this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
52 points (100.0% liked)

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

6849 readers
643 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
[email protected]
52
Can carbon dioxide removal save the climate? | Climate & Capitalism (climateandcapitalism.com)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

No :)

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Anyone who understands the concentration of CO2 in the air knows that these things are nothing but a PR stunt. You're not going to pull enough out of the air to have any meaningful contribution; there's just not a lot there to pull out. For all the harm it's causing, CO2 makes up a tiny part of air composition, only about 0.04%.

These things are built for idiots who think the solution is as simple as "just run the air through a filter" and don't grasp how much air there actually is, and how little there is to pull out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

That's what the article is about. It also goes into biomass energy land use and the unknown effectiveness of grinding up rocks + laying them on farmland

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Trees

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

Funny because the guardian insisted for years that carbon capture is our only hope, meanwhile China was the only country cutting emissions despite manufacturing everything anyone on earth demanded

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

No Canadian should be delusional enough to think their country's forestry is even cutting carbon emissions. There's a problem with first world energy use here

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines?wprov=sfla1

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

So your answer is "Yes"?

As the wikipedia article cites peer reviewed study (see study tab) that even though these kind of headlines make up only ~ 2 % of all hesdlines 44 % of them answer "yes", and only 22 % answer "no" with the rest being indecisive.

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

I think studies that look at the article's response are going to give a very different outcome than the real world result. The heuristic exists because a lot of news is overhyped halfsense trying to generate clicks (or draw eyeballs in the pre-digital world). So even if the article suggests a yes answer, a no outcome is still probably more likely.

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

Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact "no", right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges's law.)

And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet?

And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says "Yes, it's fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action," right?

I'm not sure why you're being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure why your so dismissive of it. It's a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won't see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Somehow you read all that and missed the first sentence.

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

I think their point is that this stupid internet meme based off of a random tech writer - akin to Cory Doctorow's "enshittification" - is not even backed up by its own citation

Wikipedia is such a shithole...