this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
71 points (100.0% liked)

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

5023 readers
363 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
71
Two former Department of Energy staffers warn we’re doing carbon removal all wrong (www.technologyreview.com)
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org

Two former staffers of the US agency responsible for advancing the technology argue that the profit-driven industry’s focus on cleaning up corporate emissions will come at the expense of helping to pull the planet back from dangerous levels of warming.

all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The profit-driven industry is the physical source of the problem, but it's the conservative minded citizens at large who keep voting against good climate regulations who are the real villains here. Yeah, the people at the top have a disproportionate amount of power compared to any one person, but in aggregate, the general public has the ultimate power. If only we could get everyone to act with long-term implications in mind for a single moment...

[–] First@programming.dev 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's ironic to watch the self-delusions unfold in countries that have working multi-party voting systems, and a dedicated green party. In self-interest/status quo preservation, voters avoid them like the plague because "they are too extreme", and rather vote for some other party that puts up a fake eco-friendly front based on some technological pipe dream & shoveling off responsibilities to other countries.

Previous election in Norway (late 2021), the green party were the only ones who went to election with a pledge to stop search&test drilling for new oil fields (extraction from the currently running & newly prospected oil fields will run well into the 2050's)- they got below 4% of the votes, and no other party wanted to include them in negotiations for forming a government, because they were "too extreme".

Today, the foreign minister of the government lead the Dubai climate negotiations and pretended to be disappointed that other countries blocked the term "end our dependency on fossil fuel", and that they had to compromise for something vaguer like "start the transition away from fossil fuel" or something like that...

It's common for the people who vote these stooges into office to say stuff like "the politicians aren't doing enough to combat the climate crisis". The hypocrisy lies thick in the air.

[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Uh yeah no shit?

[–] iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

no shit, Sherlock ? xd

[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Keep digging, Watson!

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

if it were profitable to remove carbon from the atmosphere, we’d do it where it’s a lot more concentrated: on exhaust outlets from power plants, etc

which is not to say carbon capture is a bad idea, but it ain’t gonna be profit-driven unless you force companies to pay for their emissions through offsets or something

[–] sic_1@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The most obvious lever for that is a CO2 emissions price on the same level as the price for its removal. CRT are insanely expensive so an emissions price based on that is nicely arguable as long as they promote CRT and the high emissions price would accelerate the transition immensely.

Tax every single thing based on the CO2 equivalent emissions over its entire lifecycle and use those funds for an equal payout to every citizen to offset the social inequality of such a tax.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I'm shocked we're doing anything at all.