this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
50 points (93.1% liked)

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

5276 readers
636 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 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 4 months ago

The lawsuit’s lead plaintiff, pilot Bryan Spence, alleges that American mismanaged employees’ retirement savings by investing with fund managers who “pursue leftist political agendas” through ESG strategies, proxy voting and shareholder activism.

Because trying not to destroy the earth has been successfully co-opted by the party of culture-war bullshit. Rightwing politics is a death-cult.

[–] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

Wahh! I want to make sure my retirement fund is soaked in blood!

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Is this lawsuit just about having the choice to use an ESG fund?

The article even mentions that people who aren't invested in an ESG fund are included in the class action with those who are.

Here is a link to AA's 401k page. Scroll down to "What are my investment options." It looks pretty standard. Options for index funds, self-directed where you can invest in any Fidelity funds, target date funds, and other options.

What kind of a bullshit lawsuit seeks to reduce personal options that don't affect anyone else. Or am I missing something and could one person's selection somehow harm others?

Edit: I read a little more about the lawsuit. I'm not 100% sure about this, but it seems like the complaint is; the people managing the funds use the voting rights from everyone invested to vote for ESG goals. E.G. if you're invested in an index fund the people managing the funds can use the voting rights of your shares to influence the companies in ways the lawsuit claims violate fiduciary responsibility.

[–] DantesFreezer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Whats an ESG?

Electronically Sourced... Giganautasaurous?

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

ESG replaced CSR. Environmental social and governance.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 points 4 months ago

I misread it as "EGS" and thought it was "Epic Game Store" and was ready to read about some truly wild 401k policy.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] federalreverse@feddit.org 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It didn't seem to be. The page even had this text in a box at the end:

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. [...]

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Hit “I’m a subscriber”. It’s not a paywall, they just want you on their mailing list