this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)

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

5052 readers
610 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
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Choose your poison. This is the same reason sewage treatment plants and land-fills have these flares setup. The methane IS that much (exponentially)worse than the CO2 and other by-products of burning it, and not just for the smell and health effects. There are plants(leafy kind, not factories) and other ways for mitigating the CO2.

For methane, your best options are to burn it(full-stop) or leave it in the ground(maybe put it back... ๐Ÿ™„ ). The rest of the the sentence in the screenshot is just ... incoherent and self-contradictory at best.

My first reaction to the headline was, "Hey, these assholes consider mitigation too expensive(where clean coal fails, according to their own bean-counters, nevermind the obvious realities against it), BUT THEY CAN BOTHER WITH THESE SHENANIGANS?"; However, burning/breaking down methane and other complex/harmful chemicals would be a first step in any in-place mitigation scheme.

The BEST first mitigation step is of course to just close these things down entire, so I'm done quibbling with the headline,

spoilerbut it sucks that all sides are stuck with the same fear-mongering-and-throwing-out-hyperbole/half-truth-and-occassional-hopefully-unintentional-straight-up-lies when trying to convince the public that the fascists trying to move the overton window their way use.

[โ€“] federalreverse@feddit.de 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Seems like there's some conflicting information in the article with the World Bank guy at the end contradicting the Texas regulator from earlier concerning the impact of enclosed flares.

[โ€“] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 months ago

That's pretty typical; reporters get told to get "both sides" so you end up with "he said, she said" even though one actually has some information about how things work, and the other doesn't.

There's conflicting information in the article between the reporter's own opinions within the same sentence ... but it seems more un-informed/biased than insincere. Its a painful topic for anyone looking at it through any lense short of sheer greed.

[โ€“] Rhaedas@kbin.social 3 points 4 months ago

Hang on. I misplaced my surprised face...oh, here it is.

Huh, who would have guessed?