this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)

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

6805 readers
655 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
50
A New Concept for Fighting Climate Change | A growing number of climate activists are taking up a fresh idea as a rallying cry and a legal strategy: Nature, in all its manifestations, is alive. (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm not so sure this is really new; it's something that's been around for decades, albeit in a marginal kind of way, with a scientific understanding of cause and effect being far more central.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] GuilhermePelayo@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

I believe the concept of nature is weird for some people and also not very informative. For uninterested people nature is everything that is green or outside of cities. I've actually have become progressively disappointed by the number of people I directly know, that are actively afraid, grossed out or bothered by the idea of just hiking very normal and marked trails very close to cities in places without any dangerous animals. For them nature is something to fear. So even if I think the nature is a alive angle may appeal to some people I'm not sure it fixes that fear.

[โ€“] naught101@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'd say it's been around for millenia.. probably as long as language at least. Not a fresh idea globally, just for those of us who grew up in a dominionist-type world view.

I don't really understand your link to the IPCC figure..

FWIW, I think "water is alive" is only a concept that makes sense in a context where the water is interacting with other things (e.g. the hydrocycle, winds, tides, ecology). Water in the purified and stored sense isn't really... Unless it can rust it's container, I suppose. But yeah, rivers being alive makes lots of sense.