this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
182 points (97.4% liked)

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

5197 readers
1127 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
 

From David Sirota’s The Lever

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Atom 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Edit, removed due to bad math, oc explained below why their commute/fuel economy sucks

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

I had a $400/mo gas bill. 37 miles' commute each way, in an SUV I got for cheap (just 10k, 87k miles on it, perfect condition). But it's not like I could just simply move, and this was the first job I got that paid more than $8/hr. So I kept at it for a few years.

Point is, that's not an entirely unrealistic figure. And while it's not something one should be doing, a lot still are doing so because it really is the only option they have commuting from suburbia to the city. (ESPECIALLY living in a county that has a history of being anti-public transit, like Cobb and Cherokee in Georgia)

[–] Atom 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, I based the math off a week, not a month. My mistake. You're absolutely right though, witout a much stronger focus on public transit, many people are stuck living far away from work due to housing costs. An EV is better than an ICE. But WFH or integrated quality mass transit systems are far superior. I wish more Americans had that luxury.

[–] n3kr0 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me, I live an hour away from my job. I have no interest in living in a city. The amount of land and size house I have would be double the cost if not more near my work. On top of that the city I work in is at times the murder capital of US.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well assuming 70mph travel speed as an upper bound and a 1 hour commute, we can safely assume a 140mile e-bike range would be sufficient. Assuming you are willing to pay those savings forward to help others reduce their car use; collective investment in improving your situation would be mutually beneficial in the long run.

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

Would you ride an ebike twice a day, everyday, 30+ miles each way? Dunno about you, but that sounds positively exhausting. Get up early, get dressed in weather-appropriate clothing, put on helmet, sit on bike for the next two hours, then work for 7-9 hours, just to get right back on the bike for another 1-2 hours, maybe more? No thank you.

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

Yes, if that is what is needed to provide for my family. But my job isn't hard physical labor but more sitting in meetings and writing code.

[–] n3kr0 -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol an ebike huh? You're freaking hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well you didn't specify additional cargo or other reasons for limitation.

For example if the issue is travel time: electric motorcycle if the issue is cargo: electric bike with travel trailer if both travel time and cargo: gas to electric conversions are affordable (with the batteries being the highest cost [and the determining factor for range])

basically the less mass needing to be accelerated, the less energy required. The lower the acceleration acceptable, the less energy required.

Treat it as an engineering problem to solve or improve upon.

[–] n3kr0 1 points 1 year ago

I'll stick to what I have thanks lol. I'm actually saving up for a motorcycle to go to work. Not an electric motorcycle though as they are still very expensive and have a lower range than I need. Sometimes looking at issues from a real world perspective can help. I work with engineers and unfortunately they cause issues at work not thinking in real world terms.

[–] Caradoc879 1 points 1 year ago

They're being hyperbolic and you're being nitpicky