this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
185 points (98.4% liked)

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

5296 readers
685 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
185
80 percent of people globally want stronger climate action by governments according to new survey | University of Oxford (www.ox.ac.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by Espiritdescali to c/climate@slrpnk.net
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can't assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election, plus the fact that neither party promises adequate action on climate change, that people don't care. In a first-past-the-post system people often feel forced to vote for a party that is not their favorite and doesn't prioritize as they would like.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election

The survey says 80%... that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a "first-past-the-post system".

The argument of "only two parties that can win" is nonsensical in this context, no offense.

Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it's not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don't have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:

Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.

People don't like that, and it affects how they vote.

[–] Weslee@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That assumes that the 80% of people agree on everything else too.

Say it's 30% conservatives, 50% socialists and 20% whatever else - you expect them to join forces and vote for a 3rd party because they agree on one aspect?

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 months ago

Yes.

Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?

But I'm expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can't get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by "stronger climate action" they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I'm sure we both know that doesn't mean really mean anything.