this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
54 points (100.0% liked)

Climate

8493 readers
279 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
54
Carbon capture: the “distracting, dangerous scam” governments are relying on to reach net zero (www.bmj.com)
submitted 2 months ago by solo@piefed.social to c/climate@slrpnk.net
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) may sound simple and promising enough. It involves the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) at its source—such as an industrial plant—before it can enter the atmosphere, storing it deep underground in geological formations such as oil wells.

“The bottom line is that carbon capture just increases CO2,” says Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, California. “It increases air pollution. It increases fossil fuel mining, fossil fuel infrastructure, pipelines, and it results in more oil being drilled. In the end, all it does is keep the fossil fuel industry in business . . . so it’s basically a scam.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

God they overthink it (or, yes, scam). It's not hard, grow tree, bury tree, grow another tree (or similar with phytoplankton or seaweed or whatever), rinse, repeat. Not a permanent solution but it'll give us some breathing room (ha ha, sigh) to find a better one, but that's not tied to profit, just survival.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have a stupid question: when you bury the tree, I presume that will be done using machinery and...uh...burn fuel?

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago

Sure, but as long as it's (much) less than the amount of carbon in the tree we're good. Smart choice of geography would make it better, rehabilitating mines and so forth, also good for enriching farmland (eventually).