this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
25 points (100.0% liked)

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

5437 readers
576 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]
25
The U.S. Government Will Pay to Remove Carbon From Atmosphere (heatmap.news)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Article is subject to a paywall, which can be bypassed by clearing cookies for the site, and registering with a made-up email address (it's checked for syntax but nothing else)

I'll note that this is a tiny and incredibly expensive part of what needs to happen

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

alternative link (also bypasses paywall): https://archive.ph/h0KNS

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

Interesting, but there's no mention in the article of the $/ton CO2 they will pay that I could see.

Presumably it will have to be close to the market (say $100 $/ton today?).

If they go lower there will be no uptake, if they go much higher they will burn through the $3.5B and only achieve a short blip in the market for no real long term benefit.

But I imagine $3.5B used carefully might have some interesting effects.

Edit: I'm not sure $3.5B is the relevant number (but the only one quoted in the article).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So having trees will earn you money? /s