this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
379 points (99.0% liked)

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

5246 readers
377 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]
379
Biden Administration raises social cost of carbon (used in regulatory decisions) from $51/ton to $190/ton (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.

The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Im curious, why are you comparing a sedan to a suv? Beyond being about the same cost upfront after tax credit, if still 8.5k cheaper over ten years than the smaller Mazda.

I also doubt most of its customers are that horrified by its quality, given as far as i could see its reviewed well by consumers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I compared a sedan and SUV because they both will fit a family of four and their suitcases for roughly the same price.

I can only speak as somebody who has spent some real time in one, I’d never buy a Bolt. They’re well liked, but as the very cheapest electric vehicles, not just as vehicles. In other words, compared against actually good ICE or hybrid vehicles, the Bolt has zero appeal aside from being electric. That makes us a passable electric vehicle but an overall crappy car to drive. Also, for $850 a year I’d take the Mazda in a heartbeat. Sure, that’s a “privilege”, but it’s also a proven reliable, quality vehicle that will absolutely positively not feel like a tin can that rattles when you shut a door. If somebody spends real time in their vehicle, as I have at various points in my life, I wouldn’t take the Bolt.