this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
83 points (92.8% liked)

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

5288 readers
957 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
83
U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia | Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The only thing nuclear has going for it at the moment is jobs for the boys. Have a look at Hinkley C in the UK. It's certainly not for cheap or clean energy.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's not carbon. That's the biggest thing right now; first and foremost, we need to stop carbon emissions. Nuclear is one pathway there, and there's no reason it can't be complimentary to renewables.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you about carbon but nuclear has ended up being one of the most expensive alternatives.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You're right, it's yet another stop-gap measure keeping us from making ideal, long-term solutions. If we were an intelligent species, we'd have been hellbent on implementing renewable energy solutions and putting massive, massive amounts of research into fusion. Instead, we're where we are now. What a time to be alive.

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

Nuclear is one pathway there, and there's no reason it can't be complimentary to renewables.

The reason is limited resources. Whatever we invest into nuclear can't be invested in renewables.