this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
90 points (98.9% liked)

Climate

8874 readers
484 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
90
Austria and France banned short-haul flights to boost train travel and reduce emissions. Did it work? (climatetrace.org)
submitted 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) by inari@piefed.zip 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€“] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm left with a lot of questions though, as the scope of the article is quite limited.

Short-haul flight are banned, so the gains seem obvious. But the article doesn't seem to detail if they're actually substituted by rail. Travellers could also be going by car, search for destinations further away, maybe not go at all.

I guess it's quite hard to find an actual effect from a broader perspective, but if their expectations are true, travellers using rail should have a noticable increase. It's a shame this is missing in the article.

Basically the article is saying that if you scrap a bunch of flights, emissions by aviations go down. Maybe I'm missing the point, but that seems pretty obvious. I'd like to know what the actual broader effect is of these measures taken.

[โ€“] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

Cars are still roughly an order of magnitude less emitting for the same trip compared to planes so in the worst case it's still a win, as long as it doesn't increase public subsidization of car-centric infrastructure. I think I would personally take rail if I were presented with car or train. I can at least do something while riding the train or even work remotely or something.