this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
16 points (76.7% liked)

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

5695 readers
490 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
[email protected]
16
Why Harris Is Backpedaling on Fracking (newrepublic.com)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carrolade 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I find myself very torn on this issue. On one hand, fracking should be banned due to the extensive domestic and global harm it causes. On the other hand, fracking should not be banned right now, due to the economic pressure it applies to Russian natural gas exports, lowering the price and reducing the income they have access to for their warfighting.

Russia has some of the largest NG reserves in the world, and its a key sector of their economy. They will not be dissuaded from encouraging climate change any time soon and need to be soundly defeated in a hot war if any reform of their economic system is ever going to be seriously pursued. This is our only realistic opportunity to accomplish this, right now.

[–] BertramDitore 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your logic makes sense, and I’m sure most people in power agree with you, but this still seems like a situational excuse to me. There will always be a reason not to ditch dangerous extraction methods. Right now it may be Russia, next time maybe it’s a Gulf state. While it might matter to this moment’s geopolitical situation, the safety, health, and longevity of the planet and all its inhabitants are significantly more important than our ability to temporarily harm Russia’s economy. I’m also not convinced this is causing as much pain to Russia as we might like. They always seem to have a way of avoiding the worst of our economic warfare.

[–] Carrolade 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

True. But reforming the Russian economy is a necessary pre-requisite to stopping climate change, something very seldom discussed because of how frankly near-impossible it is. This might be our only opportunity.

They're one of the few countries that might actually benefit significantly from climate change, due to opening arctic seaways and ports, and the massive disruptions it would cause to all their rivals. Their government style makes the migrations it would cause a minimal risk for them, and suffering and death does not seem to concern them much.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If reform is infeasible, there are other ways to lessen the impact of Russian exports. All are brutal and will hurt ordinary Russian people. But if necessary for the survival of humankind, someone will attempt them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Russia exports its gas via pipelines. Most of them go to Europe. At least for the most part. Russias LNG exports are pretty small and sanctions prevent them from exporting more. The Russians also cut most pipeline gas sales to the EU. That has halved Russias gas exports abroad. They only really sell to China and Turkey, as well as the bit of LNG they have and the bit of EU sales they did not cut. All of that leads to Gazprom the only company exporting Russian gas loosing money.

Oil is more difficult as it is easier to transport, but we recently saw a massive decline in shipments to India. India is Russias biggest oil client, so a decline is horrible for Russia. Furthermore Russia is stopping exports of refined products due to refineries in Russia being hit.

Generally speaking the EU is doing just fine in terms of energy security. Higher gas prices increase the speed to transition away from it and that removes Russias biggest potential market. China does not want a new gas pipeline to Russia and is therefore unable to replace Europe as a cutomer. Especially with China trying to move into a post carbon economy themself. As for oil the better way is for the US to not consume as much.

[–] Carrolade 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't really matter who Russia sells their hydrocarbons to, that's all subject to change over time. They even already have new pipelines in the works. What matters is the price they can get for selling it to whoever wants to buy some. This price is something we can influence. We can't really halt their exports, but we can reduce their profit margins.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We are two years in the war and Russia has not started construction on a new gas pipeline. None are currently in a stage, where they even prepare construction. Even if they wanted to do it, a new pipeline costs billions and takes years to be built. Russia is unable to do that right now. LNG is not an option, due to lacking the technology. The truth is everybody knows that Russia needs to sell gas and that means lower prices. Again Gazprom is loosing money and they will not have the ability to sell more gas for years.

[–] Carrolade 1 points 6 months ago

Correct, just planning so far.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-china-sign-power-siberia-2-gas-pipeline-contract-in-near-future-says-2024-05-17/

I don't expect Russia will have to provide everything for the construction themselves.

[–] optissima 5 points 6 months ago

Digusting tbh