this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
54 points (98.2% liked)

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

5280 readers
645 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
54
Liquefied natural gas carbon footprint is worse than coal, study finds (phys.org)
submitted 1 month ago by GreeNRG to c/climate
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13936985

Liquified natural gas leaves a greenhouse gas footprint that is 33% worse than coal

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

*Fossil gas

Natural gas is a term the industry invented to make it sound harmless.

[–] Anon518@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

The heavy metals in coal are the most concerning for me.

[–] RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

It hard to see this as anything other than a bad faith comparison.

  1. It compares trans-oceanic LNG vs. US domestic coal
  2. It makes a lot of assumptions about inefficient and leaky extraction, processing, and transport approaches
  3. It only considers CO2 and methane ignoring other ways that LNG is far cleaner than coal

It is important to consider the entire life cycle of LNG, but a more even-handed author would conclude we should address these inefficiencies (e.g. via regulation), rather than fixating on promoting coal.

Direct link to paper: https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934