this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
98 points (99.0% liked)

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

5044 readers
428 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
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Put a fraction of that in wind, solar, or forced geothermal, and you'd get a real benefit. But the fossil fuel industry demands a fig leaf to cover its naked greed, so here we are.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

All we hear about is we don't have a smart grid, and can't a agree on storage. So, how about we put some of the billions into that?

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago

Right on the money. I think wasting funds on solutions that don’t work is the point, if only so someone can point a finger and say look we tried (bad idea) and it didn’t work. Our bureaucratic strawman proves that climate changes is inevitable.

[–] Floey@lemm.ee 21 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

We are allergic to exploiting great solutions that already exist. Everyone wants to be "disruptive".

It reminds me of the investment that went into hyperloop stuff when our current best transit solutions aren't anywhere close to full saturation in the US. Similarly our current best green technologies are far from being fully exploited.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 weeks ago

Also, part of the issue is real green technology requires some people to change their business and/or lose some profits. If we do carbon capture or other things, that creates a product to sell. It's a bullshit product that is worse than other options, but if they can it's easier for politicians to sell this to donors than something that'll hurt a very rich industry. Syphon money from taxpayers to make sure the rich dirty energy companies can keep making huge profits and give the tax money to some other rich people to clean up the thing the other guys are doing.

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

This is so true!

I think people are so in love with the idea of "innovation" because secretly we all just know that it means "easy-fix" and that sounds a lot better than "hard work".

[–] quixotic120@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

US laundering stolen taxpayer money into “eco” contracts thanks to nepotism and buying off politicians

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don’t think that is wrong to subsidize research of new potential technologies that will help is control our carbon output… as long as we are also rapidly moving towards renewable energy.

Obviously most research runs into dead ends, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying new things.

[–] copernicurious@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

The article is poorly written and vague, but I think much of the money is subsidizing projects rather than funding research. Basically supporting Exxon (mentioned in article) and others in installing CCS systems on their refineries and power plants.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"US Burns Last Bridge At Behest of Corporations"

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Latest*

It's not even a particularly bad one, compared to Dole coups, Coca Cola assassination, and Uniroyal napalming civilians.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

There are no other bridges after the climate is fucked. This is the End of the Line.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah but this way the fossil fuel industry and a handful of dipshits in silicon valley make a lot of money so fuck the earth