this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
21 points (100.0% liked)

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

7682 readers
172 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
21
California's cap and trade gets a new name [Cap & Invest] and a new mission beyond cutting carbon pollution (calmatters.org)
submitted 3 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

First: fuck this bullshit. This is such a common problem with market-based solutions. I'm a big proponent of them, but you really need to keep politicians from doing this. The goal is phasing out fossil fuels. The money absolutely should be going to projects that fulfill that goal. This is not a piggy bank.

Second:

"While supporters ballyhoo the bullet train as something that would have a major impact on emissions by reducing auto traffic, the High Speed Rail Authority’s own projections indicate that, were it to be fully completed, it would reduce automobile emissions by scarcely 1%. Meanwhile construction actually increases emissions."

This doesn't quite pass the sniff test. You're telling me that if you built a zero-emissions mode of high speed transit along one of the most trafficked routes in the state that there would be no change in emissions? Are the ridership projections zero? Did the model say that for every driver who choses to take the train instead of driving, a new driver will take their place? Is this factoring in the effect on airline emissions from people who train instead of fly? This just sounds like that monologue from Landman where Billy Bob Thorton's character confidently declares a bunch of facts about climate reduction that the writer thought sounded good.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago

we should just charge a carbon tax and directly invest it in green infrastructure, like subway lines, high speed rail, and transmission infrastrcture as well as loan programs for small scale things like apartment EVSEs and microgrids

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

Alright, I just wasted a bunch of time I should've been working looking into this, and here is the HSRA's most recent report on the subject: https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Sustainability-Report-2024-FINAL-A11Y-20240916.pdf

From the relevant section, pg 58:

With high-speed rail, the annual GHG emissions reductions are projected to be 0.6 to 3 million MTCO2e. based on 2024 Business Plan ridership models. This reduction is equivalent to the annual carbon emissions associated with the energy use of between 77,000 and 372,000 homes – more than the housing stock of San Jose. The cumulative reductions in well-to-wheels emissions over the first 50 years of operations are projected to be between 29 million and 142 million MTCO2e.

I wish they'd provided a percent reduction in vehicle emissions, but according to another source (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data), in 2023, transportation emissions in California were 137 million metric tons of CO2. The average of the range comes out to around 1.3% of that range.

That's interesting. I wonder what fraction of transit emissions are from passenger travel across the state, vs commercial hauling and inner city traffic. I still think this is an obviously necessary step, but I'm curious what other actions are needed to take care of the other 99% of transit emissions. Perhaps urban public transit and bike infrastructure.