this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
102 points (96.4% liked)

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

5197 readers
710 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
(page 2) 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (5 children)

the article states that drax burning wood produces four times the CO2 of radcliffe burning coal; however it fails to mention how much electricity was produced by each one. i expect better from the guardian, but we didn't get it in this report.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The North Yorkshire power plant, which burns wood pellets imported from North America

So the trees are grown in America, processed in America and then transported across the Atlantic before getting to Yorkshire? That must use up all the carbon budget before it's even burnt, surely?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

At least it didn't create radioactive carbon dust... but is that a good trade off for increasing your carbon foot print four-fold?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I mean, a biomass power station should have no net emission, that's the whole point

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (15 children)

Clean energy can only be wind water solar or a yet to be invented source like fusion

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Clean energy can come from many things, but not from burning stuff.

Hydropower, tide-powered water turbines, osmotic power, etc can be clean.

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

The way its currently operating seems highly inefficient, but the point about biopower stations is that they aren't introducing more carbon into the carbon cycle. These trees would have died eventually and returned to the carbon cycle naturally, they are just controlling the process for human power. Imagine if it was running off of a tree farm that was geographically next to the power plant, for instance.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (13 children)

I really just don’t think our clean air strategy can involve “keep burning shit for energy”. Wind, water, waves, rays, and atoms yes… but not “burn shit”. Even if it’s useful shit to burn, it’s still a huge carbon release.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›