this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
72 points (81.6% liked)

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

5183 readers
680 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blazera@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago (1 children)

so a product with decades long lifetime made almost entirely out of easily and commonly recycled parts like aluminum and glass, vs fuels with lifetimes of a few seconds with zero recyclability, all of the waste is immediately mixed into the air. Fuck off fossil fuel pawns.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What's with the hostility? No one is disputing that solar in Australia is obviously a good choice and far better than fossil fuels. But that doesnt mean the (relatively small) downsides shouldn't be discussed.

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What's with the hostility?

Your headline sounds like anti-progressive doomerism, that's what. Who cares whether this ton of waste came from solar panels or other appliances? The talking point should be on how solar has much room for improvememt in regard to recyclability, life expectancy, manufacturing waste reduction etc.

I used to work in the sector, and we saw significant reduction in waste over my tenure due to improved practices and engineering innovations.

Calling solar waste a "crisis" when the solar industry has had a net-positive effect on the planet is disingenuous.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"my" title was the title of the newspaper article (by the Guardian who run a climate crisis section) based on a paper from AUSTRALIAN CENTRE for ADVANCED PHOTOVOLTAICS who are a proper research institute working on creating and improve solar power. This isn't people trying to do down solar power it's people who actually work in the field doing serious research. No one benefits from overselling renewables as perfect, all that's going to lead to is a backlash down the line. I had hoped that this community would be more open to discussion and a bit less culty and filled with toxic positivity as the climate subreddits, I'm sad to see it isn't the case.

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

No one benefits from overselling renewables as perfect

That's a Straw-Man fallacy. No one's saying it's perfect. It just doesn't matter that it isn't perfect. What matters is that it's one of the few net-positive energy sources in a world full of polluting alternatives. We don't need people pushing the ignorant voters away from renewables- "i HeArD sOlAr MaKeS tOo MuCh TrAsH sO i'M vOtInG rEpUbLiCaN."