this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
135 points (99.3% liked)

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

5152 readers
556 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
135
ExxonMobil accused of ‘greenwashing’ over carbon capture plan it failed to invest in | Investigation reveals project may never leave drawing board and has received no licence or government support (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I think this makes it really clear how most of the carbon capture proposals are aimed at influencing public opinion towards allowing ongoing extraction and burning, rather than actually doing much of anything.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Kind of a headache to enforce this kind of stuff when natural resource production is essentially entirely private. Why would they make any of these costly changes when they can just bank that, at some point in the next 30 years or whatever, a republican will probably get elected who will free them of the obligation?

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

It's in Hampshire - 'Republican' means something entirely different here, and they already have a conservative government that likes to ignore pollution.