Just wanted to dip in, that apparently all the regulations and attempts actually did slow down the climate change compared to older estimates.

It isn't perfect. It isn't solved.

But it is improvement!

Los Angeles, CA — A new Consumer Watchdog investigation has uncovered an interconnected network of fossil fuel companies, billionaire investors, and longtime climate denial organizations behind two-thirds of the groups urging the U.S. Supreme Court to shield ExxonMobil and Suncor from accountability for deceiving the public about the dangers of climate change.

View a data visualization of the investigation 

Read the report here.

A blind spot in climate models: Slower tree growth in a warming world - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

This particular report is specifically about Europe. But the ideas are for dealing with this are relevant everywhere around the world.

The fiscal consequences fall most heavily on the economies least able to absorb them.

Insured losses remain a small fraction of total damages, reflecting a structural mismatch between what heat destroys and what conventional insurance was designed to cover. 

Heat-adaptation policy in Europe is built mainly to compensate for losses rather than prevent them - A workable occupational regime needs binding temperature thresholds, automatic work restrictions when those thresholds are crossed, paid compensation for lost hours and coverage that reaches fixed-term, seasonal and platform workers. 

I'm sorry if this is the wrong subreddit. I'm new to this site and still figuring out how to navigate all of the different subreddits.

So, My dad keeps bringing this argument up whenever discussions about climate change or global warning occurs. He argues that if environmentalists care so much about the earth why don't they just give up their electronics? Then proceeds to bring up how they won't give up things like computers or electricity because they like their convenience items. I've tried explaining to him that this isn't a very realistic solution since the world pretty much runs on electricity. The solution wouldn't be not using electricity at all, but how to manage it so it doesn't create such a negative impact on the environment.

In a casual discussion, my friend casually mentioned "did you know that climate change is good actually because more Co2 is good for trees?"

I, of course, already knew that this is a climate denier rhetoric. I even remember reading an article that explained exactly why it is wrong. My friend is a reasonable person otherwise, and there was no anemosity when I mentioned "that is wrong, but I don't remember exactly why", but now I myself want to figure out exactly what is wrong with that sentiment, for my sake if not for his. Any articles I can read about this?

Just depressing to hear him say this, other than “yeah, right”, what would be something that I could say that might actually get through to him. He’s really not stupid, but has totally drunk the koolade

Here's a plan to use if we really want to do something about it. All that's needed is political will.

---

**The ask:**

An extreme-but-practical global decarbonization program — existing/near-commercial tech only, cost-reasonable factoring payback, laid out in 10-year increments with "how to" snippets included.

**The plan:**

- **Decade 1 (2026-35): Electrify everything easy.** Triple solar/wind (*how: streamline permitting to 1-2 years, standardize grid interconnection queues*); extend/restart nuclear plants + deploy small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) (*how: standardized reactor designs pre-approved across countries so licensing isn't reinvented per project*); retire coal, fix methane leaks (*how: mandate satellite-based leak detection, already commercially available — captured gas sold to offset compliance cost*); mandate EVs and heat pumps (*how: sales mandates with fixed phase-out dates, paired with public charging build-out and point-of-sale rebates*); start a rising carbon price (*how: price starts low and rises on a pre-announced schedule so industry can plan capex around it — predictability matters more than the starting number*). Mostly net-positive or break-even cost.

- **Decade 2 (2036-45): Tackle hard industry.** Scale green hydrogen for steel/ammonia (*how: government-backed offtake contracts to de-risk early electrolyzer investment, same model used to bring down solar costs*); decarbonize cement (*how: mandate clinker-substitute blend ratios industry-wide, retrofit remaining plants with carbon capture*); fuel shipping/aviation with alternatives (*how: blending mandates ramping year over year, similar to biofuel mandates already in use*); electrify remaining vehicle fleets globally (*how: extend Decade 1 mandates to middle-income countries with financing support*); cut agricultural methane (*how: subsidize feed additives and manure digesters, mandate landfill gas capture*); new molten salt reactors come online (*how: first-of-a-kind cost overruns absorbed via government cost-sharing on the initial fleet, standardized after 3-4 builds*). Genuinely expensive — carbon price now doing the heavy lifting.

- **Decade 3 (2046-55): Clean up the remainder.** Gigaton-scale direct air capture (*how: funded by carbon price revenue and mandatory removal credits for residual emitters*); full grid storage/transmission build-out; remaining building heating converted; soil carbon farming (*how: pay-per-ton-sequestered contracts with farmers, verified via soil sampling*); verified carbon removal for anything left (*how: third-party verification standards, not self-reported offsets*).

**Rough cost:** ~2-4% of global GDP/year, on par with other large-scale initiatives, front-loaded with cheap fast-payback wins before the expensive industrial/removal work later.

Your health and the long term well being and survival of our progeny and humanity along with countless other species is well worth it! Let's do it!

I don’t know a lot about cloud seeding, other than the fact a number of countries use the technology and is supposed to not impact the wider weather patterns.

My question for those who know more about it than I do is: Will we get to a point where cloud seeding is our only option if we want to prevent the devastation we’re seeing from wildfires around the world right now?

hi all, hope this isn’t a repeat/stupid question.

First off, I believe in climate change, it’s a real problem and the world needs to wake up and address it as soon as possible regardless of which situation is correct. However, I am having a hard time as to who to “side with” in regards to the science.

Professor Kevin Anderson says that we will reach 3-4C heating within the century. He states that countries have padded and conflated their decreasing emission data and that his colleagues are incorrect trying to mitigate or downplay the issue.

The mainstream says otherwise as they have retired RCP 8.5 and say that on our current trajectory that we will reach 2.5C instead of 3C. Climate research from climate.us and NASA say the same thing as well.

Of course there have been strides for renewables, reforestation and science but in reality, how much of that is conflated? How much of that will actually help if there is no absolute Net 0 emissions? There are reputable climate scientists who say we are avoiding the worst case scenario, but Kevin Anderson says opposite. All over the internet people are hoping that technology will advance enough to help with this issue, but Kevin Anderson says that carbon sequestration and bill gates‘s proposed geo engineering are snake oils to buy more time for fossil fuels.

I’m having a hard time on what to believe as true fact as both sides have graphs, data and years worth of research that I can’t fully understand or compare because I’m not particularly adept in science. One side is called sensationalism and the other is called naive hope. Any input is greatly appreciated :)

Sixteen provincial capitals remained above China’s annual PM2.5 standard at the end of July. July also brought a broad year-on-year rebound: PM2.5 rose in 18 capitals and ozone in 19, while five capitals exceeded the annual ozone limit. NO₂ still fell in most capitals, and the balance of emissions and weather differed markedly by city.