this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
111 points (100.0% liked)

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

6997 readers
296 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
 

Large-scale tree planting can remove some CO2 from the atmosphere, but nowhere near as much as humans add by extracting and burning fossil fuels. See https://skepticalscience.com/1-trillion-trees-impact.html for a detailed assessment of what this looks like.

The IPCC has a chart showing what actions need to be taken over the next few years. Afforestation is one piece of many things, all of which we need to do.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Thepinyaroma@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If conservatives (or dems) were smart they'd lean hard into something like the CCC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps?wprov=sfla1

Teach young people life skills, lift a whole generation out of poverty, plant and manage forests, fix up our infrastructure... So much could be done. A modern, environment-focused CCC would be revolutionary, and I would bet whoever runs with some form of that idea first sweeps the following elections.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It was proposed as part of the Green New Deal but hasn't been able to meaningful funding through the Senate. Too many Republicans working with a handful of bought-off Democrats

[–] Thepinyaroma@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I didn't know that! Neat. I hope it stays a part of the conversation.

[–] Arotrios@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

We actually had that through the VISTA and Americorps programs in the 90s and early 2000s (I believe Americorps is still around). I was a volunteer for VISTA in 2003, just as the Bush Administration shredded the program. They signed us up on the promise that our student loans would have their payments covered while we volunteered, then refused to deliver for six months. It wasn't until then Senator Hillary Clinton got involved that they reversed their decision, and by that time I and half the class were forced by financial reasons to drop out of the program. The living stipend they gave us was only $740 a month, and we were forbidden to take outside jobs. Throw student loan payments on top of that and there was no way to survive.

The Bush admin knew this, and they continued to dismantle the program, using the disastrous drop-out rates of the class of 2003 as an excuse for further cuts. VISTA is now gone, and with it the specific part of Americorps that was focused on poverty relief.

The reason we don't have these programs anymore is because the conservatives have deliberately dismantled them, not because the left hasn't tried again and again to use government towards building real value in our society.

[–] Thepinyaroma@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My favorite part about history is learning how conservatives fucked up things that used to be good.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

We should really just call them regressives because that is what they are.

[–] DatzIT@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bet this would somehow this would turn into gov handouts to logging companies.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

It's the only reason neoliberals do anything.

There was a post the other day about how painting rooftops white could reduce temperatures, with a small handful of people saying they'd "consider it when their roof needed replacing".

The only way that idea would have an impact is if there were strong regulations and incentives backing it to encourage widespread adoption.

The only way we'd ever get those regulations from a neoliberal politician is if they had shares in a white paint company.

[–] BurnTheRight@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

THIS. IS. A. PLOY.

Every thought uttered by a conservative is deception, manipulation or profoundly incorrect. Every proposal made by the GOP is designed to financially benefit them or harm others. Every time. This is not some magical moment in which they've decided to become humans. They are lying.

Conservatives (including neo-liberals) are the henchmen for corporate interests and should never be trusted. Do not take them at their word. Their word is always deception. Always.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

A trillion? Do they know how many trees that is, and how long that would take?

[–] BurnTheRight@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

Conservatives do not believe in math or science... So, no.

[–] Generic_Handel@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

I think many Republicans have always had the opinion of "we will just fix it when or if it becomes a problem", despite the fact that most studies (and common sense) has shown that it will be harder and harder (and more expensive) the longer we wait, or possibly not fixable at all.
So to answer your question: No, they have no fucking clue how long it will take or how much it will cost to plant 1 trillion trees.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It would take much longer for the trees to become effective carbon capture utilities than the destruction caused by coal mines and fossil fuels the Rs would likely push alongside their newfound climate wisdom.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Trees are expensive, and planting trees means you can hire workers to perform back breaking work for little pay. It's surprising that republicans are just now realizing that they can grift this to hell and back.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Most trees are not expensive if you plant them from seed or buy them as a small sapling.

Source: I buy/grow a lot of trees and browse a lot of nurseries.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Sure. But whatever cost it is times a trillion is a lot, and there's a multiplicative effect. The value of the trees will compound over time, and very likely private entities will be able to harvest those trees for sale. A non zero amount of any proceeds will eventually make their way into politicians' donations.

[–] Metaright@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The link to that chart appears to be broken.

[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm still down to see them try. We could always use more trees and a trillion seems like a fine addition to our collection.

[–] pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago

I'm worried this is an excuse to divert funds away from more practical solutions

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I always thought we should plant hybrid poplar or maybe empress trees. Then coppice and turn the wood to biochar.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

You can do it multiple times and take cuttings to grow new trees. I dont know how much land a pig farm needs, but if it's like chicken factories, they basically live in cramped spaces. So you can dump the biochar into the pig shit. Let it soak up the nutrients and then fertilize the stumps.

The biochar is now stable carbon that will be sequestered in the ground for hundreds of years

load more comments
view more: next ›