this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
81 points (98.8% liked)

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

5246 readers
374 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]
81
Republican Presidential Candidates on Climate (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I wouldn't consider voting for any of these people in the general election, but I recognize that people often live in gerrymandered districts, and therefore vote in Republican primaries in order to have some influence over their local representatives. For people living in such a district, choosing a least-bad candidate is a way try and moderate the Republican party just a bit.

Candidates are listed by poll-based estimates of their support, which makes it rather clear that Republicans as a whole have sought to reject any kind of meaningful path to zero greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Trump: His actions as president may have caused irreversible damage to the global climate.

  • DeSantis: He has supported efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, but not to prevent it.

  • Scott: He acknowledges climate change but rejects most efforts to stop it.

  • Ramaswamy: He opposes all government efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

  • Haley: She supports carbon-capture technology but has denounced efforts to reduce emissions.)

  • Pence: He claims climate change is exaggerated and would prioritize domestic energy production.

  • Christie: He supports action on climate change with some caveats.

  • Hutchinson: He denounces government mandates but supports private renewable energy development.

  • Burgum: He has supported carbon-capture as governor, but what he would do as president is unclear.

  • Hurd: He acknowledges that climate change is a major threat, but what he would do is unclear.

  • Suarez: He has pursued significant emission reductions in Miami.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Carbon capture is a scam.

Either say "pollute what you want into the atmosphere but then you are responsible for carbon capture to remove it" or get fucked.

Carbon tax is the best solution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Carbon capture is supposed to capture carbon before it's released into the atmosphere.

But yeah, it's a scam, because it's real easy for polluters to say they're capturing without actually capturing.

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

It would certainly work, but hasn't had the support to get through Congress. So the Democrats passed an almost-all-carrots approach in the Inflation Reduction Act

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

It's scientifically and physically possible but it's not economically possible.

Throwing money into a hole isn't going to make it the solution. We need to fund it because it is a need solution for the future. But at them moment we are far better fixing other problems.

Basically we got a hole in the ship and water is pouring in. Some oil CEO fuckwit wants to design a pump to get the water out and tells everyone that letting water in isn't a bad thing. In fact it's a good thing because if we ignore it we have more resources to go towards this pump.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

About 1% of Inflation Reduction Act goes to removal like that. Most of it is spent on decarbonization of electric generation and electrification of homes