this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024

69 points (97.3% liked)

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

5276 readers

636 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

Trump wants to ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ What does that mean for climate concerns? (alaskapublic.org)

submitted 1 week ago by Midnight@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 days ago

That the US is going to fall further behind China in green energy technology.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago

As someone currently on extended vacation, enjoying several national parks, I would suspect national parks will be gutted for natural resources.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The oil will be drilled now or later anyway.

The question is how much is burned when and why. I can't really see anyone anywhere being interested in consuming more oil. If consumption stays the same, he'll basically just be dumping the price.

[–] yonder@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

Reducing oil prices reduces the financial incentives for using bicycles, taking public transit, living in a city and using renewable energy sources. Drilling itself also has environmental impacts.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

How about to each his or her or their own? Like let Texas be the oil smeared radioactive smelling shithole it wants to be?

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 1 points 5 days ago

What does that mean for climate concerns?

Kill babies, kill.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee -1 points 6 days ago

He can't make the unextractable extractable. Nor can he make consumption stop. In terms of the Keeling curve, the impact is exactly zero.

[–] JGcEowt4YXuUtkBUGHoN@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

One thing that I’m hopefully about is that solar is so cheap now so that will continue to roll out like crazy unless someone places huge tariffs on imported goods… oh shit. I just found out about the massive tariffs that fascist is wanting to put in place.

[+] eleitl@lemm.ee -7 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Solar and wind are only relatively cheap if you don't need to buffer. Unfortunately, you do. And electricity production is only a fraction of primary energy use. Concrete, steel, glass, fertilizer, chemistry, diesel and bunker fuel for shipping and mining. Can't make new renewable infrastructure without fossil extraction.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

About half of the fuel used in shipping is to move fossil fuel from one place to another.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago

Some ways are more efficient than the others https://maritime-executive.com/article/barge-transport-wins-on-fuel-efficiency

Electric batteries have a low energy density but overall higher efficiency than diesel. Fuel cells with liquid synfuels like methanol have similiar energy density (about half) and twice or more the efficiency of diesel.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 7 points 6 days ago

With current battery and hydro storage prices, their cheaper than natural gas with with the cost of the buffer, and absurdly cheap for any industrial application that doesn’t.

Also there are bulk industrial processes to make steel, concrete, fertilizer, and glass with little to no carbon emissions, they just require more electricity and so aren’t cost effective if your electricity comes from fossil fuels, hence why most such plants only started construction once the cost for electricity in general dropped below the cost for fossil electricity.

Moreover while mining and shipping are only starting decarbonization, the required fossil fuel extraction is already far, far smaller than what’s continually required to run the generation they are replacing, and that’s only going to continue to drop as more and more primary energy is electrified with renewables.

[–] RevengeOfTheFallen@reddthat.com 11 points 1 week ago

The guy literally loves fellating.

Always wanting to drill everywhere.

[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago

🔥🌎🔥

[–] graycube@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Assuming there is more oil to drill for...

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

There’s plenty under the 28M acre Alaskan wildlife refuge that Biden secured this term. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump granted drilling rights in his first year.

https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/government/article/55241389/biden-moves-to-limit-oil-drilling-in-anwr-hours-after-trumps-election

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

There's more oil. Peak oil is about easy to get oil, not actually running out. We'll spend whatever it takes to keep this machine turning.