this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
52 points (91.9% liked)

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

5040 readers
856 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 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ptz@dubvee.org 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I wish it gave me hope. I guess the only bright side is "we're trying, maybe, a little".

In another post a while back, someone (may have even been OP), said something to the effect of 'carbon capture is just social permission to keep using fossil fuels'. I think about that a lot, and definitely agree.

[–] golli@lemm.ee 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I would change this slightly to:

the idea of future carbon capture is just social permission to keep using fossil fuels right now'

Because of this it is in my opinion actually harmful. And don't even start thinking about who gets to shoulder potential future costs vs todays profits.

[–] Hol@feddit.uk 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The real question is how to make it profitable. Turn the captured carbon into building materials somehow?

As it stands, who pays for it? Can’t rely on government subsidies, and can’t rely on business doing it unless they’re compelled.

I wish it would work but I just don’t see how it fits in the current system at any meaningful scale.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Turn the captured carbon into building materials somehow?

So, trees ...

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

You might be onto something.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

Limestone is also a suitable building material.

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago

The problem is, usually the result of this capture process comes in the form of CO2 gas. Turning that into something useful takes even more energy.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even if it was straightforward and easy, the eventual outcome will be people assuming it is enough to offset the pollution that it will never keep up with and make people even less interested in getting companies to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere in the first place. Just like the whole 'carbon neutral' and 'recycle plastic' have been blatant lies that make people fine with more pollution and trash.

[–] ignirtoq@fedia.io 6 points 4 months ago

Agreed. Carbon capture is absolutely an important tech that we should deploy after the cheaper, better solutions of removing carbon from our economies. Carbon capture should be the final phase where we help the Earth heal the damage we've done after we stop doing the damage. We need to first implement those stop-doing-the-damage phases.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Realized carbon storage efficiency is abysmal: typically -25% of estimates, and highly variable, and that's before you factor in the economics. You don't get anything tangible from CCS, either.

[–] Jaytreeman@kbin.social 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Trees are pretty good at carbon capture :)

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Trees are sadly inefficient for the scales we need. I'm not saying we should cut down more trees or stop planting them, but it will take much more than that to get us out of the hole we've dug ourselves into.

[–] Jaytreeman@kbin.social 1 points 4 months ago

I don't think there's a reasonable way out of this hole, but I'd rather be in a world with more forest, so I'll keep suggesting that.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

While this is true, we only tend to plant monocultures.

[–] Jaytreeman@kbin.social 3 points 4 months ago

Very true. A forest is definitely preferable

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago

It's a scam. Right Wing politicians up here in Saskatchewan have been rolling on about it for at least a decade as a response to the "damn lilbural's and their climate agenda."

It's not viable. It's never been viable. It's a through-line that they can feed their idiot followers to say "look...we aren't bad for the environment, it's just the left telling you we are."

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

No its dumb

[–] sexy_peach@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago

It was never efficient/fast enough.