this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
358 points (98.9% liked)

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

5296 readers
483 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
[email protected]
358
Survey finds that 60 firms are responsible for half of world’s plastic pollution (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The two tobacco companies Altria and Philip Morris International combined made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, both Danone and Nestlé each produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (3 children)

When I buy a bottle of Coca-Cola I am not actually paying much for the sugary water. I'm paying for the convenience of having it in a bottle.

In my mind, this convenience fee ought to be enough to pay for the convenience of also discarding said bottle. Otherwise, they really sold me the inconvenience of having to deal with the bottle that they use to distribute the sugary water.

So, get on with it, Coca-Cola, clean up your shit. I already paid you.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is really close to truth. So many of those products producing trash are useless (bottled water) or even actively harmful (soda, cigarettes). You don't actually need to pay Coca-Cola at all. You just need a reusable bottle and a water fountain or tap.

Coca-Cola and Phillip Morris will not suddenly start being helpful.

In that sense: encourage your municipality, employers, etc. to set up public water fountains and no-smoking zones. (And if you really want sweet drinks, buy syrups.)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I believe this is true, Circle K gas station near me still has soda fountain drinks for 80-110 cents. The cans and bottles start at 2.50 or more.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

I'm old enough that it was normal and not a hassle to bring your glass bottles to buy Coke and wherever fizzy drinks. But at one point that option disappeared.

Also it helped that a family dinner would consume like a liter, and we didn't have it everyday.