this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
830 points (98.7% liked)

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

6490 readers
619 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The biggest issue seems to be around a lake of thinking. Recycling used plastics into more plastic is certainly energetically infeasible, and letting plastics escape to contaminate the environment is also unacceptable. However plastic can be recycled, or perhaps reused, into other things, notably as a partial replacement for aggregate in concrete. This process is low energy, doesn't require sorting the plastic, and actually enhances the thermal and noise insulation properties of the concrete, whilst also reducing it's overall weight. There are undoubtedly other things a stable, non-biodegradable, waterproof and hardwearing substance could be used for given some though.

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

Putting it in concrete just delays the inevitable.

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

It does, but it will also bind a lot of the micro plastic pieces into the concrete matrix, which, I think (and, again, as I said, I haven't actually gone looking for any research on this), would keep them from entering the environment. If the concrete is then recycled, typically by crushing and using as aggregate, it would further trap the particles. It's not a perfect solution, but I don't think there is a perfect solution to plastics in general, we just have to find less harmful alternatives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Probably designed by a nuclear engineer

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Recycling rates are low, but I wouldn't quite call it a myth. There's a lot of materials that get lumped together as 'plastic', that each have to be handled differently.

Some are relatively non-toxic and easily recycled. More can be, but aren't profitable without incentives. Some are very toxic, and recycling those are difficult. Then there's a lot of rarer types that make it hard to collect and sort. There's also mixed materials, where it's hard to separate the plastic to recycle.

Generally everyone should be minimizing plastics, but check how they're handled locally so you know what's recylable.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It seems there's been a flip. The myth is now that plastic is not recycled and it's all been a lie which is the actual lie.

The information around what types of plastics are easily recycled has never been a secret.

There is this weird mindset where people, often children are given a simplified explanation of things and then feel they were lied to when they find out their is nuance.

The entire world of information works this way. If the nuance was included from the start no one would learn anything because they would be bogged down in details. Every topic is a Wikipedia like rabbit hole with no bottom. It's what we have specialization in society.

The issues with plastic are not in its recycling. It's that is breaks down into what are essentially forever chemicals. This is the dilemma.

Producing less plastic because it's not recyclable is bad messaging.

Producing less plastic because it creates a substance that will last for eons is the problem. We've known about this property for decades but the repercussions of it have become more pronounced.

We need to stop making more plastic and work out how to chemically dissessemble the plastics already created without creating a worse output.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In some places there's really no recycling. For example, islands where recycling would mean shipping plastics to the mainland. They just burn it instead - if you're lucky, for producing heating or electricity.

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

Sure but there is danger is telling people to not bother recycling. Even a location as you described since it could become possible in the future and it's actually better for it to be shipped off than buried. Keeping plastic out of the environment is not a waste of fuel.

The focus should be a return to glass bottles that are reused. This was still a thing into the 90's in my area.

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

Yes, recycling is always better.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Convincing detail here.

The priority is to keep used plastic out of the environment, which generally means out of waterways.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

I really can't wrap my head around this... (https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/project-earth-frugalpac-sustainable-wine-bottles-recycled-cardboard-central-california/)

The idea has absolutely no foresight. They want to "lower the carbon footprint" by putting less carbon in the atmosphere and polluting the future's soil and water even more.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

These guys are recycling, but I'm not sure it's the recycling most of us have in mind. Toxic tofu (YouTube)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

If only some government somewhere on Earth had sponsored research on this. We could have known.

Or we did and no one cared.

Remember, if one depends on the media for information, you only get information dumb people can understand.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

The ~~only safe~~ safest way to dispose of plastic is to incinerate it...maybe it can replace some fossil powerplants...idk.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

That's not safe either. The best is to ban it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Hahahaha! .... oh

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›