this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
143 points (99.3% liked)

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

7367 readers
412 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

So are we not allowed to criticize china for their legitimate failures now? It's all just because we're butthurt because the US isn't doing it? Fuck's sake.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

the whole world is failing, and you're picking the country in the lead to criticize? is it racism or what?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Criticizing the most prominent country for still utterly failing (and paying little more than lip-service to the problem) has very little to do with their skin being brown, and everything to do with criticism of the leader of the pack indicting the rest of the pack implicitly. But thank you for delegitimizing everything you might say in response by demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that you're arguing in bad faith.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I love when people get called out for being shitty, and the immediate defense is "you're arguing in bad faith"

this wasn't an argument. you said something stupid, I called you out for it. instead of criticizing the western world for doing checks notes fucking nothing about climate change, you're going after the country investing billions into the climate for no other reason than you don't like the government.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I'd be criticizing western countries if this article had been about the western world - but it's not, so that's not really relevant commentary. If I showed up to say something like "why aren't western countries doing better" it would be a valid point, but would absolutely not address the issue - that china is in no uncertain terms absolutely failing the environment. Trying to deflect that with accusations of racism is... transparent, at very least because you have yet to address the criticism but only the form my argument takes.

Why are you so biased that you can't even accept criticism of a group you support might be legitimate in an article explicitly about the actions of said group? People from the US do that all the time, what makes China special?

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I’d be criticizing western countries if this article had been about the western world

ok, I didn't even read further than that in your comment because it's obvious you did not read the article at all. even the headline itself should give you a fucking clue, but the article heavily relies on comparing China to the US. you would have known that if you had bothered to get over your knee-jerk reaction long enough to actually read it.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Sigh. 4 out of 13 of the paragraphs in that article are about trump's behavior and there isn't even a mention of another country besides the US and china. Kinda hard to criticize what just isn't there (at least, if you're arguing in good faith...)

Shockingly you continue to not address the criticism, just the form of the argument. I can't imagine why that would be.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

here isn’t even a mention of another country

wrong again.

I can’t imagine why that would be.

ah, yes, the good old "you support the CCP because you criticized the US" line. you aren't half as clever as you think you are, liberal, or you would know I'm banned from .ML and Hexbear and my whole post history is me shitting on tankies.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

wrong again.

Oh you know what, you're absolutely right. The article (ten more paragraphs!) wasn't loading due to their godawful... comment widget? I'm not sure what happened there. BUT I'll amend my prior claim since Brazil is in there too! And while hardly a western-aligned country, and I am deeply skeptical of their ability to follow through on their claims, I'll give them credit for thumbing their nose at both the US' and China's utterly pathetic showing with those climate targets. Here's hoping they can stick to them, and that COP30 will follow in their example.

Hardly an article relying on contrasting the US and China, though I suppose quoting Xi that much really does throw some spectacular shade by putting trump's whole... thing... as contrast.

ah, yes, the good old “you support the CCP because you criticized the US” line.

Uhm... no, I just think you're arguing in bad faith. That's been my whole thesis, and it's maybe worth introspecting that you've directly jumped to being persecuted for supporting china instead of the thing I keep criticizing you for.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Why are you so biased that you can't even accept criticism of a group you support

Wrong again.

Listen, it’s never gonna work out between us if you don’t even read your own comments. But I’ll give you credit, that’s the first time I’ve seen somebody strawman their own arguments.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Let me know if you ever wanna respond to the substance here (to reiterate: criticizing china is absolutely warranted, especially in light of how much better Brazil is doing) instead of issues to take with the form of the argument, it'll be interesting.

Wrong again.

Bud that's the whole point here - you're supporting the group (edit: in this case the CCP) by rejecting legitimate criticism with bad faith meandering (accusations of racism and classic whattaboutisms). Despite your presumed personal position you 100% are supporting the utterly pathetic chinese environmental goals here.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Despite your presumed personal position you 100% are supporting the utterly pathetic chinese environmental goals here.

Did you ever wonder why everyone else in the comments is congratulating China? It’s because the rest is us don’t see an article about how China is doing the best out of all the countries in the entire world, and automatically go “hmm, it’s China and they’re authoritarian, so it’s not good enough”.

Of course they could do better. You can always do better. The rest of the world could do better. The point here is nobody else is doing anywhere near as well. You chose to focus on criticism because you do t like the politics of the nation leading the pack. China hasn’t even reached their goals, which again you would know if you read the article. But even their meager progress is far better than the goals the US has set, which is to go backwards and adopt more fossil fuels, cutting out as much renewables as possible.

So yeah, I’m supporting the progress China has made in reducing their dependence on fossil fuels. Any progress is progress, and they have more progress than anyone right now.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

everyone else in the comments

You're trying to misrepresent reality again - go look at the comments (of which 1/2 are now just us two bickering); and fully 1/2 (7/14 (excluding us two), of the (as of posting) 28 total comments (including us two) (edit: this is confusingly worded, I apologize)) of the other comments in this thread are critical of the claims, most of those criticizing how sorry this promise is from China. You can't just assert easily-verified falsehoods as truth and then claim some kind of victory from that (despite that practically being codified US policy at this point...).

I chose to focus on criticism because they are leading the pack, and their efforts are sad, much like a great many other people in this thread are doing. I suppose a case could be made for that to include their politics, since politics shapes policy, but that'd be a kinda pointless semantic argument to make. My criticism of China has nothing to do with my distatste for the CCP directly and everything to do with them being the #1 global emitter of greenhouse gasses, and then even in lip-service planning to do the barest minimum. I'm not criticizing the US right now because the US is not the leader of the pack, or even relevant in this discussion (beyond being the #2 emitter).

To put in context something, this year if China's planed 10% reduction had gone through instantly at the start of the year, they would still have produced more than double the greenhouse gas emissions of the US. THEY HAVE TO DO BETTER. We all do, yes, but THEY ESPECIALLY have to do better. It ain't fucking racism to criticize the #1 culprit for choosing a target that barely does anything.