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

5186 readers

388 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

EU set to demand e-fuel cars have no climate impact (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived copy

The enormously high price of e-fuels means that people are unlikely to choose them for any kind of application where electrification is possible. This means that marketing an e-fuel-capable petrol car is basically an effort to prolong the use of fossil fuels, rather than any kind of serious decarbonization effort.

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was the deal. It basicly allows Porsche and Mercedes to buitl ultra luxury e-fuel cars with a combustion engine. Kind of like mechanical watches, totaly stupid from a technical perspective, but kind of cool for some people. They should be set up sp, they can only run on e-fuel and not petrol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmmm... sorry but mechanical watches are awesome.

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

Yeah that's what he's saying.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agreed.

Our modern social apparatus: education, health, police, justice... contributes about 1.4 teqCO2/person/year. Just our breathing, for a single person, emits about 350kg of CO2/year. This carbon we breath out is accounted for from our food. But you have to understand that it is the absolute minimum a living human being can emit.

Now, that leaves about 250kg eqCO2/person/year for everything else: housing, heating, leisure, traveling, clothing... if we think we need to stay under 2t eqCO2. This completely impossible.

Whereas if we were half as many, like 50 years ago, 4t/person/year still enables us to live a modern life.

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

this is often what I get to when someone comes in and says no we are underpopulated. For me the population max of the planet is the number of humans where ever single one of them can live a decent modern life and the planet can regenerate the harm we do in our modern existence. Even half at this point would have us at best treading water. To actually heal the planet we need to be about a billion. Really under it to heal and then maybe if we get really eco conscious or create enough technologies can go to 2 but for higher we need some sci fi tech to start showing up.