this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
10 points (91.7% liked)

Climate

8433 readers
267 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
10
Washington State aims to stabilize carbon market, lower costs with key strategy: merging its carbon market with the one jointly operated by California and the Canadian province of Quebec. (www.seattletimes.com)
submitted 17 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Your browser is set to private mode.

To continue reading, log in or subscribe.

I'm gonna guess this is just the liberal grift of pretending carbon offsets actually do something.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Forcing companies to buy them creates a financial incentive to not burn stuff. Its effective, but the price you have to make them pay to get rid of all the burning is higher than can be politically supported in the near term.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Are they required to buy them? Are there audits? Does this apply to literally all fossil fuel use?

Either way, it still gives an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 13 hours ago

Yes, there is a requirement to buy permits in the carbon market. It applies to large emitters and fuel sellers. It does not cover non-fossil-fuel emissions sources, like some pesticides which are also greenhouse gases, or agricultural methane sources.