this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
99 points (100.0% liked)

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

7709 readers
334 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
99
Carbon capture – the get-out-of-jail-free card that does not actually work (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 months ago by solo@piefed.social to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The conclusion: if we want to save ourselves from ever more dangerous weather there is no alternative to halting the production of carbon dioxide in the first place.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If it’s powered by fissile fuels, it’s literally worse than nothing. If it’s powered by renewables then instead of powering the carbon capture plant, we could be using that same power to reduce dependence on fossil fuels which would cause less carbon to get into the atmosphere in the first place than you could remove with the plant. Until we’re at the “okay we’ve stopped the bleeding now we need to reverse the damage” phase, carbon capture is a pointless endeavour that only exists so that corporations can say “see? Doesn’t matter that we’re polluting, we’ll just fix it with magic technology!”

Edit: just realized that I and the article are talking about two different things. I’m talking about carbon capture plants, article is talking about carbon capture at the source. That’s what I get for not reading the article before commenting.