this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
14 points (93.8% liked)

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

5818 readers
687 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]
14
Stand-off between airlines and oil groups threatens net zero flying | Sustainable air fuel market stalls as airlines want lower prices while oil groups reluctant to produce without long-term orders (www.ft.com)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The basic problem is that "sustainable" aviation fuels, if based on biofuels, would substantially compete with food production. This limits their scale pretty significantly, so they can't easily scale up to the levels that the airline industry wants, which means that the cost will remain quite high.

The top-level post uses a gift link which may have a view count limit. If it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, they're different products, but their chemical similarity means they have the same constraints on sustainable production. There is a single limit on how much of the two can be produced in total without causing significant environmental damage.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

At the extremes one is, as far as our technology allows, irreplaceable as a carbon neutral fuel. That being SAF. The other other viable alternatives even today. Why are you presenting a scenario where both would be needed to be created in equal measures?

So what if they can both come from the same feedstocks? There will be a day we likely don't need diesel in any capacity. We'll need SAF long before that. Why would we divert the valuable carbon neutral feedstocks to something like biodiesel if our goal is carbon neutrality for both?