this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
129 points (99.2% liked)

Climate

8803 readers
282 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
129
France temporarily shuts down three nuclear reactors over heatwave (www.france24.com)
submitted 3 days ago by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to c/climate@slrpnk.net
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Laser@feddit.org 31 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It should be noted that these regulations are there to protect the rivers from overheating, the nuclear power plant doesn't really care that much.

They're still a liability though, not only for the reason of heating up rivers

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm well aware. Both are important, thus my question.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Europe as in the EU member states don't mine uranium, so it's a strategic dependency anyways. If you're not a nuclear power (i.e. France or the UK, though no longer a Union member), nuclear makes no sense

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

True, but a reliable supply exists with your friends in Canada. Nuclear has to be secondary to wind and solar, but in a fossil fuel free world it still has a place.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Surely this time relying on partner nations won't get us in trouble"

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What is the EU if not partners you count on? It's not wise to go it alone. Friends and partners are good to have. Also as I stated, nuclear comes after wind and solar.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My point was relying on Canada for Uranium is like relying on the US for, I don't know, weapons or something, you're only one election away from being cut off a resource

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I totally get that. But that is really a fact of life. No country can afford to live on only its own resources.

Edit: Canada has always wanted to sell its resources and is not aspiring empire. So one election away isn't accurate. Both major parties will gladly sell. It is vital to us, and makes us just that more reliable a partner.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Ah makes sense, I was really confused why we were protecting a steam turbine from summer heat.

So instead of turning off they could also run it at 50%? If that's even a thing.