this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
36 points (75.0% liked)

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

5301 readers
426 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
36
Economically failing nuclear plant to receive 1.1B bailout (apnews.com)
submitted 10 months ago by lettruthout@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running. "

Because renewable energy sources are too expensive?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Risk@feddit.uk 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear is an important stop gap in the process of replacing fossil fuels.

Trouble is, we're now so short of time that there's probably little benefit from making loads of new nuclear plants as they take too long to build.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

We're out of time. We crossed short of time 10+ years ago.

[–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So we should all just give up doing anything then because it's too late?

[–] mazigoth@lemmus.org 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

how does everyone like their cockroaches cooked?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Give it to us raw, and wriggling!

[–] CoolCookie@real.lemmy.fan 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A top gap cant take 10 years to build, its faster, more efficient and more economically to just go straight to renewables 100% shure, already standing ones don't need to be shut down, but we shouldn't focus on making new ones and decommission those that get too old (seriously looking at France here)

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago

That's is precisely my point.