this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
41 points (97.7% liked)

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

5055 readers
513 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
Exxon Mobil and Chevron are spending tens of billions of dollars buying oil and gas assets, betting that the International Energy Agency’s predictions of declining oil demand are wrong. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 10 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vmaziman@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Wrong. They’re correctly predicting that despite a shift away from non renewables, society will always have a need for plastics, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and legacy ICE regular petroleum. This is a move to be the consolidated monopolized leader at the top of the stack when all the climate involved millennials eventually get into governance

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lol no. They're betting on an expansion of fossil fuel use. That's not going to happen in a scenario where there's a limited residual use of fossil fuels for those uses.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 3 points 10 months ago

To these huge companies, the longer term doesn't matter much right now: if it pans out, they'll celebrate; if it doesn't, some gullible politician will bail them out and they'll celebrate anyway. However, they're publicly-traded and thus ruled by quarterly profits. (Apparently saying the obvious here, multiple of the top comments at NYT read similarly...)

[–] christophski@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if we will ever see a post-plastic world?

[–] TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net 3 points 10 months ago

We can make plastic out of renewable resources, and we're discovering new materials all the time. It's ignorant and short sighted to think we'll always need to or be able to depend on petroleum.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Further cementing the downfall of civilization.