this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
116 points (99.2% liked)

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

5153 readers
562 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
116
The nation's first commercial carbon sequestration plant is in Illinois. It leaks. (grist.org)
submitted 20 hours ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

But if CCS operations leak, they can pose significant risks to water resources. That’s because pressurized CO2 stored underground can escape or propel brine trapped in the saline reservoirs typically used for permanent storage. The leaks can lead to heavy metal contamination and potentially lower pH levels, all of which can make drinking water undrinkable. This is what bothers critics of carbon capture who worry that it’s solving one problem by creating another.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

So here's a dumb question. Why don't we just plant the fastest growing carbon eatingest trees...everywhere. Now? Seems simpler to use a plant instead of a Plant.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 6 hours ago

Trees don't permently sequester carbon. A forest is a bunch of bound up stuff, but since fungi can now digest trees when they die they don't become coal anymore.

So unless you want to make the surface of the earth rainforest somehow you would need to bury trees in a sealed sterile mine or something. Or you could just do that directly.

Carbon capture is kinda dumb though, coal and oil are what ideally captured carbon looks like. We should focus on not digging that up and burning it.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 hours ago

Because 1) There's not enough land on the planet, and 2) A big fossil fuel company has a hard time pointing to a specific tree and saying "that one, that's the plant that's halfheartedly absorbing my carbon so I can keep polluting"

CCS is putting lipstick on the fossil fuel hogs - they'll keep it in the news as part of their quest to dodge regulation.