this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
32 points (88.1% liked)

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

5310 readers
462 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
[email protected]
32
Leakage at First U.S. Carbon Capture Injection Well Proves that CCS Can’t Work (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“CCS is a technologically unsound and economically unviable scheme, perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry…”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This isn't just one leak, this is a leak that got so bad the EPA got involved.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Again, how does one failed trial invalidate the entire scheme?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because this "one trial" was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All I’m hearing is the first experiment failed, and y’all would rather give up than fix it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, obviously I'd much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.

You're weirdly defensive about this idea. What's up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The whole article is weirdly dismissive of new technology.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's not new technology, for one. We've been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930's because it's cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.