this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
18 points (95.0% liked)

Climate

8384 readers
118 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
18
Non-permanent carbon removals CDR, like afforestation, cannot compensate for emissions as permanent ones can. This should be reflected in carbon pricing (www.pik-potsdam.de)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The paper is here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It does have other value, but they're often not climate-impacting value. So you don't want to claim a temporary offset is equivalent to a permanent burning of a fossil fuel.

[–] redditmademedoit@piefed.zip 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But what about the climate mitigation (e.g. preventing soil erosion) or potential ecological impact (e.g. habitat restoration). Is it really trivial to compare that to the climate use?

I don't claim to have comprehensive knowledge on any parts of the equation or how they stack up to each other, I'm just saying that if you have an economical policy that incentivices one measure over the other – which at the of the day is what we're talking about – it seems sensible to base it on the sum of the measures' value. If we, for instance, want to disincentivice afforestation that should not strictly be made on the basis of how much carbon it can offset compared to other options.

But maybe that is just my general scepticism towards the promises of future CCS technology talking.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Reforestation is great for the reasons you describe, but the alternative is not some future carbon capture technology; its a faster fossil fuels phase out.

[–] redditmademedoit@piefed.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Oh, I agree fully about the focus on phasing out fossil fuels. My impression was that the article argued that it was a temporary method and therefore less valuable than other methods of capturing and storing carbon in terms of offsetting/a carbon credit system.