139
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by inari@piefed.zip to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 101 points 2 weeks ago
[-] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'm left with a lot of questions though, as the scope of the article is quite limited.

Short-haul flight are banned, so the gains seem obvious. But the article doesn't seem to detail if they're actually substituted by rail. Travellers could also be going by car, search for destinations further away, maybe not go at all.

I guess it's quite hard to find an actual effect from a broader perspective, but if their expectations are true, travellers using rail should have a noticable increase. It's a shame this is missing in the article.

Basically the article is saying that if you scrap a bunch of flights, emissions by aviations go down. Maybe I'm missing the point, but that seems pretty obvious. I'd like to know what the actual broader effect is of these measures taken.

[-] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

Cars are still roughly an order of magnitude less emitting for the same trip compared to planes so in the worst case it's still a win, as long as it doesn't increase public subsidization of car-centric infrastructure. I think I would personally take rail if I were presented with car or train. I can at least do something while riding the train or even work remotely or something.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Planes are terrible for emissions

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I would like to add the stipulation that intelligently planned uses of electric aircraft that provide unique low impact and cost shorthaul capabilities by charging opportunistically from the grid are a different path and shouldn't be mixed up with fossil fuel aircraft unnecessarily used when trains make more sense.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
139 points (100.0% liked)

Climate

8925 readers
251 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS