this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
33 points (97.1% liked)

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

5244 readers
236 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
33
Oil companies granted licences to store carbon under the North Sea (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

5 million tonnes is 0.0125% of what we need to cut

It's modular, they can make it larger in the future. They can also build more than one plant. For example I could see them building another one in Kemmerer, Wyoming and powering it with TerraPower's Natrium SMR.

This would have been great 20 years ago. Today, lol.

Just like planting a tree. If it wasn't done in the past then you can either do it now or never. Which would you prefer?

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The point isn't whether or not to invest in carbon capture tech. The point is that carbon capture tech is inconsequential to the climate crisis on any relevant timescale, and the #1 reason used to justify continued emissions by every major contributing industry, even though THEY KNOW that it is at least 30+ years away from being economically viable on any scale that could justify it as a solution (when we're already at 2–3c).

The ONLY way we have a reasonable chance to avoid a 2+ c world is to dramatically reduce emissions this decade, by an order of 50+% at least using existing, proven solutions — distant, non-existent, unproven, future-tech can not save us from the present, so don't even bother getting your hopes up.

This Al Gore TED talk should help you understand why.