this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
933 points (98.2% liked)

Climate

8436 readers
820 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
933
Gas imports or solar panels? (slrpnk.net)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by inari@piefed.zip to c/climate@slrpnk.net
207 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

And? The land doesnt become a useless wasteland. Shading the land actually promotes more plant growth with less water useage.

[โ€“] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Think the point is that it represents an added cost not modeled in the infographic. It's really the curse of incremental infrastructure cost, the LNG infrastructure sunk costs would be untenable but they've already been spent. So now solar, however unfairly, has that added infrastructure cost to consider.

The weird thing are solar nimbys. A while back I was reading about a big bunch of solar intended for the Mojave. Perfect, useless wasteland that should be a slam dunk for solar. But NIMBYs said that they would be an eyesore and hurt Vegas tourism. So they proposed installing on Mesas, out of sight. Then they still complained that skydivers could see it.