this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
109 points (98.2% liked)

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

5212 readers
674 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
109
Australian red meat industry says it doesn’t need to meet its self-imposed net zero target (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11740609

Prof Mark Howden, the director of the Australian National University Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, said the sector’s net zero target is “effectively not possible”.

“It’s pretty well embedded in the public consciousness that red meat is high profile in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per serve,” Howden said.

“I suspect the industry saw this as a fundamental threat to their future … A few years ago everybody was kind of jumping on the net zero bandwagon without actually thinking through what it actually meant,” he said.

The CSIRO found the industry would fall short of meeting its net zero target, and instead recommended the adoption of a “climate-neutral” target that would require a reduction of methane emissions rather their complete elimination.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 37 points 9 months ago (15 children)

The meat industry is one of the worst polluters, and one of the least ethical you’ll find anywhere on this planet. Expecting anything, anything at all from them is blatantly stupid.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I suspect that unethical may not be the best word to describe their attitude. I mean their behaviour is in many ways unethical, but those engaged in the practice just don't have the same perspective that the rest of us do.

That said, if it were profitable to be net zero they would achieve that next week.

[–] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space 2 points 9 months ago

If only there was some kind of carbon tax that took from the profits of polluting companies!

load more comments (13 replies)