this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
101 points (99.0% liked)

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

5095 readers
864 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
101
EPA Says It Plans to Withdraw Approval for Chevron’s Plastic-Based Fuels That Are Likely to Cause Cancer (www.propublica.org)
submitted 2 days ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Same comment I left on the other thread for this article:

The EPA had failed to note the sky-high cancer risk from the marine fuel additive in the agency’s document approving the chemical’s production. When ProPublica asked why, the EPA said it had “inadvertently” omitted it.

Asked last week for an accurate estimate of the true risk posed by the chemicals, the EPA declined to respond, citing pending litigation. The EPA also did not respond when asked why it did not acknowledge that its approval may have been made in error during the months that ProPublica was asking about it.

Uhhh.... Anyone know what the fuck is happening over at the EPA???

Edit, also a worthwhile excerpt:

As ProPublica and The Guardian noted last year, making fuel from plastic is in some ways worse for the climate than simply creating it directly from coal, oil or gas. That’s because nearly all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, and additional fossil fuels are used to generate the heat that turns discarded plastic into fuels.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Uhhh.... Anyone know what the fuck is happening over at the EPA???

Years of Republican attacks on federal agencies (the EPA in particular) with the Trump admin as the trigger man