this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
753 points (98.8% liked)

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

6487 readers
1017 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

The sad thing is, only types 1 & 2 plastics are recyclable in any real fashion, and sometimes not even then.

That means types 3 through 7 are better disposed of in the trash, where at least they’ll be sealed into a landfill instead of being shipped overseas to end up somewhere far less environmentally secure.

These types are the numbers inside the recycling symbol. Many things are mixed and matched - a plastic bottle might be a type 1 (recyclable), yet its screw-on cap is typically a type 5 (largely non-recyclable). Always try to find the recycling symbol and dispose of anything not a type 1 or 2 in the trash.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Treating waste water? Water treatment plants cost so much that they will never compete with dumping raw sewage into the river!

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 2 hours ago

Which is why my local water treatment plant built a brand new pipe so they can dump directly into the river rather than the local nature reserve.

I'm so glad we privatised that...

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago

I wonder how much the oil industry subsidies are responsible for making recycled plastic more expensive than the new one...

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 57 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Being an old man this really gets me. I love the internet and the way computers today but there is a whole lot that worked fine before plastics were so common. Almost nothing in the grocery store had plastic and everything was pretty much as convenient as nowadays. Sure you had to pay a deposit on the glass bottles but you got it back when you returned them.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 2 points 1 hour ago

If I had to choose glass or plastic, I am always choosing glass. Glass is such a good material. It is infinitely recyclable, the bottles can be reused for several years, and if they are buried they don't release microplastics.

[–] EvilCartyen@feddit.dk 9 points 17 hours ago

That's still the way it works in Denmark, but with plastic bottles too. Something like 98% of all bottles are recycled.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

The good news is that global warming (I prefer to call it Anthropogenic Runaway Global Heating because of the acronym) is going to completely fuck us all anyway, to the extent that plastic in the environment isn't going to matter by comparison. At least oil turned into plastic and buried isn't oil turned into CO2.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 7 points 12 hours ago

The two problems have a decent amount of overlap though. For example, I recently learned that car tyres are a huge contributor to microplastic pollution. This means that improving public transport infrastructure will reduce CO2 emissions and microplastic pollution.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

But we still have microplastics in our brains, which does warrant some concern I think.

[–] peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago

Sadly that is the problem. YOU did not think, the microplastics in your brain did.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

Hey, maybe all the plastic will lead to such significant fertility issues, populations will crater, and ARGH won't even matter anymore!

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 28 points 19 hours ago (8 children)

And this is how capitalism eats itself. Nothing can be done without a market incentive, including not suffocating our planet to death.

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 hours ago

Not to absolve capitalism, but it's pretty easy to add market incentives to at least slightly address climate change. The concept of "externalities" has been around for a while, where something has a net social impact outside of its sale. It's normally solved with taxes and levies.

The real issue seems to be nobody havong the appetite to even attempt the most basic solutions to the problem, mainly thanks to lobbying.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 20 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

How to get politicians to change views:

Plastic causes ed and shrinkage

[–] KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca 6 points 13 hours ago

They'll blame woman for being too slutty and fucking everyone BUT THEM.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately they'll just claim not praying to god enough and the existence of trans people causes ED and shrinkage...

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 3 points 16 hours ago

Thats crazy we all know trans people do the opposite for that lot.

[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago
[–] gi1242@lemmy.world 32 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

there have been several articles exposing plastic recycling as green washing. unfortunately they never make it to mainstream media

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-is-practically-impossible-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse

i saw a chart somewhere showing less than 1% of plastic in use today is recycled but I can't find it now

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 15 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Sad that NPR is not considered "mainstream" these days. Maybe Joe Rogan will post something to Facebook about it?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 13 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

NPR is definitely mainstream

I think the word you're looking for is "corporate" or "for-profit". Thats what they're not.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

unfortunately they never make it to mainstream media

Sounds like this "mainstream media" is not doing its job. This might have some kinds of implications for the current state of affairs in the USA. Can't put my finger on exactly what though.

[–] syklemil@discuss.tchncs.de 87 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The price stuff can change through taxation that makes new plastic more expensive than recycled plastic.

As we all know, taxation is super popular and has never been controversial, ever.

At the very least flaskepant has worked great for like a century here in Norway. Always kind of surprising when other countries don't have it.

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 12 points 18 hours ago

Have we considered calling it a tariff instead of a tax? Tariffs on all new plastic. It might work.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 8 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Yes... plastic recycling can work, in theory, but the financial incentives are not naturally inclined to be in a way that recycling is feasible, since externalities encompassing the damage that plastic production has to our world are not accounted for in its price. (Caveat: the products that can be made from recycling are physically unable to be perfectly like the previous products they came from)

Like the cost burden of tobacco use being put on both users and producers, plastic must be dealt with the same way in terms of taxation levies so that plastic alternatives and plastic recycling are competitive compared to new plastic from oil by-products.

[–] bingrazer@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Most plastic can’t be recycled into something usable. Plastic degrades quite a bit with each recycling, leaving a bunch of microplastics behind (same thing with “biodegradable” plastic). It would be better to tax it enough (or ban it) to make it not used in certain applications.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 19 points 22 hours ago

Should've made the producers responsible for collecting and processing all plastics they produce. It that makes certain products economically non viable, than that's on them to innovate better processes.

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

I hope that one day drilling oil has been banned, and CCS becomes mandatory. If you want hydrocarbons in order to manufacture chemicals and plastics, you can pull them from the air. There’s enough for everyone.

[–] bingrazer@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Carbon capture (more specifically direct air capture) is not a viable option due to the energy requirements and the low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon capture is largely promoted by fossil fuel companies for the same reason that recycling is: “let us keep doing what we’re doing because there’s some magical way to undo the damage, we just need a few more years of research”.

However, plants do the same thing and already exist. Trees in particular have shown some promise for being able to be a precursor for many polymers. This would at least mean that any plant matter used for this did pull CO2 out of the atmosphere in the last few years (so relatively neutral compared to the other options), whereas fossil fuels are releasing carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago.

EDIT: TLDR, oil drilling should be banned or severely limited, but DAC is not a viable option and is only relevant because oil companies keep pumping money into it. Biomass is potentially an ok feedstock for plastics (but not for fuel).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Right now it looks like paper and metal recycling is still good as far as I can read in two minutes. If someone has a correction let me know.

[–] turbowafflz@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

They also both have the advantage of being things that will naturally degrade over time if left outside instead of just sticking around forever

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

Correct. Paper (PS: or at least brown cardboard), glass and alu will always be great candidates for recycling.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Aluminum is the poster child for recycling, really. It takes more energy to extract it from the ore than it is to recycle it.

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 22 points 23 hours ago

Former aluminum process engineer: This^

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Really annoyed to have believed in plastic recycling even into my thirties. Being an idiot is such a burden sometimes.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ignorance is only bliss if you never find out. Rookie mistake.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›