96
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] blazera@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

with millions of acres of new oil drilling

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's a balance of politics. Better to be self-sufficient than to depend on other countries for oil. We are still going to be using oil for a while until we create a whole new national infrastructure for electric vehicles and phase out most gas engines.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah we're gonna continue heating up the planet for a while too.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, but there isn't an alternative. Currently only 4% of US car owners drive an electric car and only 20% of the energy we produce is renewable. Even if we transition as fast as humanly possible, it would take decades.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Other countries seem to be doin a much faster job than us. This dont have shit to do with capabilities.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They started earlier. We can't go back in time. We can only start now.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Millions of acres of new oil drilling is nothing but continuin to put off starting

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It is not to increase consumption. The only difference is the oil used in the US will come from the US, not Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I said continuing to heat the planet and putting off starting to address our emissions, you telling me this doesnt change anything is exactly the problem, it needs to be changed.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree it needs to be changed, but how?

How do the millions of people who depend on gas cars get to work tomorrow? How do the millions of people with gas stoves heat their dinner tonight? How do the millions of people with gas furnaces stay warm this winter?

We can't just stop using fossil fuels without replacements. How do you change any of this faster than we already are?

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Simplest answer, by wanting to change. Americans dont want to. If they did, we'd be building public transit, bike infrastructure, more renewable energy. Existing fossil fuel applications are one thing, but we're continuing to build new ones. New gas ranges, new gas vehicles, new gas heaters.

Im especially frustrated in rural Mississippi. I really wanna do some solar work, but there's no solar businesses for hundreds of miles. Big ass trucks and SUV's everywhere

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

"Wanting to change" isn't an answer. It's just an empty slogan. "Wanting to" doesn't mean I can afford to buy an electric car right now.

I just bought a gas stove (came with the condo). I expect it to last for another 20 years. That means I am buying natural gas for another 20 years.

Gad heaters are the worst problem. It's not just that we have to replace all the heaters. The electrical infrastructure just doesn't exist yet. That likely means building more nuclear and wind power. Getting that to a level to generate the energy to heat all homes will take decades.

There is no way to avoid it (short of killing a couple billion people). Fossil fuels are going to be with us for decades more.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Right. But it doesn't look like a sudden cut-over; it'll look like oil use dropping something like 5% each year if we require every new vehicle to be an EV.

[-] vanderstilt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

How soon would the supply chains and manufacturing capacity be ready for every vehicle sold in the US to be an ev?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Something like 3-5 years if it was mandated and people living ordinary lives lived with mid-sized cars instead of pickup trucks with less ability to spot a kid in front of them than a tank.

[-] vanderstilt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Given trends so far you'll forgive me if I think even 5 years is way too optimistic.

[-] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It isn't. He's definitely doing a lot better than some. But it's not going to change the pace we are on for destruction. Gotta really cut into corporations for that.

Plus Russia has stated it will refuse any measures that cut into its oil business.

So there's that

Joe thought he was supporting some Irish

[-] FullFridge@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Oo, ah, up the RA!

[-] Litysterious@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

It better seeing as how we're the worst polluters in the world.

this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
96 points (95.3% liked)

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

5352 readers
1470 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