124
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Edit: some lemmy instances mangle the gift token on this link.

Shortened version still works

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] x00z@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

"I'm a doctor so I can smack people in the face. It's not a problem because I will heal them afterwards."

[-] Five@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Behind those numbers is a rapidly changing energy landscape that could lead to a much less carbon-intensive future.

The word could is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. On paper, China has already built enough PV to power half the country, but uses less than half of their built power. China is building new coal plants, which should be widely reported, but that's half the story. The other half is acres and acres of dark PV.

Always look at these propagandistic graphs and check if they're a report of energy used or things like 'installed' and 'capacity' -- because they're certainly not using it. China chooses to continue to fuel its industrialization with coal.

The coal for 'local control' angle sounds new and curious. What does it say about their TWs of potential 'solar capacity' when they still have blackouts when local private coal plant operators skimp on their coal deliveries? Are they building solar projects in regions where it isn't needed and leaving regions where it is needed under-supplied due to government incompetence? Are they installing potemkin solar farms that are built with panels that didn't meet standards for export and will never be reliable? Are they trying to get as much coal out of the ground as they can before other countries force them to stop? I'd be impressed if a journalist could find the answer to these questions.

Electric vehicle and train increases would be much more inspiring if the former wasn't the case. It's much better for the respiratory health of people in city centers, but for the purposes of carbonization, they're effectively machines that run on coal.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

Are there any non-CCP measurements that support this assertion?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago

Yes, but with more uncertainty; they've definitely stopped the fast increase in emissions and did about 3/4 of all wind and solar installations worldwide last year

[-] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago
[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 4 days ago

Its a gift link; most folks wont need that

[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Gift links only last a couple months, usually?

Edit: It also complains about me using Firefox and fails to load. Fuck that.

[-] hypna@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

I do not think the world will like a century dominated by the CCP quite so well as it likes rapid decarbonization, but I guess we take what we can get .

[-] november@lemmy.vg 28 points 3 days ago

I'm not a fan of the CCP either, but maybe other countries should have fucking done something then.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 10 points 3 days ago

People should show their dislike of the CCP by installing their own massive solar PV fields.

[-] Sasha 15 points 3 days ago

I'm doubtful it'll be any worse than a century dominated by the US, they're all doing the same evil shit.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 16 points 3 days ago

If countries are careful to buy solar modules instead of things like inverters and other grid interconnection hardware with more complex electronics, it'll limit Chinese power in a way that you can't limit the ability of an oil or gas supplier to cut you off.

[-] hypna@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Good advice. I was actually thinking simply about being the center of the global economy and how that typically makes a nation a superpower. Technological espionage is a whole other issue.

this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
124 points (100.0% liked)

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

7217 readers
216 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