this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
132 points (95.2% liked)

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

5197 readers
1135 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
[email protected]
132
Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap (theconversation.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because emissions accounting is pretty new and a lot of large companies have some serious problems with it. Intresstingly a lot of other large companies are for it as well, as it allows them to beat competitors in certain fields. Also more accounting is good for accountants. One huge group are insurance companies, who really want proper data, to reduce risk and so they are pretty pissed at this as well. So it is not a big oil vs some small activist groups.

[–] Zeth0s 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The whole thing is a scam. The only way on can claim 0 net emissions. Is to plant local to the emission (nearby), a number of new trees that net immediately consume an amount of co2 equal to the one produced by a factory. Same for roads.

Everything else is marketing.

Worst is that most of these scam contracts are to prevent forests in some remote country to be cut for 30 years. How does that even help. How can anyone even think this can compensate co2.

Should be illegal marketing

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

The EU requires all companies listed on EU regulated exchanges to provide emission data on a regular bases. The UK does that as well. The US requires indutstrial facility based data.

Wall Street is in the money business and they really want to know, how much of a risk your company has, by governments introducing climate legislation. That is a real risk and some very real money involved in this. So Wall Street is extremly unhappy about this greenwashing, as it hides very real risk. Hence they do everything to stop it. However for managment this is really attractive, as "lower" risk means higher share prices, which means higher pay for them.

So it should not be illegal marketing, but a massive financial crime and there are people actually looking for folks like that.