this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
47 points (82.2% liked)

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

5301 readers
417 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
47
Why Green Skyscrapers are a Terrible Idea – Adam Something (www.youtube.com)
submitted 9 months ago by cerement@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Piped link | Invidious link

“Because green skyscrapers and high-rises are a bullshit non-solution to serious systemic problems.”

“But if you want greenery on a building nonetheless, do I have an idea for you – a portable, modular, scalable solution called ‘potted plants on your balcony’.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

So much of this video hinges on the assumption that if you have greenery on buildings, you can't also have greenery on the ground. Sure, in an ideal world, you can use the fact that greenery on the ground is easier to maintain to guide priorities. In this current less-than-ideal world though, the city owns the road and a private developer owns the building and neither side can really force the other to add greenery.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 months ago

limited budget – you can pay for structural changes and maintenance costs to put greenery on the building or you can use that same money for a lot more greenery at street level where it benefits a lot more people

[–] MayonnaiseArch@beehaw.org 4 points 9 months ago

It's always about the money. And if you are building a high building chances are you don't have acres around. And like you say, the solution is not building a dumbass vertical garden, it's politics. Green the city because you as a citizen should force the city to be good