this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
45 points (89.5% liked)

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

5205 readers
681 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
45
New report: Biomass CO2 emissions 4X higher than Coal | Just Have A Think (www.youtube.com)
submitted 2 months ago by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Biomass that is grown to be burned is completely sustainable, increases the earths carrying capacity and provides economic growth, profit and jobs. Triple bottom line.

No, it's not. Just because it is carbon neutral does not mean it is sustainable. It also does not increase Earths "carrying capacity", that's a fallacy, and it is in fact quite the contrary. To increase Earth's carbon storage we'd need long term forests that actually capture the co2 for many generations to come. What happens with "bio" fuels is that we instead cut down forests and create cultivated ones, which not just take ages to grow, but are then cut down, processed and consequently burned. This kills real forests that capture co2, have real ecosystems and the land use needed to fuel our energy need in relation to the long growth time would mean we'd have to clear massive swaths of land, like the rain forests on other continents, which then still could not fulfill the demand of even a single industrialized nation. You're literally spreading corpo propaganda here. And economic growth is exactly the killer that brought us into this mess.

Biomass burned as waste is just incineration with a bit of green washing.

It's not greenwashing when there's literally no other way or processing it and highly ironic since you're trying to greenwash bio fuels.

[โ€“] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

You're getting carrying capacity, carbon capture and carbon neutral confused, which then flows into sustainability.

Carrying capacity isn't about getting it back or stored - its the environments ability to "carry" our waste products without long term damage or effects. Increases of forest - pine or mature native - does indeed increase the earths carrying capacity for carbon emissions, waste water, runoff and other areas. You're right, pine doesn't mean long term carbon capture but that's not this arguement.

Regarding burning waste that otherwise cant be used - yes it is greenwashing. We used to think the same thing about burning or dumping rubbish- can't use it so let's just burn it. Admittedly this is a much more complicated problem and reverts back to a complete circular economy requiring a significant change in design, ways of thinking and culture to eliminate this one - but it can still be done.