this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
242 points (95.8% liked)

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

4744 readers
929 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yep, it's been well established for a while. I learned about this 25+ years ago in elementary school. But instead of doing anything since then, we added 2 billion people to the population.

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Population growth is not a cause of climate change worth paying attention to. Most of those extra two billion were born in poor countries, especially in Africa. These countries have a fraction of the per capita emissions of wealthy countries like America that are currently seeing or soon to see population decline. When we're having a conversation about how to control total emissions, it's orders of magnitude more efficient to focus on per capita emissions than on population. For one, we can reduce per capita emissions without getting into ethical issues regarding population control or economic issues like those caused by the one child policy in China.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Per capita emissions can only be calculated in relation to the total population. It's a required part of the formula.

Basically, I'd much prefer a world where 4 billion people get to live a life where pointless 'for fun' things like travel or going to a ski resort are ok emissions wise. I don't at all want a world where 20 billion people have the same amount of emissions at the 4 billion mentioned above, but with 5x less resource use per person.

What total world population do you feel is reasonable while also maintaining some semblance of quality of life?

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We can cut emissions hugely by eliminating plastic crap, building technology and tools to last, living in vibrant medium density neighbourhoods with public transit and bicycles for all, building renewable energy sources, and eliminating meat.

I wake up in the morning, ride my bike to a job where I fix old technology and make a difference, then pick up groceries from local and sustainable businesses, get some exercise and sun in on my bike, and make a delicious vegan meal like roast potatoes. I'm happier, more active, healthier, and I feel like my life makes a difference. You, meanwhile, get to ride around in your metal box having to maintain constant focus or you could kill someone, getting no exercise, and presumably eating meat that hurts animals, wastes carbon, and kills you faster. Of course you need a vacation on a plane to make you happy; your life is miserable.