this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
54 points (100.0% liked)

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

6709 readers
168 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
54
Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions (heimildin.is)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay, so you switch to solar/wind/nuclear or some other semi CO2 free source. Now you take CO2 free energy away from someone that now will have to use co2 generating energy instead.

Not sure if this makes climate capture any less baloney, but energy, especially renewables isn't a 0 sum thing. A country with good renewables often generates more elecricity then it can handle and there's a negative price for electricity at those times.

If you can choose when you use elecricity, you definitely aren't forcing someone else to use CO2 intensive energy.

I don't think that makes a big change to your overall point, but it's an interesting feature of renewable energy so I figured it was worth saying.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That was my point. Until renewables power 100% of your country (or better, the world) it is actively a waste to be CO2 capturt as you will be generating more CO2 than you capture with that same amount or energy. It's better to route that renewable energy to something that would have been using "CO2 generating energy" instead.

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

I guess what I mean is, renewable doesn't need tibe 100% all the time to lead to that case. The UK is about 50% renewable overall, but if it's sunny and windy (or windy and nobody is using electricity) then that ratio jumps over 90% fast.

I think I'm just geeking out on electricity though, not making a meaningful point.