this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)

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

6862 readers
776 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
[email protected]
24
A New Hotel Says It’s ‘Carbon Positive.’ Is That Hype or Reality? (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (6 children)

the United States’ first “carbon-positive” hotel (meaning that it is supposed to sequester more carbon than it emits

I always thought "carbon negative" meant something removed more carbon than it emits / was used to produce it.

Or is it one of those " 'inflammable' means 'flammable' " kind of terms?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's a neologism, rather like "inflammible" because "negative" is an awful word to use for marketing.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

I'd say confusing people into thinking the opposite by changing the meaning of fairly established terms is also awful marketing.

They should just use a different word. There are plenty.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)