this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
17 points (84.0% liked)

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

5387 readers
486 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
 

This article has significant interactive elements which are broken on archive sites. Actually accessing the content means registering so you can take advantage of the gift link

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chillinit@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 2 weeks ago

It's because they know nothing different and are justifiably afraid of change initiated by governance.

I'm going to guess WaPo makes an emotional/psychological argument. If I were trying to mislead the masses I'd tell them that everyone else enjoys their daily commute and uses it as a time to destress.

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

For me, I don’t like living that close to people. People, in general, are horribly inconsiderate. They make a lot of noise, they smell. The fewer people I can see the better.

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

For me, I don't like living that close to cars. Cars, in general, are horrible~~ly inconsiderate~~. They make a lot of noise, they smell. The fewer cars I can see, the better.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 10 points 2 weeks ago

Be poor and you can have the worst of both worlds: crowded, poorly constructed affordable housing with this walls, built next to a freeway.

[–] ximtor@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Why not both? Well I guess thats kinda hard..but both of you are right..

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

lol ride a horse. Live in the country. Win-win.

Or, buy electric.

[–] badlilbean@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

For me, I don’t like living that close to horses. Horses, in general, are horribly inconsiderate. They make a lot of noise, they smell. The fewer horses I can see the better.

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So get a bike. Live in the country. Win win

Or, an electric car.

[–] droporain@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bike to get a weeks worth of groceries?

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Comes with an optional electric assist.

[–] droporain@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Shucks I just wanted to live in a fantasy where I grew my own veggies and slaughtered my own meat.

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 0 points 2 weeks ago

You still can. But you have options.

[–] shikitohno@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Having lived in both, I rather like being in a dense neighborhood like I am at the moment, but long term, I simply doubt I'll be able to afford it, which I think may be a pretty significant factor for many people. I already live at the extreme northern edge of my city, but if my rent goes up by more than another few hundred dollars a month, I doubt I could afford to find another place in the city that isn't in a terrible neighborhood. NIMBYs make sure that the housing crisis keeps going strong, aided by the byzantine process of community board review for any project that doesn't manage to get killed early on.

Prices are going up in all the similarly dense cities in my region. My options for the future look likely to be sprawl in my home region, with somewhat tolerable conditions despite bad Democratic policies, or sprawl in another state, with worse conditions and worse Republican policies. It's unlikely I could even afford a place in a nice urban region in red states, as their lower cost of living tends to go hand in hand with substantially lower wages. I looked into it at one point, and while apartments in that city were much nicer for maybe 40% of the cost, I would have had to take about a 50% pay cut, while also needing to buy and maintain multiple motor vehicles, as public transit was essentially nonexistent there.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

I also prefer dense, urban living, but currently not in that situation. Working in tech in a tech hub blue city in a red state. Relatively lower cost of living, but above average pay. But yes, public transportation is almost non-existent, and you have to deal with the state trying to screw your city over all the time because of politics.

[–] muzzle@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The archive link is just missing a few photos. No need to register:

https://archive.is/Ccoec