this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
75 points (95.2% liked)

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

4944 readers
857 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
75
China is close to peak emissions, but it doesn’t want to talk about it | A slowing economy and a surge of renewable energy are shrinking China’s carbon footprint. Beijing isn’t bragging, though. (wapo.st)
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A large part of the pollution coming from the US is due to the military. Given the approach the US used in the last cold war, I feel like this country would immediately turn to fossil-fascism

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You got a source for that? Quick googling subjects the military emits about as much as Denmark, which would make it 0.6% of overall US emissions. I wouldn't call that a large portion.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18012022/military-carbon-emissions/ https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

From your own source, the military has been extensively underreporting their emissions for as long as they've been keeping track. There's also the fact that they don't even try to research into the wider military industrial complex, simply because that would be a nearly impossible task. You're going off the title of "more than Denmark", right? This source did the math in reverse. If it were a country, it would be 47th in the world. To say that it isn't a massive polluter in it's own right is either completely disingenuous or outright lying.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying military ghg emissions aren't huge, but it's not a large part of overall US emissions. With the 59 million tones from your source, that means it accounts for about 1.2% of emissions. That's not small, but it more speaks to just how huge the US's overall emissions are.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Oh, I see now. I was simply stating "it's a huge polluter", and that got interpreted as a large percentage of emissions. It's a fair interpretation based on my wording though. The real winners are the people that now have multiple sources for the environmental harm caused by the military