this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
87 points (98.9% liked)

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

6580 readers
385 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
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

They should just ban the sale of spark plugs, fuel injectors, pistons, timing belts, exhaust pipes, etc. one by one each time one of these bills gets passed. You can buy an ICE vehicle if you want but you better know someone who will drive you to Nevada to get spare parts.

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 27 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I remember when repugnacans championed states’ rights.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 22 points 3 hours ago

I don't.

I remember when American conservatives in the '60s claimed to support states' rights. But what they actually supported was segregation and Jim Crow. They used "states' rights" as a rhetorical tool to hide their racism behind a facade of principle, just like the Confederacy had a hundred years prior.

Among the American right, only useful idiots (like libertarians) actually believed in states' rights - or small government rhetoric in general - as a principle. It was always empty rhetoric. And now that Republicans are openly supporting Trump's big government authoritarian conservatism, it's become obvious how badly the Ron Paul types were used.

[–] 1995ToyotaCorolla@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

~red~ STATES RIGHTS

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago

I just have to wonder how much longer California will be in the United States to be subject to these kind of actions.

[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

As a gearhead, this is the one thing that I agree with the Republicans on this one. I like the instant torque of electric cars, but I also appreciate a Asian sports car with an LS swapped in, mated to a manual 6 speed transmission. Nothing more fun than driving a tiny, manual car with a big, angry V8 under the hood. I like both and I want to have the choice to own both.

The vast majority of pollution comes from corporations. Stop punishing everyday people for being a raindrop in the ocean.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That could've been an option if action was taken against big polluters decades ago, but we're now at the point that we need collective action to prevent our world from becoming an awful place to live in, and death for those living in more vulnerable areas.

The vast majority of pollution comes from corporations. Stop punishing everyday people for being a raindrop in the ocean.

It's not a raindrop, unfortunately.

Transportation is responsible for roughly 24% of global emissions, of which 18% is made up of personal cars and trucking.

Reducing car usage on a mass scale would be a massive help in stemming climate change, and the only way to do that is by each of us collectively using more efficient means of transport, whether that's public transport, ebikes, or electric cars if necessary.

Maybe it might be helpful if we start thinking about climate change as a war, and like in some wars past, it will require war rationing to win it. The corporations will never stop polluting as long as it's profitable, and many if not most governments around the world are now corporate captured, meaning we have few effective means of muzzling their emissions.

That leaves it up to us, as individuals, to make the hard choices for the sake of the planet. Reducing our usage of polluting cars, meat consumption (the alternative meats like Impossible are incredible replacements), and purchasing of non-essential high-emission luxury goods is the most powerful weapon we have in this war. It'd be a travesty not to use it.

[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Well maybe we wouldn't be so reliant on cars of we had decent public transportation infrastructure.

Banning things doesn't solve anything; never has, never will. Making things better/more accessible—so that you don't have to ban anything—is always the right way to go. See example A: The war on drugs.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 36 seconds ago)

I dearly wish we had better public transport as well.

But in the event that it does not improve, either due to lack of political will or other reasons, that'd pretty much leave us with making collective personal choices as the only viable option again, whether or not internal combustion vehicles are banned.