this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
2 points (51.8% liked)

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

5999 readers
605 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
2
7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change (www.oneearth.org)
submitted 4 days ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Nuclear doesn’t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with nuclear energy and why it is not a solution to the climate crisis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 4 days ago

The thing that bugs me about "weapons potential" is the fact that a lack of nuclear plants has done fuck all to stop countries from building warheads.

Could plants help their efforts? Maybe, and that's a weak maybe on the side of "no." As it stands, anyone who can build a plant can or is building nuclear arms already. If the sticking point is not wanting nuclear weapons, they're barking up the wrong tree; the problem is the people in charge.