this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
49 points (86.6% liked)

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

5244 readers
288 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
 
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sonori@beehaw.org 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Surely driving oil prices higher is a positive effect from a climate prospective, as it makes oil even less competitive with renewable sources?

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It does both - there will be an increase in both fracking and renewable energy if oil prices go up.

It's a bit of a weird infographic. I'd imagine a huge negative side effect is that of production and consumption - producing the war machine and bombing things to the ground is, perhaps not surprisingly, not exactly what one would call sustainable.

Then again, if climate is all one cares about one could argue mankind cannot exterminate itself fast enough.

I appreciate what they're trying to do, but in the end the Gaza genocide is mostly bad because murdering civilians is bad. If you don't take issue with mass murder I don't think you'll be convinced by any environmental arguments one might make either.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago

Ya, I feel like the infographic is reaching some to try and connect two rather distant, and not just because it doesn’t really provide any info. Surely the important problem is the western backed ethnic cleansing, mass murder of innocent people, and continuing a cycle of violence that only one side has the power to end, not the incidental impact on oil prices?

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It also incentivises more production, if you believe the supply & demand story.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Surely, by that logic low prices would also drive demand and increased useage?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They do. What you actually want is high prices for consumers and low prices for those doing extraction. That's the idea behind a carbon tax or sabotage aimed at the oil and gas midstream.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So you’re saying high prices lead to increased useage over low prices and low prices lead to increased useage over high prices at the same time? Does this mean average prices lead to decreased oil useage?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Usage has increased no matter the price for decades. Using pure price mechanisms to globally cut fossil fuel use means splitting consumer prices from wellhead prices.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

Useage has increased, but for your first comment to make any sense the war’s effect on prices must have caused an increase over and beyond a world in which it didn’t happen.

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You could replace the title with just about any other armed conflict.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net -2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Exactly. And the bests way to end this one is a prompt surrender by Hamas; that, combined with removing Netanyahu's coalition from power during their next election, would go a long ways creating a situation where people can live together.

[–] mambabasa@slrpnk.net 4 points 8 months ago

Bold of you to think a Hamas surrender could stop a genocide. Even more bold of you to think the problem is just Netanyahu and his coalition.

[–] wildcherry@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago

"Elections" lol you think Israel is a democracy? That's cute.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)
[–] ted@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago