We will need to move ahead with projects like this if we’re to slow or even reverse climate change.
The proposed amount is literally a drip in the ocean compared to the pollution we pour in every year.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)
Ocean Conservation & Tidalpunk
437 readers
27 users here now
A community to discuss news about our oceans & seas, marine conservation, sustainable aquatic tech, and anything related to Tidalpunk - the ocean-centric subgenre of Solarpunk.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I see things quite differently. I believe for an honest attempt to reverse climate change "we" should first start reducing the activities that created the problem in the first place, and all those are related to industrialization.
Btw I use the word "we" in brackets because I am not really talking about people individually. It is a global issue that industries have created it by following an economical model of eternal expansions. Eternal expansion is not sustainable.
If we take a look for example at a pie chart of Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from? we can see that they come from:
- 5.2% Industry (cement chemicals)
- 24.2 Energy use in industry
- 6.6% Energy use in buildings (commercial)
- 5.8% Fugitive emissions from energy production
- 4.76% Road transport (lorries and trucks - see text bellow chart)
That's a sum of 46.56% already, and I am leaving things out like mono-cultures and meat industry.
So I'd say I don't think "we" need to do more, "we" actually need to do less.
It’s not enough to stop, we need to restore the world to a climate that has supported humanity and quickly.