this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
297 points (98.1% liked)

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

5237 readers
500 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
297
Taking CO2 out of the air would be an absurdly expensive way to fight climate change (www.theverge.com)
submitted 7 months ago by testeronious@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Interesting idea, haven't heard that one yet, but it does sound like something that a) would require literally mountains of energy and b) would take a way WAY long time, much more than we have available.

Also, just blaming it all on capitalism as a blanket excuse is a but too simple, not?

[โ€“] ZMoney@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Actually weathering can happen on the timescale of decades; it's all a matter of how much surface area of the rock you expose. Nature does this too slowly. In terms of energy input, grinding rocks gets a huge head start with all of the mine tailings we already have. Here is an example:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c03609#

In terms of capitalism, for me it's not too simple. Capitalism is a profit driven model that can't comprehend long term ecological damage. It becomes a "negative externality" which can then be modelled by economists however they want (which is why they don't agree about how bad it is). If we had a system based on human well being we would have solved climate change already. It's simply not profitable to replace the fossil fuel economy with renewable energy sources. It requires a level of investment capitalists can't comprehend. This is largely why societal change comes from governments which can simply invent money to throw at a problem (think New Deal or Bidenomics).

The complicated part is answering why humans can't seem to get past capitalism. I think we all agree the system is doomed; we just can't figure out how to get away from it.