this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026
101 points (93.9% liked)

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

7794 readers
430 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
 

Lemmy appears to strip off gift tokens from the URL.

Use this link to access the full article

all 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 8 points 6 days ago

I'm generally in the fuck China camp, but their embracing of green energy solutions is the best thing I've seen come out of that country in my lifetime. They're not beholden to resource lobbyists who want to keep gas/coal/oil in as much use as possible.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How does anyone replace anyone else when it comes to climate change? Sure, you can develop technology, but the countries who choose not to use it are still spewing their shit into our shared climate.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

The US is dependent on international trade. If they're the only ones emitting too much, the rest of the world could sanction them, reducing their emissions by collapsing their economy.

With the US making moves on Greenland with no sign of being satisfied after, the EU would probably be up for those sanctions at some point.

[–] GreenCrunch@piefed.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago

I think it's referring to a perceived position as global leader in positive climate action. That with the US losing any hope of effective climate regulation, China could choose a more climate-friendly direction. They can develop technology, and can implement it. China's CO2 emissions are very significant (this BBC article claims 30% of global emissions), so if it takes aggressive action it could make a serious impact on global emissions.

Due to its global position, it could likely pressure allies or promote the adoption of Chinese green technologies.

I am not saying any of this will happen, but China is certainly not powerless. I do agree that other countries would still be an issue - countries with lax environmental regulations could be cheaper manufactures and divert global manufacturing, lessening the impact of any Chinese action.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

See, China is run by a dictator, and they're doing good things. Doesn't America want a dictator, too? Hmmm?

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

One of the issues with dictators is that they reflect the people that put them in power. Every dictator Americans have put in power so far has been a fascist who was bad for the local economy.