this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
69 points (98.6% liked)

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

6960 readers
449 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
69
How reducing the U.S. military budget would also reduce emissions (grist.org)
submitted 1 day ago by solo@piefed.social to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

the world’s militaries are responsible for more than double that, at 5.5 percent.

If combined, the world’s armed forces would have the fourth highest carbon footprint, behind India, the U.S., and China.

Yet it’s been maddeningly difficult for researchers to monitor the emissions of militaries, which aren’t required to report these things.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You think this russia that cant even beat ukraine, that after 3 years is basicly bankrupt, resulted to childsoldiers, donkeys for supply and imports their other soldiers from china and NK, could fight off angry polish, usual power house blob france, eager turks, balcans who gladly would teach serbia a lesson for still refusing their war crimes, the mad lads, ladies and lados of finland and all populist lead countrys whos leaders would use this to boost their platform?

They couldnt even fight off their own mercinary revolt nore do their people care if someone marches threw their lands. As seen with kursk most of them were even glad and grateful for ukrainian troops bringing food and water because russia abandond them.

Maybe japan would even take the opportunity to regain their lost islands from the russians lol

For the china thing...yeah im full on your side. Eventhough trump is a chinese-russian puppet.

[–] Semester3383@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

This Russia can't defeat Ukraine because of all of the assistance that Ukraine has been receiving from the US in particular, but other NATO and EU countries in general. If we truly ceased all military aid, and the EU countries didn't pick up the slack, yeah, Russia would eventually roll over Ukraine. TBH, as far as the US is concerned, we've managed to bleed an enormous adversary almost dry, all without any American soldiers every being shot at (well, except for the people that had the guts and convictions to go to Ukraine and volunteer; I wish I didn't have responsibilities...).

Without aid, the war would have been over in a year; Ukraine has the will, but they didn't have the tanks, the anti-air defense systems, and so on. And on the other side of that, if the US had given them everything that they wanted up front, instead of slow-rolling 'offensive' weapons systems, Ukraine could have wrecked Russia in a year.