this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
207 points (99.1% liked)

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

5186 readers
1169 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vapeloki -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't compare your footprint to anything. Also I am not arguing that our debate here is a risk to the planet.

I am just saying that without airplanes, many things would be not possible. And that includes solar and Wind energy btw.

I am well aware how large the co2 footprint of an airplane is. But if I have the choice between banning all airplanes and green energy, my choice is clear.

And here is the core of the issue, and this is btw a very generell issue:

We are such dependent on things like airplanes, trucks and cars, thar we can not force a complete ban without risking other important stuff.

I work in IT. I am fighting constantly to reduce power consumption, for self sufficient data centers and advocate against large scale AI, because the power consumption is massiv and the raw resources for GPU damage the environment from gathering through production.

And one of the most paradox things I encountered is a customer that does climate change research and tries to find more ways to combat it. And they asked for an offer with over 200 GPU's.

And based on this experience, my rough calculations for an average lemmy instance gives me about 2 metric tons co2/year. But is this bad? We are using this to discuss topics like these, organize protest, and if course for fun.

I know the following is a stupid argument, but stick with me for a second.

Based on your criteria we could shut down 90% of all instances. That would save us around 40 tons co2 per year.

So, if we isolate this it looks good, right?

But: a flight from Frankfurt to Heathrow wit a 747 alone produces around 70 tons of co2.

So, it is all a question of perspective. And I am completely with you >70% of all flights should be just forbidden. Nobody, I repeat, nobody needs to fly from Germany to Italy. Use the fucking train.

But how about USA? There is no train in this direction. So, while I am all for reducing flights as much as we can, we still have to keep some passenger planes.

And for fright, we may be dependent for stuff that must be delivered quickly and is sensible to environmental conditions. Like parts for solar panels.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're clearly arguing in bad faith. No one wants to ban actually necessary planes, or trucks, because your argument is the same bad faith one that people make when it comes to getting rid of cars. Just because you're saying you allegedly fight for the cause does not mean you actually do, especially when you keep making excuses and make up arguments that haven't been made in order to push this nonsense agenda, to frame people in some ridiculous light.

[–] vapeloki 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Dude. Read the thread please "the planes should never be flying in the first place " was an argument I initially responded to. And please read my comments on this post. I am tired of repeating my self.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Thanks for proving my point. Climate troll.