• Redscare867@lemmy.mlEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      It’s mostly bullshit. Certain types of emissions create particles that reflect sunlight away from the earth, thus masking some of the warming that we have created through green house gas emissions. Banning sulphur emissions isn’t the cause of the problem, greenhouse gasses are. Banning sulphur just made our observed warming closer to what our actual warming is.

      You’ll find people making the same claims about transitioning to electric cars accelerating warming since cars produce similar particles. It’s just maintain the status quo bullshit passively enabling the continuation of oil and gas. The solution isn’t to keep burning certain types of fuel because it masks our warming. Obviously the solution is to stop producing as much greenhouse gas as we possibly can.

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        25·
        1 year ago

        Banning sulphur emissions isn’t the cause of the problem, greenhouse gasses are. Banning sulphur just made our observed warming closer to what our actual warming is.

        Banning sulfur increased global warming. End of story. It doesn’t matter if CO2 is the root cause. What matters is that now things are even warmer and we have even less time to avoid catastrophic consequences of the CO2.

        You’ll find people making the same claims about transitioning to electric cars accelerating warming since cars produce similar particles.

        This is not even remotely similar.

        Cars are being phased out over a long period of time and over that time period the lack of CO2 from electric cars will more than make up for the sulfur.

        Also cars do not emit anywhere near what those boats did, because the boats were burning what is basically the dirtiest possible fuel.

        So with these boats you don’t just get a lack of albedo, you still get the carbon emissions. It’s literally the worst of both worlds.

        You’re acting like it’s somehow a good thing that we are seeing this massive temperature spike in the north Atlantic.

        And no “it will harm people and that will be good because then maybe they will X” isn’t even remotely excusable. You’re talking about potential environmental consequences and literal human death from a stupid ass regulatory decision that should have at the vert least spread the reduction in sulfur emissions over the course of a decade instead of delivering a damn gut punch to the environment of the region.

        Here’s what will happen.

        People will still be apathetic and generally support green energy.

        We will still transition at the same rate because it’s mostly a question of technology and infrastructure. Nobody will give up their homes, cars, and televisions, even if the north Atlantic experiences an environmental collapse.

        The environment will be worse off.