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
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Have you noticed that your arguments in opposition to nuclear power appear to be entirely rooted in bureaucratic failure?

And these are just pet peeves, but why are we measuring nuclear waste

something famous for being made of the heaviest materials possible

in tonnes? Wouldn't a much better metric for difficulty-of-storage be the volume? I know the reason is that it would be devastating to the argument against nuclear power when compared to the size of, say, a football/soccer pitch, but it's still deeply irritating. Also, there are grades of nuclear waste. There is much less TRU/HLW waste than there is Class A, which is predictably never ever mentioned in poorly researched anti-nuclear propaganda articles like this.

(I almost forgot to mention this one, but the majority of nuclear waste is produced by the Nuclear Stewardship Program not commercial nuclear power plants. I think we can all agree that nuclear weapons are awful, and if we want to stop the production of nuclear waste we'd have to get rid of them as well, an unlikely condition but one I'd be very happy to see realized)