this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
41 points (97.7% liked)

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

5240 readers
653 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
A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals | A boom in data centers and factories is straining electric grids and propping up fossil fuels. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The way the Washington Post ran a similar article a week ago.

Utilities could (and should) have started planning for this years ago, as increased electric use was pretty much inevitable as one of the key parts of decarbonization is to electrify everything.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kozy138@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I remember reading a study from Japan a few years ago. It related the country's percent GDP investment in renewables vs power consumption of the population over time. The conclusion was, that the more GDP they invested in renewable power generation, the more overall power was available, which the population consumed.

Old power sources didn't go away. There is just another source available. It's an addictive effect, not a replacement of power sources.

I tried searching for the article again a few months later, but I couldn't find it.. I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed or hidden, considering it is objective evidence against being able to buy our way of this problem.

[–] spicytuna62@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Utilities could (and should) have started planning for this years ago

I agree, but I have had the idea for a while that power companies are in bed with big oil. Sure, they sell a lot of gas to us for our cars, but they sell A LOT more fuel to utility companies. Makes sense that they prioritize staying in business over anything else. As we move to electric cars, it's like the most unsurprising thing that oil companies would focus on power companies, especially since power companies almost always operate monopolistically.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Absolute best bet is governments use up all reserves over a few hundred years keeping us at a sane threshold (please don't yell at me we are past that, not my point). Very few countries ate going to keep anything beyond some strategic reserves. Expecting global altruism like that isn't going to happen in the time frame it would need to happen. Shits going to be cataclysmic before the general population is really willing to change.