this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
41 points (100.0% liked)

Climate

8220 readers
448 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
41
Airlines should tell UK customers the carbon impact of flights, watchdog says (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 14 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If the pricing was similar and one airline had a lower carbon print

Price and emissions tend to track one another, as the price of fuel is heavily baked into the cost of the seat. And everyone flies the same aircraft models. It's not like there's a "Low Emissions Boeing" or "EV Airbus" you can select.

[โ€“] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I agree with that on direct plans. I don't agree with that on indirect lanes. the emissions to passenger ratio should be lower on a full 130 passenger jet that is going to another more populated airport nearby, and then hopping to the destination port with a lower passenger count(this would raise ticket prices some, but I wouldn't expect game changing amounts), than a direct flight plan that has a full jet one direction, and then only 1/4 occupancy on the direct route back.

I don't actually care about full emission count though, I just want the emissions to be used responsibly. a low passenger to emission ratio would be what I find the most useful, but I doubt its what anyone would actually supply.