this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
756 points (99.0% liked)

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

6604 readers
515 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
 

Access options:

Yes, this means a ton of carbon ends up in the atmosphere instead of in the trees. The right move would be thinning and prescribed burns, but this administration isn't going to do that.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 242 points 1 month ago (65 children)

These are our forests. They belong to the US people. They're being stolen from us. For private profit of a few.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 63 points 1 month ago

It's an American tradition.

load more comments (64 replies)
[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 150 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck. This kind of shit is why I feel the need for revenge on these people. They're slashing forests and impoverishing the population. It's not enough for them to lose an election. they need to pay

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago

I want my pound of fucking flesh.

[–] PantanoPete@lemmy.zip 67 points 1 month ago (8 children)

America is a dumpster fire lol, they have all these "checks and balances" but then one guy can just make all the trade policy and land use decisions by decree. What even is the point of their congress

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 month ago

The problem is that Congress is controlled by people who are Trump sycophants — the Republican Party kicked out everybody who wasn't.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

All governments at some level run on the honor system. When the whole government colludes to not honor the system, you get this.

[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago

Problem is that both houses majorities support the lunatic, right now they've more or less given him a blank check to operate.

Historically, the two party system has meant that Congress either votes with the presidents wishes or against when it comes to legislation, but Congress doesn't directly approve/disprove of executive orders. To oppose executive orders, Congress needs to pass laws that override the orders. That wont happen unless the majority becomes convinced they'll lose elections if they keep supporting trump.

It'll be up to the Judicial Branch to directly rule for/against this order. But the judicial branch only truly has power so long as the executive complies. We're close to hitting the test of that power balance on some of his earlier orders.

Fun fact: the law enforcement of the Judicial Branch is technically an agency under the Executive Branch. Not a problem if people are largely operating in good faith with the law, or at least fear repurcussions if they don't comply... But since Trump doesn't fear repurcussion, this fun fact may be the oversight that breaks the consitution.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BarelyAdulting@midwest.social 52 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We get 30% of our lumber from Canada. This is the inevitable consequence of shutting our borders to trade via tariffs - if these policies stick around for four years, sure, we may bring some manufacturing home at great immediate cost, but we'll also be bringing home the environmental burdens of manufacturing (the negative externalities) which we've been pushing onto other countries and ignoring for decades. In the meantime, other countries have started to learn how to handle those externalities, like China's big push for solar power. In America, we've got an idiot who is rolling back worker safety, health and environmental protections, the list goes on. So even if these tariffs worked, we're going to be living in a less healthy place, all in the name of jobs...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This has nothing to do with the tariffs; even if those weren't happening Trump would be selling the trees off to his cronies anyway. It's a blatantly corrupt kleptocracy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] brightandshinyobject@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago

The trees can't be harmed if the lorax is armed. You touch his trees, he aims for your knees.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Trump has two legs. Just sayin

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Trump is speedrunning to aim for the lowest biodiversity index in North America.

Maybe if we stop ridiculously subisidising corn everywhere, some that gets thrown away because we have way too much, we could replace a couple dozen sq km of corn fields with more sustainable agroforestry, and thereby massively increase our logging output, instead of yk, cutting down the last wildlife sanctuaries? Not holding my breath tho.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The absolute level of stupidity of this is ridiculous. Lumber mills are not designed for old growth trees in the modern era, so all these trees will not even become lumber. Logging has become very sustainable in recent decades. They farm trees and mill them when they reach the size that the machinery at the mills is optimized for. If we just cut down all the forests, the mills can't even process the logs even though it's better lumber. In reality, they'd just send the old growth logs to be ground for pulp which is a total waste. This video does a good job explaining it.

https://youtu.be/efs5-FCVWvg

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think Trump is clearing land for the techno-fiefs that Project 2025 wants to create among the head fascists. He hands out land parcels, gets a reacharound from Thiel and company.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mosscap@slrpnk.net 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My body is not ready for the amount of alcohol and dancing I am going to force myself to take part in on the day this motherfucker dies and goes to hell.

Literally, the most destructive and evil human on the planet since Hitler. I can't wait until the worms get him. I kind of feel bad for them, but I guess it's part of the job.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 33 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Cutting down old growth Forrest take 50 years to repair the area after its stopped. What a mess.

[–] YesButActuallyMaybe@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Way longer than that. What grows back is not old growth

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 10 points 1 month ago

Yep, can't fix it in our lifetime

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

More like 150-300 if possible at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Viskio_Neta_Kafo@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

One of the many reasons I'm pissed at his voters every single day.

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Finally, a good move by Trump. Those trees are taking up incredible amounts of water. This is water that could be used for more productive things, like being mixed with Kool-aid powder on a hot day. Moreover, the trees emit large amounts of oxygen, a dangerous corrosive gas. Don't listen to liberals -- tree hugging is a dangerous activity that can lead to abrasions from all the bark.

If there's anything I learned from Dr. Seuss' "The Lorax", logging can lead to impressive industrial and commercial activity and has no downsides.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] the_q@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I got a mod deletion the last time I said anything like this. Good luck and I fucking agree.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Holy shit, America, you are so fucked at this point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stormdahl@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

That is just... Insane. Incredibly sad.

[–] Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

RIP My first thought. Seems appropriate.

Just fyi, I'm pointing out Trump's similarities to an evil villain. I'm not using this to agree. I'm very much against this, having grown up in the woods (practically raised by my local forest, as my mother was an awful drunk and single parent) and I spent most of my youth walking through the peace and quiet of the trees.

I grew up with my mother seeing nothing but my father in me, and was abused for it. Those trees gave me the shelter I needed and I would have been 100x more a mess if I didn't have them. So no. Don't take my fucking trees en masse.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 21 points 1 month ago
[–] GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 month ago (14 children)

Then i guess it's time to start living up to the old namesake.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] pelicans_plight@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I predict that any company that participates in destroying the parks will end up even worse off then Tesla. I've been a hiker my whole life and I've met a lot of retired military on the trail.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 month ago
[–] falkerie71@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (5 children)

So I just want to chime in here as an outsider. From what I searched, national forests are different from national parks in that, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted for commercial and personal use.

Trump's order cites wildfire, insect and disease outbreak as the reason for this change (Biden also sought more logging to combat fire but apparently timber sales did not change much during his tenure). While I agree that forest management is important, Trump had also put tariffs on Canadian lumber and cut down jobs for national park workers. It's not hard to question if there are other motivations other than wildfire prevention in this context.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Gee, why wouldn't I want to cede my country to American management and become the 51st state? You guys are knocking it out of the park, no pun intended.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Save a forest, shoot a ...

Wait, where's the line where what I say gets me banned again?

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 12 points 1 month ago

In my experience, that line was mostly left over on Reddit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Those are our national Forests, they don't belong to fascist billionaires like Trump and Musk! Resist, fight back, and let's tell these Nazis they can't strip our environment, government, healthcare and democracy to give tax breaks to rich people...

load more comments
view more: next ›