political action is vital. I don't agree that it's necessarily more significant than personal action. Feminists used to say "the personal is political", and it's still true. How you act in private demonstrates your commitment to the values you endorse in public and gives your voice more weight when you speak your values.

If you reduce your personal footprint, but never talk about it or encourage other people to do the same, your impact is limited to yourself. If you reduce your personal footprint, and make your actions contagious by talking about them with people you know and encouraging them to do the same, you can impact many more people, encourage them to follow your lead and reduce their footprint, and then they can encourage others to reduce their footprint, and so on and so forth.

Limiting the damage from climate change takes collective action. And collective action requires a community, and a community requires communication.

If you assume you are a lone individual and your personal decisions have no effect on anyone else, it's easy to imagine reducing your personal footprint is meaningless. If you see yourself as part of a community, and by reducing your personal footprint you encourage others in your community to do the same, you can see how much larger your impact can be.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you’re repeating the BP talking points.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Again, carbon footprint is not a BP talking point. It was a pre-existing concept that was appropriated by BP to prevent climate change legislation by shifting responsibility for climate change to individual consumers.

And then, some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don't feel guilty about it, because it doesn't matter.

In reality, both individuals and corporations bear responsibility for climate change, and both of the above arguments are corporate propaganda aimed at getting you to give up, do nothing, and buy shit.

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Saudi Aramco accounted for more than 4 percent of global emissions, Gazprom clocked over 3 percent and Coal India accounted for roughly 3 percent.

Total global emissions in 2020, including land-use change, were approximately 40 Gt. This means that Australian emissions are approximately 1.2% of global emissions

There are 26 million people in Australia. That 1.2% is obviously all Australian emissions, but let's exaggerate and say that's purely from individuals. That the footprint of all Australian citizens combined was 1.2% of global emissions.

If literally all Australians then brought their personal carbon footprint to 0, it would be a reduction of less than 1/3rd of Saudi Aramco's emissions alone.

From 2016 to 2022, 80 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions were produced by just 57 companies.

But I'm supposed to believe that I, with my ~ 1/26 million of a percent footprint, have an affect. You'll have to try a lot harder to convince me of that.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Your vote is also 1 in 26 million. Do you believe that has an effect?

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tell me you’re a fossil fuel shill without telling me you’re a fossil fuel shill

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We're actually to the point where wanting people to consume fewer fossil fuels makes me a fossil fuel shill.

Wow.

The absolute state of rhetoric today.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don’t feel guilty about it, because it doesn’t matter.

citation needed

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] John@socks.masto.host 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@stabby_cicada @UsernameHere I'm afraid I take the darkest view. That is that BP etc gave the public the full option to care about their carbon footprint, and the public decided not to.

At that point why should BP or politicians force it upon them?

Who exactly would be the "we" in that process who knows better? If it is some informed and passionate minority, that is not actually democracy.

It is a collective action failure.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Think of it like this - companies are contaminating everything with lead, because it's slightly cheaper for them

People get concerned for good reason

So some companies pay to make lead free products and sell them at a premium. They put it all over the packaging

Other companies see this, and start putting it on their packaging, despite still having an unsafe lead content

All of them do media campaigns and lobby the government, further confusing the issue

People need to buy food, and are working with limited information. They don't have the time to educate themselves over every purchase - you'd need experts dedicated to testing and compiling the data

So, for the good of everyone (the companies included) we made that. You can go to the grocery store and buy food, confident it doesn't contain large amounts of lead.

People definitely care, but systematic problems can only be solved systematically

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

Not only that, but only collective action and politics can give people the choices they need to reduce climate change.

It's no use telling people not to drive if there's no public transport system. And people can't individually will their energy to have a generation mix.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Those are important, but the act of doing things like installing solar panels, or a heat pump changes minds — and when you do it, others around you see and imitate.

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I'd rather put my money into feeding the hungry than consumption effecting nothing but my ego.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I can’t afford those things just like most of the people impacted by climate change. But maybe that’s the point of redirecting the focus to those actions.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Conclusion of the article sums it up best:

"Our true responsibility is to use our choices as political agents in the world to try to shift power, take power away from the people who are blocking the transition away from fossil fuels and give it to people who will lead into a livable future," [Genevieve Guenther, the author of “The Language of Climate Politics”] said.

Do what you can by yourself, sure, but only as a supplement to doing the hard work to solve the problem via collective and political action.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree.
But the corporations and companies that have done most of the polluting need to clean their messes up if there's going to be any change.

You, nor my neighbor, nor any of our friends dumped so much crap into nearby rivers and lakes that everything is poisoned. The corporations and companies did it.

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s cool, could we also compare that to what would happen if the wealthy and corporations also put in their fair share of individual action too?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] M500@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/business/starbucks-ceo-commute-jet-brian-niccol.html

Don’t forget, that he could just move like the rest of the employees had to.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What if every company did something?

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

I mean if every one stopped ordering from temu, it's already one problem solved and we move to the next one

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If the one thing is redacted a billionaire, you would only need 3200 people.

[–] altair222@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago

We should all work towards curbing climate change by learning how to build guillotines

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Sounds good. I'll start by telling all my corporations that blast the majority of CO2 emissions worldwide into the air to slow it down a bit.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They're mostly not blasting it directly; they're selling fossil fuels for others to blast. Changing how you commute or heat your home helps change social norms around those and lowers the rate of emissions

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] cymbal_king@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Amen!

My gas stove was leaky and could have blown up my house. So we replaced that with an induction stove, and it's all around a better experience. Same with the water heater and the EV. All of these things plus insulating the attic have been improvements to our lives with the added benefit of reducing natural gas consumption more than 20% over the past year and saving about $100/month on utilities and gasoline. It's nice that we aren't pumping air pollution directly into our house when we cook anymore.

Every bit of change we make helps, because the climate crisis is not binary. but more importantly the people who can make these changes receive the greatest upfront benefits.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Clent@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Free solar panels for everyone.

Free heat pumps for everyone.

We need everyone on free clean electricity now and cut all natural gas lines to homes, businesses and factories. Nothing else comes close to the impact of those and it will drive a change in other sectors like transportation when there is free clean electricity everywhere.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What if everybody did something to slow or reverse climate change? Like organize democratically to overthrow capitalism.

A better standard of living could be achieved with 30% of current production because of how incredibly wasteful and redundant capitalist production is. That leaves a ton of headroom for treats, and we can still strike a metabolic balance with our planet.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7n1POfYMo1I3kcy0oqSm6l

load more comments
view more: next ›