this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
465 points (99.4% liked)

Climate

8418 readers
230 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
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Get any an all relatives you have to stop using Amazon, if they do.

My mom is off the grid and she has me order things through Amazon for her occasionally.

Am gonna have to talk to her and see if I can get the items she likes, from different sources.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even if you do stop using Amazon directly, AWS is their real money maker and still runs an obscene amount of the internet.

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

We should probably boycott the Internet.

[–] bearboiblake@pawb.social -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Boycotts are notoriously ineffective, especially if they aren't organized, especially if they don't have a set goal. Boycott all you like but don't waste your valuable energy you could be spending organizing, getting involved in local advocacy, joining/building a union and preparing for the revolution - it's coming sooner or later

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

Oh yeah.. but NGL, it's the little actions that can snowball. If I can get mom to get her friends groups to move away from Amazon (she only found the items she likes by hearing from a friend that uses Amazon) and opt for secondary sources.. I'll start with that and for sure, am already networking with friends and businesses locally to get people engaged in stopping this goose-stepping march into the 4th Reich we're on..

[–] how_we_burned@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It's so silly. Even if you don't understand the science of climate change (which isn't that fucking hard to understand) you can definitely understand this;

  • Solar PV + Battery: ~2.0–2.7 USD/W (2.4~ $/kW)
  • Solar PV standalone: ~1.33–2.74 USD/W
  • Wind (onshore): ~1.46–5.9 USD/W
  • Hydro: ~3.0–5.9 USD/W
  • Coal: ~3.1–5.5 USD/W
  • Natural Gas (combined cycle): ~1.06–1.2 USD/W
  • Oil/peakers (simple turbines): ~0.8–2.6 USD/W
  • Nuclear: ~6.7–8.0 USD/W

Even with batteries solar has the greatest fricken ROI in this list at the cheapest cost.

Fossil fuels are finite. After you pay back your solar panel capex your opex is barely anything and for the next 20-30 you have free fucking energy.

Jeebus, even if you don't give a shit about the environment picking anything but renewables is like the dumbest decision you can use your money on.

[–] sharuum@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

It may become cheaper once they cut all the various safety and environmental regulations

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Like the NYT, they weren't that reliable on it either way.

In general, if journalists took climate change seriously, most of media would be about it; most screens would be half about it, with tickers and banners constantly on it. The anti-alarmists are the half-assers who took the air out of it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

A big joke about these mainstream publications is how quickly they'd open their pockets to accept fossil fuel industry native advertisement money. WaPo, NYT, WSJ, The Economist, et al - they'd always have some kind of AEI industry flak or Heartland Institute goober or Saudi stooge pen an Op-Ed about how fossil fuels are inescapable and alternatives don't work / cost too much / have a secret downside orders of magnitude worse than O&G.

It was the same "We Report, You Decide" bullshit that FOX News played out in big bold letters for their rube base. The fishwrap editions just knew how to play their cards closer to the chest.

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

They're already talking about just taking Greenland, and probably Antarctica. Climate change is locked in.

[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 1 month ago

Bezos’s conscience died decades ago

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

They do buy a lot of electricity generated by wind and solar. They also buy a huge amount generated using fossil fuels. Amazon got kicked out of the Science Based Targets Initiative because they weren't willing to actually go ahead with getting off of fossil fuels.

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Absolute ghoul.

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Can't wait to watch the Seattle Kraken play at Climate Pledge Arena, which Amazon bestowed that name upon.