this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2026
547 points (96.8% liked)

Climate

9075 readers
94 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ImmortalColeSlaw@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I too have heard that argument but unfortunately those are usually the people who won't see reason. I rarely try to argue with them unless they express some type of will to learn or seem like they're questioning their beliefs. Some people just like to complain and refuse to help themselves, sad but true.

The real solution would be having more than 2 parties. I mean, TECHNICALLY we do but not really.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The real solution would be having more than 2 parties. I mean, TECHNICALLY we do but not really.

You are going to have to fundamentally change the way we vote and how we count them. In a single-choice-vote, plurality system it will mathematically trend toward having exactly two viable choices, no matter how many are allowed on the ballot.

Mixed-member proportional would probably work well for the House and Senate, and some judicial/executive positions. Where that's not tenable (President, Governor, etc.) a Condorcet Method should be employed.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Plenty of Dems run on election reform to enable third party viability. Gotta vote in the primaries.

[–] LeighWeighTacoma@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I believe the system is fundamentally broken but I still participate because you can't fix it by doing nothing. But yes, my coworkers are not people who's opinions will be changed by fact and reason. They're also the same people who say, "facts don't care about your feelings." Imagine that. But then they get all bent out of shape about how "no one is doing anything about this!" but then refuse to vote. My guy, you're not doing anything either!