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

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

4744 readers
851 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 7 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
[–] DarkMessiah@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (10 children)

Kinda wish they were bragging. Might trigger the US’ competitive streak and we’d be down two major polluters rather than one.

[–] DarthFrodo@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

There's no way they would do that since climate change is a "tradegy of the commons" problem.

The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed in economics, ecology and other sciences. According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether. To exercise voluntary restraint is not a rational choice for individuals – if they did, the other users would merely supplant them – yet the predictable result is a tragedy for all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Currently, every country seeks to maximize the emissions that they are still allowed to have without being penalized (internationally, and by their own population).

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The US landed men on the moon to show the Soviets who has the better technology. All countries have already agreed that climate change is not only a problem, but that emissions have to be lowered in the Paris Agreement. Soft power is real power, so a race towards zero emissions is entirly possible. Also there are other reasons for doing it too. Right now the US has a political disliking of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and many other large oil producers. All of them would be weakend by the US lowering its own oil consumption too.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Unfortunately, the US decided to go the other direction and become a major oil producer in the last twenty years for the very reason you mention.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 1 points 7 months ago

The tragedy of the commons is an oversimplified myth, debunked before it became popular. The miracle of the commons.

load more comments (7 replies)