this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
-2 points (45.5% liked)

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

7553 readers
378 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
-2
Opinion | Bill Gates Has a Point (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 6 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The challenge before many of us is to channel our fear and grief about the climate crisis into choices that safeguard the future: how we provide aid to the most vulnerable, and how we heat and cool our homes, travel, eat and, above all, vote. We commit a grave error when we indulge the fantasy of universal vulnerability — that the world is becoming generally inhospitable to human life. For while we all live on one planet, there are many worlds separating the real victims of climate change from the bystanders.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I think most people who care about climate change already understand that human extinction is distant. Gates doesn’t mention national borders but creating immigration corridors between nations so people can migrate and creating wild passages so animals can migrate are a key part of any dignified treatment of the problem.

I think most people are aware that humans could collectively mitigate the impact and severity of the effects of climate change on humans, plants, and animals if enough people worked together to plan and execute contingencies. It’s the political problem that feels the most intractable. If we can’t reorient our governance towards organizing or ruling in ways that that value life and dignity over profit, displaced populations will lead to continuous war and fuel increased xenophobia just like climate migrations have many times in history. It’s not human extinction on the horizon but it is not human flourishing.

[–] BlackJerseyGiant@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Distant, what a great word. In this context does it mean "not in my lifetime", or perhaps "not in this geological epoch" The growing amount of evidence places "human extinction" much closer to one of these options. While we're on the subject of semantics, perhaps we should examine what is meant by "human extinction" in your comment. Is that the death of the last human, or the death of the way of life we, our parents, and our parents parents have known?

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

Don't plan on the world ending. You'll be in a tough spot when it doesn't.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

The geological epoch question gets a bit weird in this context because the current one is defined largely by the scale of human impact so it seems like the next one would include a shift away from that in which case there might not be enough of an academic apparatus to name the next one depending on how things shake out.

When I say human extinction via climate is distant I mean that the point where the climate cannot support/sustain any humans at all is probably at least a billion years out.

Obviously there is a lot of wiggle room there for life to look drastically different than it does now. Already species are going extinct at rates the earth has never seen before, people are being displaced by weather events causing immigration tensions and increasing xenophobia, plant and animal habitable zones are migrating with no place for the plants and animals to migrate to due to the scarcity of wild reserves and lack of connection between them to enable movement. Each of these have downstream effects that we don’t fully understand but could reasonably leave existence looking pretty grim for those who adapt and survive over the next several generations.

Obviously this is assuming we don’t deploy nuclear weapons on a mass scale or something which would create a whole different kind of climate crisis

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

NYT has zero credibility.

Bill Gates has less than no credibility on climate change or anything really.

Jamaica is still recovering from hurricane Melissa that all the people worth listening to say was unusual and far more intense than it would be without climate change.

Stop treating wealthy people like they’re worth listening to.