562
submitted 10 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

I don't need to cater to you, you're in a community designed to inform people about real climate science and spread knowledge about climate change. You're talking total nonsense edging on the border of misinformation, which doesn't deserve a serious response.

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

You don't need to be an asshole either and yet you were anyway.

You feel my questions are nonsense. I feel that means you aren't interested in debating the science.

You feel you know the truth and anyone that doesn't accept your truth is beneath you. That will not convince anyone.

This isn't science it's an agenda. I am sorry you cannot understand the difference but the responses and downvotes I am receiving illustrate this clearly.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

It's just common sense that eating a plant is more efficient than growing many, many plants in order to feed an animal that is then eaten.

That said, I'm not willing to make that much of a personal sacrifice to push a boulder the size of Texas less than an inch. If we really want to make a difference, we need systemic change.

I'd absolutely support a 100% tax on meat. It'd be easier for us all to change if we did it together.

[-] 0x520@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Sure, but that legislation is not on the table because the meat lobby wont even let people see what the inside of a slaughterhouse looks like and actually because of their lobbying power the exact opposite of what you are suggesting is true; instead of taxing meat, our tax dollars go to subsidize meat to keep it cheaper than plant based alternatives. We do actually need people to change individual habits, because the political machine has huge incentives not to change at all. Perhaps if the plant based lobby could become big enough to challenge the meat lobby we could make bigger changes, but that will require individuals making small changes in their diets first.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

It's not on the table because it'd be wildly unpopular, and anyone who proposed it would never get reelected.

Can't say I know how to fix that, but that's what I'd rather work on.

[-] 0x520@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 months ago

Again with appeals to emotion. What proof do you have that this is an agenda and not valid science apart from you don't like the conclusions?

this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
562 points (100.0% liked)

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

5189 readers
337 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS