this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
75 points (100.0% liked)

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

6759 readers
607 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
75
Republicans say EVs don’t pay their fair share. Here’s the math. | With new fees, EV and hybrid owners would pay much more annually than the drivers of gas cars (www.washingtonpost.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Access options:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stickly@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Then tax by weight and not engine type. Freight trucks already don't pay their fair share in infrastructure costs.

Edit: EVs are about 18-24% heavier than their Ice equivalent. Still doesn't add up to the proposed costs.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Road wear is a 4th power formula to weight. So for a car that weighs 1.25 times the average, it would do 2.44 times the damage. These formulas may be fair. They would be vastly different if you included the damage from burning fuel in populated areas, though.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fair point, but it's still a flat tax regardless of miles driven. Current Gen EVs see a lot less miles/yr in the US vs combustion.

So at 1.25x weight with that mileage you should only expect 1.5x the cost.

I'm not a huge fan of any cars but this is a pretty regressive scheme.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Oh, I agree. "Let's factor in this one externality on the more responsible choice while we ignore all the externalities on the alternatives."