this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
101 points (93.2% liked)

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

5237 readers
709 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]
101
Chart: Is LNG worse for the climate than coal? Research suggests that liquefied natural gas can have a bigger emissions footprint than coal, undermining LNG’s status as a “bridge fuel.” (www.canarymedia.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I think it's super weird that we are suddenly even attempting to call LNG environmentally friendly, it has always been a mess

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

The one positive point is that methane-burning power plants can be spun up in under an hour whereas coal plants usually need a week to power up. If the vast majority of power comes from solar/wind/batteries and gas is only used as (secondary) backup, this may make sense.

Fossil marketing pretty successfully tries to eradicate the caveats and nuances from the discussion of course.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't think anyone was actually buying that right?

The only people pushing for LNG were the oil companies selling it. Which, I mean, come on, we know better than to believe a word that comes from them.