• thefluffiest@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 years ago

    No, these emissions masked climate change. Reducing them didn’t accelerate it, the warming effect was already there.

    It’s headlines like this that subtly mislead people

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 years ago

    Hmm, cutting sulfur dioxide emissions for health reasons is bad for global warming because sulfur dioxide clouds have a net cooling effect with reflection.

    • Ice
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is surprisingly often the case. At a short term scale, improvements in the local environment are at odds with improvements towards preventing climate change (hydropower is the poster child for this). Long term though, it’s almost always better to prioritize the large scale, as failing to limit climate change will ultimately make any efforts to protect local environments futile.

      • lukeb28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        What do you mean by the hydropower? I’m not familiar with this ‘poster child’

        • Ice
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 years ago

          Usually, for a hydro power plant to be effective they require a dam to be built. This significantly changes the surrounding landscape by flooding large areas of land and also reduces the ability of fish to travel through whichever waterway is dammed up.

          Enviromental activists often decry and try to prevent these types of developments because of this - they consider these changes to ruin the local environment.

          On the other hand, hydropower is possibly the most useful source of renewable electricity, having a large implicit storage capacity that can be released at any moment.

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Same with trains, in the UK swampy famously protested the building of a high speed rail line because it’s construction resulted in the destruction of an old growth forrest

    • pelya
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m pretty sure we can find other reflective chemicals that won’t cause grass-wilting acid rains.

  • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    So first cutting airline emissions increases global warming and now cutting ship emissions does it?

    It’s like someone is trying to get a message out that cutting emissions is bad for the planet. Are we being gaslighted? Is this industry FUD?

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      With ships, they’re talking about sulfate aerosol emissions, rather than greenhouse gas emissions.