So first cutting airline emissions increases global warming and now cutting ship emissions does it?
It's like someone is trying to get a message out that cutting emissions is bad for the planet. Are we being gaslighted? Is this industry FUD?
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
58 points (87.2% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5244 readers
359 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
With ships, they're talking about sulfate aerosol emissions, rather than greenhouse gas emissions.
... on NOAA.gov?
I'm not American. I don't know much about the history of the body, who runs it or whether leadership changes under different administrations. I also do not know the scientists and whether they are completely state funded or there is industry funding anywhere (on this, or on previous or future research papers). I'm asking questions. I looked at the paper and usually it has a section on conflicts of interest, even to state that none exist. I couldn't see that section on this paper.
For future reference: they're the weather guys. They're probably the least-bullshit part of the federal government, in close competition with the Post Office.
Even under The Idiot, they were the ones crying foul when he scribbled on one of their maps.
During an administration that doesn't doubt climate science, no less
No, these emissions masked climate change. Reducing them didn’t accelerate it, the warming effect was already there.
It’s headlines like this that subtly mislead people
That sounds analogous to the withdrawal effect which addicts suffer when stopping drugs.
Quickly reducing pollution reduces the short-lived masking effect, which makes things temporarily worse when the pollution stops. It's still worth it and the best option long term.
Hmm, cutting sulfur dioxide emissions for health reasons is bad for global warming because sulfur dioxide clouds have a net cooling effect with reflection.
This is surprisingly often the case. At a short term scale, improvements in the local environment are at odds with improvements towards preventing climate change (hydropower is the poster child for this). Long term though, it's almost always better to prioritize the large scale, as failing to limit climate change will ultimately make any efforts to protect local environments futile.
What do you mean by the hydropower? I'm not familiar with this 'poster child'
FYSA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster_child
As described in the second half of that article, it's a colloquialism.
Usually, for a hydro power plant to be effective they require a dam to be built. This significantly changes the surrounding landscape by flooding large areas of land and also reduces the ability of fish to travel through whichever waterway is dammed up.
Enviromental activists often decry and try to prevent these types of developments because of this - they consider these changes to ruin the local environment.
On the other hand, hydropower is possibly the most useful source of renewable electricity, having a large implicit storage capacity that can be released at any moment.
Same with trains, in the UK swampy famously protested the building of a high speed rail line because it's construction resulted in the destruction of an old growth forrest
Fish ladders can be built for them to cross dams but the flooding is a problem
I'm pretty sure we can find other reflective chemicals that won't cause grass-wilting acid rains.