this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
57 points (98.3% liked)

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

5246 readers
342 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
57
Why carbon capture needs a reality check (youtu.be)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by iamroot@discuss.tchncs.de to c/climate
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh I get what you're getting at now. Yeah if sequestering is limited, you should be using as little as you can. But for applications like rockets, it's much more effective to sequestere CO2 than to try to make something like an electric water rocket.

[โ€“] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Totally. But it can and probably will be used as an excuse for why it's ok to pollute land an air with open goldmines so some company can make gold turd sculptures for rich people to place in their homes as a "conversation piece".

When in reality we should be discussing whether some non-essential industries should get to emit anything at all.

That's what the greenwashing mentioned by the person you replied to means. It's the practice of marketing away the downsides of a product that really shouldn't be possible to rub off. Some things are just inherently wasteful and "offsetting" the waste just means something unavoidable is offset a little less.