this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
1393 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39396 readers
1989 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Start by taking away private jets and private flights from rich people. As all laws do, this one will also apply only to regular and poor people, not even big companies and certainly not for rich. Just look at what Musk is doing to nature reserve nears his launch pad. He was warned, didn't get launch permissions, doesn't have permission for letting untreated water into ground from cooling... and yet he does all that and no one bats and eye. Just look at the main page of Lemmy and you'll see news of some dude flying alone in 747 because he can. Royal family has been known to fly across the ocean to get lunch.

I meant you can live as carefully as possible, walk everywhere, never fly a plane and live only on solar for multiple lives and you couldn't offset what they fuck up in a day.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A lot of launches would be more safely done at sea or in the high desert than in coastal areas close to population centers.

[–] RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're well beyond the point of industrial activity being done "more safely." Either it stops entirely, or everything collapses before the turn of the next century.

Okay then, we just build Lofstrom loops and run them on nuclear reactors. Launch materials to put a solar shade up in a Lagrange point to cool the planet down until we stop all fossl fuel use and sequester enough CO2 when it is no longer needed. Construct the shade out of millions of smaller mirrors so that we can move mirrors away slowly over time so as to sync with the lowering CO2 levels.

Those loops only cost like $10 billion. That's like a third of NASA's yearly budget.

It's not pie in the sky or some dumbass excuse to give the ruling class an out on climate change. Actually, the opposite -- with cheap access to space, we will have access to near unlimited solar energy so we won't need fossil fuels anymore, we can mine NEAs for metals making surface mining unnecessary, and actually build the Jetsonian post scarcity future our abusers promised us and failed to deliver on.

We really don't have a choice anyway -- we don't have access to enough resources down here to make any of that happen, and without the solar shade no surface-only effort to stop climate collapse will work anyhow since the temperature will go up without it no matter what we do down here.

So we are left with a choice to kickstart human expansion into space or allow the biosphere to collapse. Grow or die. I say we grow.

Sauce: Wiki - OG paper

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

"Plans to" and actually planted those trees are two different things. But that would be a great solution. Wood is a renewable material, easy to work with and most importantly keeps carbon trapped until its burned or rotten. In other words, plant trees, make stuff with wood.

[–] revengebreaker@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, carbon offsetting doesnt work. Only actual emission reduction

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The least educated take on carbon offsetting.

Did you know that US EPA considers forestry management as an emissions sink?

[–] revengebreaker@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Of course they think that, because the EPA will do whatever it can to pad it's emissions ratings for the Paris Climate Accord. Carbon offsetting does not work, due to wildfire and insect risk.

Sources:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/07/federal-government-renewable-energy-certificates-climate-change-net-zero-misleading/

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/08/02/climate-change-carbon-offset-oregon/

[–] RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Carbon offset isn't real.