276
Election of Donald Trump ‘could put world’s climate goals at risk’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
276 points (95.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5282 readers
512 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Will make it worse, but if you look into the harms of natural gas (AKA Methane) the USA is already doing more damage than ever with much more coming online and even more planned. Climate Town video on the subject: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=r9YNB_9FPAroQCG8.
Trump will just make an already dire situation worse which might actually bring it all to a head sooner. Not an endorsement but more acknowledgment of the sad reality we are actually in.
Those fugitive emissions from crude gas ('natural' gas) are crazy! It blows my mind that it could make the greenhouse impact even worse than coal. Those methane sensing satellites are really important so what we can actually check the emissions to see how bad they are.
Right. I really think the USA and Canada need to pull their heads out of the oil and gas executives assea and do the right thing for the entire planet. They can be the cause or a major win for the decline of civilization. We are hitting do or die inflections here.
The thing about methane is that it breaks down within a few years, so the impact is largely about rate of release, unlike CO2 where concentration remains elevated pretty much forever in human terms.
This means that if we stop extraction of gas, it ends up having only a modest impact on how hot it is after that
it does break down... into CO2 and water vapor (also a very powerful GHG).
All levers need to be pulled, even the methane one, as they have "eq" forcing effects which are accelerating warming, which risks accelerating more tipping points. This isn't a situation where we can pick and choose what not to do, and ending methane emissions from fossil fuels and animal farming sector is a low hanging fruit.
My understanding is different https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-methane-is-short-lived-in-the-atmosphere-but-leaves-long-term-damage-145040
Also, we cant afford any of it. As soon as we end up in a dustbowl situation a world war will likely be the result.
Once nations are in wartime survival mode, carbon resuction will be out the window and I sincerely think we'll turn the earth into an uninhabitable hellscape where everyone dies.
Everyone. It may take a while for the last people to go, but I do mean everyone. People will construct elaborate bunker systems and try to make self contained farming centers, but the reality is that stuff is way harder than it looks and all it takes is one disease, one fire or power disaster, or one psycho to destroy the crops, whoch is likely after a hundred or so years and woop, everyone dies.