Climate

9,076 readers

1,814 active

0 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 3 years ago

moderation log

moderators

silence7@slrpnk.net

Too hot for work: why extreme heat is a threat to Europe’s productivity | High temperatures make some workplaces dangerous, with economists warning disruption will dent growth (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Didn’t some economist joker get a Nobel prize for saying the climate disaster wouldn’t cause much economic harm?

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 4 points 4 months ago

He did. By assuming that damage was proportional to the fraction of the economy that a given sector represents. Which is an ok representation at very small amounts of warming. But when temperatures rise, the fact that the agriculture sector was, say, 3% of the economy, doesn't mean that damage is only 3% when the amount of food goes to zero.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 5 points 4 months ago

I guess because the economy is made up, whereas the climate disaster is not.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent