this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
1364 points (99.3% liked)

Climate

8409 readers
326 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

China burns coal to produce them, so there's no shipping since they have coal.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wake me when China invades a country because they have coal.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ya, they dont give a shit about the environment. Hence why we produce all our goods there, as we theoretically self flagellate ourselves for climate change.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

When I see a response like this I am reminded of "Americans wanting to be right at the cost of doing what is good." At a certain point you should ask what is the intention behind your words?

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

A righteous thing isnt to run on climate change issues with no plan to affect things because you don't want to touch imports.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 22 hours ago

Okay, but why start the framing as a problem with China? Last I checked their carbon emissions have flatlined, if we were to shift that manufacturing home it would likely be more carbon intensive due to our own inefficiencies. We could import green infrastructure but we're a failing petro-state so here we are....

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

China is actually one of the very few countries meeting its commitments so far. They're even a bit ahead of schedule: renewable and nuclear power plants, fleet electrification (cars and trucks, plus advanced railways), planting large forests, etc.

Granted that won't be sufficient, they should do more and faster, and they now see coming issues with the degradation of their soils and their water resources. But during that same time period, western countries rolled back environment policies and came back on their promises, going further and further away from adverting a catastrophe.