this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
29 points (89.2% liked)

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

5239 readers
375 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
 

Graphyte, a new company incubated by Bill Gates’s investment group Breakthrough Energy Ventures, announced Monday that it has created a method for turning bits of wood chips and rice hulls into low-cost, dehydrated chunks of plant matter. Those blocks of carbon-laden plant matter — which look a bit like shoe-box sized Lego blocks — can then be buried deep underground for hundreds of years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes and get emissions down to zero needs to capture carbon at the emitters.

Can then be sequestrated. Or stored, a better term for large scale sequestration.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it means not burning stuff in the first place which is what's far cheaper.

[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is what utopia calls for.

But it will not happen anywhere near a timeline to conduct climate crisis changes.

Period.

Thats the same delusional argument as "take down half of humanity - problem solved"

Edit: it reads far more aggressive than I meant it. Ill apologize in advance.

I agree obsiously on the port if not burning stuff for nee things. But existing industry wont got away anytime soon.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The high cost of CCS means that almost all for-profit business faced with a choice between installing it and replacing their facilities with new ones which don't burn stuff is going to end up doing the latter. There are a handful of exceptions where the high operating cost of CCS might make it worthwhile, but they're a minority of what needs doing.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

To be fair, there are things like concrete production where the process itself inherently produces large amounts of carbon where capture might help, but yes, in general if there is a choice between a process that produces carbon and a more expensive one that doesn’t the one that doesn’t will still be cheaper than capture.