this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
315 points (99.4% liked)

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

5229 readers
610 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
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] solarvector@lemmy.zip 57 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It is much easier to set distant goals, lobby to ensure you're not required to keep those goals, say "see, we don't need rules, we're voluntarily doing the right thing!", and then shift the goalposts when you get closer to the deadline. Step 3 isn't profit, profit is what you get from every step of fucking over every living thing on the planet. Except Burmese pythons and mosquitoes I guess.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

As annoying as mosquitos are, they are also pollinators.

[–] xep@fedia.io 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Considering that they cause the deaths of about 700 000 people a year, they're a bit more than annoying.

[–] Bimbleby@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

They are more than Shell to lower carbon emissions?

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Are mosquitoes pollinators? I thought that was more a thing of the bigger insects ?

[–] solarvector@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago

Very true, but my point was they're on the short list of creatures whose lives are not made worse by the people running, investing in, or profiting from Shell.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 46 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Who would be so naive as to treat an oil company's climate "goals" as having any sort of credibility in the first place?

[–] erictile@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

That's not naivete, that's just corruption.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 27 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Anytime a corporation makes a commitment that is not binding, you should consider that commitment entirely meaningless.

It should not get any press. You should not talk about it say anything about it or think about it.

At least not until they renege at which point you should shame them for making it in the first place.

If any of these companies were at all serious about their goals they would have some kind of a financial commitment to that goal. Some kind of a serious penalty for not achieving it. They would not have an escape hatch on it of any sort other than full on bankruptcy.

Shell was always completely unserious about these climate pledges. It was just advertising. And advertising for a fossil fuel company is a tool for selling more fossil fuels and nothing else, meaning these pledges weren't just unserious but they were actual lies and deceit.

Edit: the relevant Climate Town

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 7 months ago

A Dutch saying comes to mind.

"Dood gaan we allemaal. Shell helpt"

(We all die eventually. Shell helps.)

[–] parpol@programming.dev 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

People need to abandon shell. Bicycling is great.

[–] baru@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Bicycling is great.

Only if the cheap infrastructure is good. It's almost always terrible except in the Netherlands. I don't think Copenhagen has good cycling infrastructure btw and I did cycle there. Even in the Netherlands there's still loads of issues.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Bicycling should be pushed (and frankly, at this point forced) by the government. Loads of car infrastructure should be tore up and replace with cycling infrastructure. Cities should change those dead suburbs into places for people by making small modifications. Allow multi purpose buildings, allow smaller shops and restaurants there, tear up the ultra wide roads and replace them with small single direction roads for cars and add superb walking and cycling infrastructure with more than enought space left for trees that give nice shade...

Oh one can dream...

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm surprised someone like Shell would even have such goals. I guess the idea was that it would pay in PR or something, otherwise I don't see why they'd bother.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 12 points 7 months ago

Is regular old greenwashing. A time-honored advertising strategy.

Never forget that the term "carbon footprint" was invented by a BP ad campaign that had an explicit goal of reframing emissions to an issue of individual responsibility instead of something directly caused by oil companies. Because BP and all the oil companies know that so long as the issue is considered one of individual responsibility we will continue to use fossil fuels until the surface of this planet is inhospitable to life, just letting them get richer since they don't give a damn about down the road consequences.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

They all have them, it is just usefull to say that they are working really hard on reducing emission. It is just that some minor problems make that really hard. Namely money:

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/big-oils-climate-targets-2023-05-22/

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Noah, get the boat.

[–] 0xtero@beehaw.org 4 points 7 months ago

This is my surprised face

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

2035...? How many will already be dead by then?

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca -1 points 7 months ago