this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
120 points (86.6% liked)

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

5186 readers
829 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
120
Taylor Swift's love story with Travis Kelce generates 138 TONS of CO2 in 3 months (www.thenews.com.pk)
submitted 10 months ago by iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 65 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Is it weird that the only celebrity who's getting a public print of emissions is one that is despised by a political party for getting people out to vote?

I don't really care much about her, but this feels like "how do we get young people to not listen to this person... ah, let's go with emissions".

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m sure that doesn’t hurt, but I think it’s primarily from being #1 on that list of private jet emissions. Easiest to remember who #1 is and keep talking about that.

And well, she’s welcome to stop doing it. The republicans aren’t making her fly this much. I still think it’s a net positive if she inspires enough turnout to defeat Trump in 2024, but it’s still singularly her choice to send that plane up there and don’t think it’s that good for the environment.

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago

Oh no. It's not good, and we should probably lambast the top 10 after the election. Right now, it just feels like the trap is communicating republican propaganda. We know how good they are for the environment, and the cost to the planet will be far greater...