this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
75 points (97.5% liked)

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

5246 readers
332 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
75
In a Warming World, Clean Energy Stocks Fall While Oil Prospers | The market is focused on making money now and isn’t heeding urgent warnings about climate change, our columnist says. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A columnist at Bloomberg has a similar take

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

A pittance, and almost always on the condition that they get a new monopoly. Hence why nearly all of it goes to green hydrogen and other things a few chemical companies can create a very profitable monopoly on.

Offhand, I believe it was Shell which offered to put some decent headline figure of money in solar, on the small condition that the panels energy can have a 10% markup in an highly competitive industry with profit magins closer to 2% to 3%.

If you are already part of a very profitable cartel that has convinced the world it is not only necessarily but the reason the standard of living has increased in the last century, you can’t make even more money by becoming just one fish in an highly competitive market. Way back in the seventies they did the numbers, and found the delay, deny, defund was a far better option for making money. It would fail eventually sure, but even if ninty percent of thier profit went to lobbying and funding hate groups it would still be more profitable than entering an actually free energy market.

Besides, the deadline for decarbonisation has always been twenty to thirty years away, it’s not “realistic” to try for anything soooner, and the’ll have retired to thier mansions by then.