this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
99 points (98.1% liked)

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

5243 readers
300 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Chinese power generation has produced more CO2 this year than ever before. They're also bringing renewables online, but electricity usage has risen too. So we're closer to turning the corner, but haven't done so yet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

https://youtu.be/zZ-lMDtiI-k?si=gAf8unl2IqUJXNBR USA and China both emit insane amounts of co2 but the population difference...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We're still using fossil fuels, and not phasing out as fast as possible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doing it as fast as possible would crash the world economy because everything is setup up for oil. So it seems obvious what needs to happen, it’s a different story when you personally are now homeless and you just want a roof and food. We can do a lot better than we are though

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The alternative, parts of the world will be uninhabitable. Always gotta think about the economy... no matter how many people this is going to kill, or how much biodiversity we lose along the way.

Is there any point of loss where we will say the economy isn't important anymore, or do we have to be experiencing the loss already?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The problem is crashing the economy will kill a lot of people right now, no need to wait or come up with a better solution

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

If you look at it on a case-by-case basis, it's harder to catastrophize. Would the world economy collapse if petroleum-derived food additives vanished? No. Plastic bags? No. The vast volumes of cheap plastic packaging? No. Shipping? That'll take a while. Fertilizers? Partial substitution can happen immediately, but a full changeover will take years. And so on through the list. You can rack and stack each case by its social value, how hard it will be to eliminate or replace, and the lead time needed to transition. Beyond that it's engineering, planning and politics.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It’s way more than cars. Plastics, chemicals, energy, shipping, fertilizers, pesticides, even food additives can trace their ingredients to oil and gas. We’ve structured our whole society around oil since World War I, and getting out of it isn’t going to be easy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The reason those products were adopted was because the raw materials were available chaply as by products of fossil-fuel production. We'll have to substitute, and will still use some petroleum to produce feedstock for a while. But substitution, efficiency improvements and replacement are normal parts of a working economy. As fossil-fuel derivatives become more costly, we'll ditch them.

Shipping is a separate problem: the logistics and transport sector will be slower to decarbonize because of the long lifetimes of its capital goods.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

A lot of it, is due to having waste products from refining crude oil, which could be turned into something usefull. So when you transition away from combustion engine cars, you increase the costs of other oil based products.