this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
101 points (97.2% liked)

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

7592 readers
297 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
101
Removing CO2 from atmosphere vital to avoid catastrophic tipping points, leading scientist says (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

10bn tonnes must be captured from the air every year to limit global heating to 1.7C, says Johan Rockström

Problem is this part:

To achieve this through technological means, such as direct air capture, would require the construction of the world’s second biggest industry, after oil and gas, and require expenditures of about a trillion dollars a year, scientists said. It would need to be done alongside much more drastic emissions cuts and could also have unintended consequences.

That makes it incredibly unlikely that this kind of removal will be done.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

No body cares. Or at least, no one who can actually make the difference cares. We have missed target after target after target. The solution seems to be a simple, yet, really not simple at all one. Just make moving away from fossil fuels more profitable.

Back when we were talking about CFCs and the Ozone layer, Dupont(Yes, those evil cunts) was dragging its fucking heels because it made CFCs. But once they saw an avenue to actually profit, they were right on board.

So, you want to move everyone away from fossil fuels? Simple. Just find something to replace it that will make someone rich. If we can scale down the cost of synthetic fuels, and increase their efficiency, we'd be laughing as we woudnt have to replace anything. Cars, buses, trucks, ships, planes, would all run on the stuff. EU has already mandated that aircraft use a synthetic blend by 2030. Others say that as we get more renewables up and running, then electrolysers(turning water to hydrogen) can scale up, with synthetics being as cheap as 1.30 for a litre of Aviation fuel. Costs of electrolysers have dropped by around 70% over the last decade and are expected to halve again by 2030.