this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
679 points (99.6% liked)

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

5197 readers
741 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bill@fedia.io 118 points 1 year ago (1 children)

44% of PROFITS, not gross income.

Which means that even if companies were actually charged for the mess they made, they would be operating in the black AND their profits would still be 66% of normal.

[–] sacredbirdman@kbin.social 83 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'll be that guy.. 56% of normal

[–] CraigeryTheKid@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh look here everyone, it's the math guy!

[–] IndefiniteBen@feddit.nl 15 points 1 year ago

Probably got some fancy education like primary school.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Koof_on_the_Roof@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think you will find most companies expect 110% minimum….

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kichae@kbin.social 113 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So, they'd still be wildly profitable, then?

Huh.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 53 points 1 year ago (3 children)

'Wildly profitable' would not be enough to them.

'Extremely profitable' would not be enough to them.

'Insanely profitable' would not be enough to them.

Infinite growth is one hell of a drug.

[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See also: any other form of cancer.

[–] NightAuthor@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Infinite growth, until you kill your host. In this case the host is the whole human population.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, the whole world.

Will it recover? Maybe. Life is resilient.

But we've already presided over a pretty quick mass extinction that is still ongoing.

[–] Neon_Dystopia@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Life on earth has recovered from several mass extinctions, life finds a way. Humans are cooked though. Best of luck to the next sapient species to evolve.

[–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The only time infinite growth would be possible is if we became a space faring species and colonized other planets. That would allow us to continue population growth.

Outside of that, infinite growth is impossible since there’s only so many people on this planet and even less who can afford their products.

[–] jandar_fett@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism and infinite growth is a microcosm of an organisms drive for infinite growth, which is usually curtailed by all sorts of biological and evolutionsry processes. Like space limitations and scarcity of resources, and I'm trying to figure out what is different between the individuals that form these mega corps and the average organism.

I dunno. Is this a stupid train of thought?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 15 points 1 year ago

Yeah it really drives home just how fucking cooked the situation is.

Sorry kids the biosphere is fucked and human society is an echo of what it once was but there were some rich people who didn't want to be slightly less rich than they already were.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Huh that's very reasonable actually. Generous even. Now let's see what they can pay workers.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As little as they can get away with. And then they'll brag about record profits.

[–] NightAuthor@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I was thinking… only of their profits? So they can afford to still make a shitload of money and not put out all that pollution?

[–] Denvil@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean this is paying for damages, not fixing the pollution

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I’d like to see a calculation for that. It seems expenses to be more careful would be comparable, but who knows.

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago

So, 44% of their profits are in fact 100% of our futures? That money didn't come from nowhere. All of us will pay that debt. Reporting needs to start reflecting that, and legislation needs to be enacted to get restitution. Until then, it's all toothless.

[–] FoxyWaffles42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago

So what are we waiting for? Fuck em

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Oh no not 44% of profits! Won't somebody please think of the margins!

[–] mookulator@mander.xyz 18 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a win win

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 14 points 1 year ago

Boo fuckin' hoo. Pay up, shitbags.

[–] Nurgle@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

So 44% of corporate profits are subsidized by the fact they don’t have to pay for waste disposal.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Oh no, not 44% of the extra money that goes into the pockets of already obscenely wealthy people

[–] Sordid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago

So in other words, they can afford to pay damages for it. Make them pay!

[–] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Oh shit what will I do if a couple ceos don't get paid hundreds of millions of dollars?? Won't someone think of the billionaires and their profit margins???

Lol every single cent of profit above 250 million should be taken from them and that's being generous

[–] green_witch@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

Narrator: ... and so they never did and also got away with it.

[–] Syldon@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Fossil fuels are the main actors in this. Corporations can only use the energy we provide them with.

Fossil fuel producers will never pay damages for climate change due to political donations. You may get the odd instance now and again, where there is selective scapegoating and that will be that. The tobacco industry (AFAIK) has never paid for the damages they have caused. They poured billions into politics and offset the argument against them for decades. Fossil fuel companies are doing exactly the same thing.

So rather than finger point towards specific actors, we should be sorting our political systems out. Political donations need to be banned. Campaigns should only be allowed to run through a single channel that is funded by the country. All other types of political advertising should be stopped. It is well known that the most successful campaigns have a price tag attached. Therefore it is easy to buy votes with campaigns. Moreso in a FPTP system. While we allow political donations we will never stop egregious profiteering without consequences.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] normalbeet@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago

And what if everyone were honest about what these "damages" should be?

Even this fantasy scenario of consequences is an incredibly low-balled Cost of Doing Business of murder.

[–] Echo71Niner@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Even with the fine, their huge profits hardly change. This shows that the penalty isn't enough to discourage pollution. Stronger actions are necessary to make companies responsible.

[–] PrinzMegahertz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

So it means we could start saving the world if corporations let go of less than half of their profits?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

They would still be insanely wealthy, even with 44% less profit.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yes please!

[–] theendismeh@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's one of the things that infuriates me when I hear refusals to address climate change: the "business as usual" way of doing things entails externalising countless costs, meaning comparing costs is an apples-and-oranges endeavour.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

Who gets paid the damages? Countries that will just keep subsidising these industries to the detriment of everyone?

[–] Landmammals@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's called internalizing the externalities, and desperately needs to happen.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago
[–] Rand0mA@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I haven't read the article, but it sounds fair that they should pay for it. Fuck em.

[–] Darkard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

But don't forget, the climate crisis is a hoax, but if it isn't then it's your fault for not recycling hard enough

[–] blazera@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Corporate pollution and your pollution are the same thing

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Say there is a manufactured necessity. One cannot reasonably make it themselves or go without it. The manufacturer chooses to skimp on pollution controls or illegally dump so that the owners can make more money. How is that my fault?

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

big oil literally destroyed public transit so we'd be dependent on their products. believe me, living without a car is hard and I'm lucky enough to make it work. and the situation is artificially created for the benefit of the oil and auto industries

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, I went without a car for several months in a large US city that theoretically is decent for public transit and my life became much more difficult. I was able to make it work, but it has seemed barely sustainable. Now I live somewhere (not by choice really) that is completely impossible without a car/delivery... unless I spend hours a day walking, which would be very hazardous due to everyone else's cars.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Here's a simple idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle

Speaking from experience, it can also make teens more responsible with alcohol if they know who will have to clean up in case of overdoing.

load more comments
view more: next ›