this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
181 points (91.0% liked)

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

6443 readers
611 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
181
A sustainable diet leaves room for two chicken breasts a week, study says (phys.org)
submitted 1 day ago by RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

255 grams per week. That's the short answer to how much meat you can eat without harming the planet. And that only applies to poultry and pork.

Beef cannot be eaten in meaningful quantities without exceeding planetary boundaries, according to an article published by a group of DTU researchers in the journal Nature Food. So says Caroline H. Gebara, postdoc at DTU Sustain and lead author of the study."

Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one's diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study. However, there are many other diets—including ones with meat—that are both healthy and sustainable," she says.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

The small sacrifices you or I make are virtually meaningless, and are really just ways to make ourselves feel better.

Or simply to act to with moral coherence and avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance. So that's one difference between our attitudes.

If you or I really put all our eggs in the basket of individual impact then we’d be blowing up oil wells.

That would IMO be a negative impact. Ecoterrorism does not work. Wrong ethically, and counterprodutive. So that's a second difference.

These are questions of deep philosophy, not simply judgements based on facts. You don't see things as I see them, and vice versa. In a pluralistic society that should be manageable.

I would say that we don’t really live in a democratic society

Hence this third difference. The very fact that we can express disagreements like this and not be arrested is proof of something. The fact that our politicians are useless or malevolent is because we are those things. No societies in human history have been as free and democratic as the modern West. Things were (much) worse before, and soon they're going to get much worse again.

Anyway. An unbridgeable gulf. Others can decide which of us, if either, is "right".