this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
60 points (98.4% liked)

Climate

8447 readers
301 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
60
Iran war should trigger faster exit from fossil fuel dependence, UN climate chief says (www.reuters.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
15 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
[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Can you name a few better technologies, which don't depend on fossil fuels (renewable energy sources do, as do fertilizers, industrial agriculture, transport and others).

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know whether you're right about inevitable dependencies, but surely reducing fossil fuel use to the essentials would still be a huge and worthwhile improvement? It feels like your argument is needlessly suggesting an all-or-nothing approach.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

My argument is that we're not abandoning fossil fuels, but rather that fossil fuels are abandoning us. We have no degrees of freedom, no agency in the matter. And that void won't be substituted by anything else but classical biofuels and a small fraction of legacy wind, hydro and geothermal. Running a small population at roughly Edo period Japan technology level.