this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
255 points (97.0% liked)

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

5244 readers
229 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
[email protected]
255
Real-world CO2 emissions of cars are 20% higher than indicated. For plug-in hybrids they are 350% higher. (climate.ec.europa.eu)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.it/post/6569904

It's not a typo: plug-in hybrids are used, in real word cases, with ICE much more than anticipated.

In the EU, fuel consumption monitoring devices are required on new cars. They studied over 10% of all cars sold in 2021 and turns out they use way more fuel, and generate way more CO2, than anybody thought.

The gap means that CO2 emissions reduction objectives from transport will be more difficult to reach.

Thruth is, we need less cars, not "better" cars.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I can't understand that logic: if I can charge for free at work and can charge at home for less than the cost of gas, why on earth would I ever want to use gas?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's the other way around. Companies in the Netherlands lease cars for their employees here in the Netherlands. Usually for people that travel a lot with for their job or just as a bonus perk that comes with the job instead of salary. And the boss pays for all the gas and maintenance as well.

So either take the effort to charge, or even charge at home and get refunded the electricity costs. Or just fill it up with free gas which only takes a minute. Guess which happens the most?

The only time I saw some of those oversized and really popular Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV use a charge cable was if they wanted to take a good parking spot...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Well, that is both parts awful and makes sense.

One thing though that is often mentioned against charging points infrastructure is that today can only be used by upper-middle class families, while everyone else can't benefit from it.

So adding an additional line of buses and closing car lanes (at rush hour) to dedicate to them can be cheaper (considering impact per person), lower emissions and be accessible to everyone, but it needs to be treated not as welfare but as a competitive service. (IMO)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If I can vote for someone who will actively attempt to improve the working class why would I vote for a party whose only idea in 40 years is culture war?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I'm confused, was this for me?