this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
24 points (87.5% liked)

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

5249 readers
486 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
24
Can rocks absorb enough CO2 to fight climate change? These companies think so (www.theverge.com)
submitted 11 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thantik@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I feel like there's a lot of these carbon-sequestration companies that are selling absolute poppycock and getting billions in funding, and very little actual oversight. They're doing this song and dance with "carbon credits", and eventually someone's going to peek behind the curtain and blow their cover.

I haven't seen one carbon-sequestration entity yet, besides those that are focused around planting trees, that have actually shown any real results other than vague handwavey bullshit. Like the ones saying they're capturing it out of the air and pumping it underground -- awfully convenient that nobody can fucking verify that it's actually happening eh?

[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It is a difference between scammers with certificate trading bullshit or science guys who try to make a business case of what science got us.

In carbfix its the latter.

Compared to others which are selling co2 certificates for forests which do not exist.

[–] thantik@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So what's carbfix's business model? How do they make money doing this? Can YOU, as an individual, verify what their claims are?

[–] sturlabragason@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not that I back this in any way but just what I've read: https://www.carbfix.com/proven

[–] Ater@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

70,000 tons "to date" is a heck of a lot less than 37 billion tons annually. It would take over 500,000 identical facilities with no environmental impact to reach net zero.

[–] sturlabragason@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yes, now we're tolkien.