this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
65 points (89.2% liked)

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

5212 readers
666 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
65
U.S. Bets on Small Nuclear Reactors to Help Fix a Huge Climate Problem (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In a major setback last week, the first serious effort to build small reactors in the United States was abruptly canceled amid soaring costs. While other projects are still moving forward, the industry has consistently struggled to build plants on time and on budget.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fosiacat@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (19 children)

“costs too much. gonna have to die from climate change instead”

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Or...go ahead and build out a lot more solar, wind, and storage at lower cost

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Even that isn't enough.

We still need to ruthlessly end North American car dependency...and reduce beef consumption...and stop fast fashion...and stop planned obsolescence and throw away crap

[–] silent2k@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So…stop kapitalism? What are you? Communist?

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I consider myself a hybrid. Some things, a market just doesn't work, like infrastructure and medicine.

Some things, like entertainment, restaurants, etc, REGULATED markets are best. Regulations are vital though. Costs can't be externalized. No bailouts. Your business goes under, tough.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

This is usually considered a Social Democrat. Or a Marxist. Using the government to limit the worst effects of capitalism. I especially love the idea that business can fail, something fought very hard for under capitalism - because capital never wants to lose.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

what if you're too big to fail though? surely captains of industry would be bailed out like always

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Then you get nationalized or broken up like ma bell.

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

then your “bailout” isn’t a bailout but a buyout by the public sector, and then probably split up and sold in parts to recoup whatever money they can and make sure it’s not too big to fail in the future

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)