334
‘Smoking gun proof’: fossil fuel industry knew of climate danger as early as 1954, documents show
(www.theguardian.com)
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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
So happy to sit back and gossip about “ooo the evil companies” but they do nothing to elect the people that could change things .
Man fuck the Guardian and their charade
Like who? Who can I vote for that will make a difference? Give me a name
Edit: ah no response. Shocker. Almost as if you only want to sling shit without anything useful to contribute.
So here's the thing: it depends on where you are. If you're in the US:
Biden has a shot at being elected, and got the Inflation Reduction Act passed:
It's also important to vote in all the down-ballot races. Vote in the primary of the party likely to win the general election where you are. Vote in the general election too.
...unidan?
I agree but we already voted Biden in which contradicts the statement of who I was replying to.
Clearly not if we ALREADY voted for people that could change things.
The US has has another election this year. Reelecting Biden, and giving him a Congress that will actually pass meaningful climate legislation is part of what we need.
The reality is that the kind of change we need won't be the work of a single Presidential term or session of Congress, or any one nation. Biden did what he could with the congress he had, where the Democrats had a majority in the Senate only by virtue of the Vice President being able to break ties, and even then, a couple Democrats (Manchin, Sinema) being bought off by the oil industry.
The real problem is that there is no one we can vote for that can make a difference.
One half of the politicians want to continue using fossil fuels.
And the other half wants to do mostly virtue signalling with policies that look good on paper, but won't actually solve the problem.
I guess the second group is less bad, but politics is unlikely to save the climate.
Sorry, don't have a solution. We could have solved it by continuing to deploy and develop nuclear after Chernobyl, but by now it seems like 2 or 3 degrees of warming is inevitable.
In other words our leadership is greedy and they only care about their own comfort at the expense of everyone else.
They know they’ll die long before any of this affects them.
They don’t give a fuck about their own grand children, which should tell you everything about what kind of people they are.
Sorry mate, I went outside for a bit.
Highly recommend it, by the way.
Shocker still no answer.
You could vote for Jeremy Corbyn or Caroline Lucas .
Setting aside the idea that I am here to help you, you will I’m sure understand that the Guardian is an English newspaper?
Trust me, champ, nobody sees you in a thread and thinks you're there to help.
Sorry, who are you ?
There's a username above the comment that links to a profile that will show you.
Forgot how to click?
And once again you’ve demonstrated how ignorant you are. This article is about the US you dummy.
Get back to me once you have something useful to provide
Yeah it’s not like they lobby congress or pay for campaign ads or anything…