this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
41 points (100.0% liked)

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

5239 readers
448 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
41
Dutch appeals court overturns landmark climate ruling against Shell (apnews.com)
submitted 3 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago

In a written summary of Tuesday’s ruling, the court said that Shell has a duty of care to limit its emissions, but it annulled the lower court’s decision because it was “unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage.

“There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere.”

We can't determine that cutting your emissions would do anything beneficial, even though something would be better than doing nothing, but we will let you do nothing instead. Jesus.

Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade.

So how would that be a reduction? How are you going to quantify THAT as a reduction? If we are going with unquantifiable reductions, why don't we go with direct emissions like originally planned.