this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
29 points (100.0% liked)

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

5292 readers
684 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
29
Britain Backs Plan to Store Carbon Dioxide Under the Sea | Two proposals in Northern England, led by the energy giants BP and Eni, aim to establish an industry in burying emissions (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by silence7 to c/climate
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This appears to be aimed at subsidizing the construction of a gas-burning power plant, rather than achieving a reduction in net CO2 emissions

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nous@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So, new plants were green lit on the promise of some carbon capture and storage technology that is yet to be proven. And companies will be given tax payer funds for this project to invest in these unproven technologies.

I bet that most of that money will line the pockets of some rich twat with a token effort being made on actual research - then they will either claim it is too hard or too expensive to actually do or will implement something so cheap and crude as to basically be pointless but makes it look like they are doing something. Then they will build the plants anyway and carbon emissions will be basically the same as any other plant of that type.

[–] silence7 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, adding the CCS makes the whole thing as expensive as nuclear.

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Except nuclear already exists and actually works

[–] Track_Shovel 6 points 1 month ago

Wait til you hear about how CCS does less than reducing actual emissions. 1 unit stored is not the same benefit as 1 unit prevented.

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

Good traditions ~/s~

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

The wonderful thing about burying CO2 is that nobody can tell you didn't. If it leaks out, nobody can tell it did. If you can get paid for it, that's the most wonderful thing.

CO2 is like nuclear plants in that way. When Rocky Flats had a big fire in their weapons plant, and plutonium fell all over the Denver suburbs, they just didn't tell anyone about it.