this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
1361 points (99.4% liked)

Climate

8493 readers
179 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 18 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

That means fuel will continue to get more expensive as other markets switch to renewable energy sources. That in turn will reduce the number of ships which will make the fuel harder to find, which will reduce the number of products using that fuel, which will eventually result in total elimination of that market.

[–] Blum0108@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

Unless it's officially propped up by governments at the behest of rich and powerful fossil fuel lobbies!

It's inevitable that it will end some day, but not nearly as fast as it otherwise organically would.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago

The big costs comes from building the infrastructure for fossil fuels. So as soon as demand falls, you have a huge part of the bill has been paid already. So you get low fossil fuel prices. You need to keep in mind that most large oil producers are state owned. Therefore those states will try to shut down other suppliers production.

You can see that already with sanctions against Russia and Iran to keep US oil producers going strong.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

markets don't work that way. if you reduce demand (i.e. fewer people consume fossil fuels), and supply stays constant, that means that prices go down, which makes fossil fuels cheaper until people start using them again. eventually it balances out at an equilibrium state. supply and demand

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, thats assumed. However we are taking into account that machinery rusts away quickly. If you stop one refinery for example, that's not a smooth change, its an abrupt step. If we stay steady below the usual high, then trying to come back will be expensive. For that reason we'll see the price increase slowly...you need the fuel, so its a seller's market, they need to get paid as if their load was double in case they need to double. At some point it might drop a bit until it becomes a luxury item.

Here's an example where the price is going up became the supply keeps dropping and the demand keeps increasing regardless of the supply situation:

The same would happen to ice cars. People still want to use them if they have them, but the market keeps shrinking.