this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
167 points (98.3% liked)

Climate

8609 readers
177 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
167
Germany’s climate U-turn is the worst possible response to the oil shock | Prices at the pump have leapt since the start of the conflict – but clinging to fossil fuels will only prolong the pain (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This comment is tone deaf.

We've invested a bunch in those sectores in the last decade and a half. Not in nuclear. Before then, they were also ridiculously expensive and everyone made the same argument you are making, but in favor of Fossil fuels because it was cheaper. It was shit then, it's shit now.

If you actually look at data instead of going off vibes nuclear is still the second safest energy source, nearly tied with solar. Wind is behind, and if you think nuclear is dangerous then what the fuck are you bringing up hydro for? By the most dangerous if those, if we go by actual data and not vibes.

And plenty of working solutions for waste have been found, but people just don't care to listen to them because they already made up their mind: airplanes are more dangerous than cars.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Riddle me this: where are the ultimate disposal places for nuclear waste and how much does it cost to operate them for the next tens of thousands of years - at least. Please do enlighten me about the (technically and economically) working solutions for nuclear waste. But I do agree that fossil is shit now and it was then.
And there's zero risk of radioactive contamination when using solar (or hydro or wind), statistics my ass.
Have you ever heard of the disaster at Chernobyl? And it was close more often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Calling the certainty of nuclear waste and the risk of contamination vibes is as ridiculous as it can get.
Btw. there's a difference between risks that affect people once and risks that affect people for centuries.