this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
47 points (72.0% liked)

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

5136 readers
874 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
[email protected]
47
What if Everyone Did Something to Slow Climate Change? Researchers are looking at the impact that individuals’ actions can have on reducing carbon emissions — and the best ways to get people to adopt (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UsernameHere 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

1 persons individual change is not enough to matter. For individual carbon footprint changes to matter you need 100% participation across the planet to fix a small part of the problem.

To make systemic change you need the majority of voters. So around 25% participation to fix 100% of the problem.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

So to answer your question of who the shill is: I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

[–] capital 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

I'd say it's the one discouraging people from changing their habits, thereby continuing to give money to fossil fuel companies and big ag.

Yes, also vote. But discouraging people from changing is so obviously in favor of the groups you purport to be against.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

I find that comments like these seem to give the person making it license to continue doing things counter to their stated goals of reducing the affects of climate change. I'm sure it makes you feel better about doing it but I'm here to say, you can certainly make a change on your own, every single day and do not have to wait to act twice a year (in the US example) to vote to improve things.

[–] UsernameHere 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I’m not discouraging anyone from changing their habits.

I am pointing out why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to come into threads like this and say the same things you are saying:

Because focusing on individual carbon footprint requires 100% of the world to just do the right thing in order to fix a small part of the problem.

While focusing on systemic change requires the voting majority, which is closer to 25% of the population. To fix 100% of the problem.