39
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

US will do literally anything other than reducing fossil fuel dependence

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago

The funding was part of a law which mostly spends money on reducing fossil fuel dependence, and a little bit on carbon capture.

[-] Conyak@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago

This should not be an alternative to reducing fossil but it could help mitigate the effects of climate change we have already signed up for. I hope we continue to invest in this technology.

[-] nodiratime@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The US is the most energy wasteful society ever seen, with a historic co2 foodprint putting others to shame. It's time for the US to do it's duty.

[-] cerement@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago

“vacuum greenhouse gases from the sky” … “many scientists are skeptical of the technology”

well … when you phrase it like that, I wonder why?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Basically: you can do it, but for almost all applications, it's a lot cheaper to avoid burning fossil fuels than it is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere afterwards.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The problem is there's a few hundred billion tonnes or so that needs removing and it can't go from 0 to billions of tonnes per year overnight, but as soon as you start doing it publicly propagandists will flock to it and use it to delay more effective and pressing action.

[-] vanderstilt@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Mitigating ongoing emissions is cheaper than removing well mixed past emissions.

[-] Kittenstix@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense.

[-] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

The article is mostly skeptical and most agree carbon capture is extremely inefficient compared to avoiding burning fossil fuels in the first place, which I agree with. But I also think in a broad strategy to leverage as many sectors and technologies as possible to fight climate change, using $1b from a $400b bill is not necessarily a bad thing, if only to diversify our approach or keep the potential alive for a breakthrough.

[-] mookulator@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
39 points (95.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5023 readers
349 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS