this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
440 points (99.3% liked)

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

6854 readers
540 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
440
The Trump budget proposes $0 for climate research in 2026 (www.commerce.gov)
submitted 3 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Ha ha but You voted for Genocide!

/s

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

So did the protest non-voters, even moreso than the Democrat ones.

The non-genocide position was literally impossible to express no matter what you tried to do.

[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No it existed. Harris is on record saying she'd like to work towards peace talks.

Which is objectively better than option B: vote GOP "finish them off" and option C: literally doing nothing.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Okay, fine: to the extent that a non-genocide position existed, Harris was it.

But the real point is that even if a person disagrees with you about that, they still should've voted for Harris. She was at least objectively not more genocidal than Trump, and infinitely better on basically every other issue.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Green Party maybe?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nope, that has the same effect as not voting.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A non-vote is = support for every candidate

A third party vote doesn’t

Even if the end result is the same it shows you don’t support the winner

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Any action other than voting for the only candidate that could beat Trump was effectively a vote for Trump. End of.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 day ago

Strange that Biden won in 2020 despite 2/3 of the country "effectively voting for Trump" by not voting for Biden🤔

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But at least we didn't help hurrying along the most recent great extinction!

I wonder if anything we built will last for the next sentient species that arises.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Well not voting in the American pres. election (or voting for someone sure to lose) was a half-vote for Donald. That's just math.