this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
471 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

59080 readers
4689 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

well yeah, you can't just try, you need to actually do it.

Stupid title, grammatically at least.

[–] just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 6 days ago (5 children)

This is a by-product of modern society (maybe late stage capitalism). We need to be sold a "solution" to a problem. Reducing consumption is not something that can easily be sold hence these carbon capture, recycling plastic "solutions".

Unless someone can make money off of it, reducing emissions is going to be difficult.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Instead of UBI, we should give every citizen carbon credits that they can then either use themselves for cars over certain (adjusting) emission limits or more likely sell to companies. Every company has to pay for their CO2 (and downline for imports)

The interesting thing would be people not necessarily spending their carbon credits like they do money. As there is no real incentive to sell to one company or another, other then tiny rate differences.

Also... always peg the price to what it costs to clean the carbon out. That creates a greater incentive to not skirt, as it might get cheaper over time.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

So, because I can afford an EV , to electrify, to add solar, I also get a carbon bonus to sell or bury.

While normally I like where you’re going, we’re already past the point of early adopters deciding to do the right thing in lot of ways and need to scale up for affordability.

Or if your goal is to influence more personal decisions, like how much meat you eat and what temperature you set your thermostat, I’m not sure it’s enough

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago

Imagine if you could get FREE MONEY by not using all your energy coinz!

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's simple, you have a shared resource running out, nobody wants to grab less of it.

Grab less of it yourself - the others will compensate for you. Produce some of that resource - the others will just profit from it for longer.

The biggest emitters are too strong to be climate-crusaded, the smaller ones do successful bribing and greenwashing, but I think there will eventually be climate crusades - against those poor bastards who formally fail to do something right, but don't really contribute meaningfully to emissions.

Other than finding some wonderful (like in Total Recall) process to turn fossil fuels into matter practically not separable and not usable as fuel, I don't know what one can do.

Profitable personal mobile nuclear batteries are still not reality.

Some new magical principle of producing energy, sufficiently decentralized (here go big NPPs). There's none, so prepare for dark future.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

As far as energy production goes, we already have the technology: solar, wind, nuclear. We also already have the technology for cars and personAl transportation. Above all we have transit. If we can get our shit together with things we already know, we’d be in better shape. If we would have done it as little as ten years ago, we could have stayed within the Montreal targets for global warming.

Now it’s no longer enough. We need to fix harder areas as well: aviation, shipping, grid storage, steel and cement, etc, and we need it asap … how is there still not any urgency?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

You need technology cheaper than fossil fuels. Some of fossil fuels' downsides are upsides for some people (political control), which necessitates the difference in cost by a big enough margin to counter those invisible benefits. A revolution.

There's no urgency, I think, because Earth's population is going to start shrinking. The emissions are going to slow down for that reason.

Countries that won't have some quality, not quantity, approaches to their economies by then are going to fall hard.

I guess that's how EU is going to make the world owned by Europeans again.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 points 6 days ago

Things that reduce consumption are frequently successful in capitalism. Generally, using less, costs less. There are always those selling a thing who are trying to increase the consumption of that thing, but often at expensive of those selling a competing thing. One successful way of doing that is to be cheaper to buy or run or both, by doing more with less.

However, sometimes we want something to be made with more a bit more to last longer and be repairable.

Raw capitalist won't do all this on its own. The invisible hand isn't very good at planning long term. Governments need to structure markets for outcomes they want, and keep measuring and correcting.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Carbon capture does not make money, wtf?

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Carbon capture doesn't make money. Selling the service of carbon capture does.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

tldr; Greenwashing/marketing mostly.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sounds tenuous. Gimme the full version.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Here you can find more info. I hope it's helpful

https://is.gd/eFvIJN

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

So you got nothing. Nice.

[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

My headcanon past 2050 is basically nuclear wasteland. I try and stay optimistic in the moment, but the old faith in humanity gas-tank is running a little empty these days.

[–] WbrJr@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

I feel you. There is this little bit oft hope, that all my effort actually achieves something. But its like hoping for thr existance of god it feels like

[–] TheDeepState@lemmy.world -4 points 6 days ago

It is too late. We are going to die!

[–] Warjac@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

You hear that? It's too late now! Welp ggs guys

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 223 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Two types of people reading this:

"Oh no! We should do everything we can to mitigate the damage."

and

"Fuck it, might as well keep doing what I'm doing."

And it's the latter that got us here in the first place.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 79 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Tipping point has tipped?

The one I remember scaring the hell out of everyone is the permafrost melt.

Thaw out enough permafrost and it releases enough greenhouse gasses to self perpetuate. No human interaction required.

https://www.space.com/methane-beneath-arctic-permafrost-climate-feedback-loop

[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 days ago

There are many tipping points, and we dont always know if we've hit one yet or not. The drastic increase in sea temperature the last two years is possibly a tipping point we've passed, esp since the warmer the water is, the less co2 its able to absorb. OMAC shut down (if it happens) is possibly a tipping point, which will only feedback loop into warming waters.

Honestly, the permafrost melt is more likely to be the KO punch after one or more other tipping points accelerate it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›