this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
73 points (97.4% liked)

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

5387 readers
382 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
73
One California City Wants to Get Rid of Gas | Residents of liberal Berkeley will get to vote on a second attempt to curb use of the fuel in buildings. (www.bloomberg.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For context, having it in your house seems to knock a couple years off your life expectancy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If that’s right, you don’t need to ban gas cooking, just ban residential heating and let the market take care of it.

Y’all just want to tear shit down to pat yourselves on the back.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Definitely could do it that way. But everybody is better off if we do it in a planned way instead of leaving people to deal with that kind of a mess.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So whats the plan to replace gas in commercial kitchens? Oh wait there isn’t one.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Two options right now:

  1. Run new electrical lines to them capable of providing for their actual needs
  2. Propane
[–] D1G17AL@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Propane doesn't offer the benefits you seem to think it does. It's more expensive and the distribution system for it likely has as many issues as the natural gas does. Going after natural gas distribution while we still have larger and more significant sources of emissions is a minuscule bandage solution at best. At worst it solves a very minor source of emissions problems at a major cost in both money and convenience.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Those commercial and residential emissions - those are largely about the fuels burned in buildings. 14% of the total is enough to matter — and when we're running out of time to get emissions to zero, we need to cut it all to zero, not pick and choose.