1468
nah it's natural (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
253 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (17 children)

We aren't putting it off. Already many countries are deploying renewable energy like it's going out of fashion, and have been for years. China, France, the UK, Spain, and India all have significant parts of their energy coming from renewables and nuclear, or are building more as we speak. Here in England our largest source of power is wind. People are already doing stuff about it, just not fast enough or universally enough. Technology for renewables and energy saving has gotten progressively better over the past several decades. Even fossil fuel technologies like cars and natural gas plants have gotten markedly more efficient meaning they produce less CO2 than they did previously, while also emitting lower levels of other pollutants too. It's even possible now to power planes with biofuels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

    Nobody is going fast enough.

    The fastest efforts going right now are half assed solutions.

    I don't think you understand how urgently fucked we are.

    Climate scientists are scientists. They can only tell youbwhat thry know. Science inherently moves slow, moves with certainty. Kind of the best thing about it.

    But all these climate models keep getting hit with 'shit we didnt know could happen' and 'feedback effect nobody's ever seen before', even the grim ones.

    So however bad the models are, we are more fuckef than that.

    The turn radius on this thing is so slow that we may already be past the point of no return. Everything from here on might be a death rattle. Maybe, if you're young, from before you were born. We don't know how bad it is, we have sort of repeatedly proven that we can't know how bad it is, and all we know is how good it isn't.

    And babe, its not good enough to be so fucking casual about shit.

    Whatever effect you are currently feeling is the effect from our collected fuckedness 30 40 50 years ago. However fucked this summer felt? Thats the damage we had accrued and sent out when your parents were born.

    Edit: we need to be at zero cars zero meat zero fossil fuels and decarbonizing as much production as we possibly can by now. We told the timeline where we could switch over gently to fuck off and die 50 years ago. I wasnt even fucking born yet. We told the timeline where we coukd just cut the shit and practice purely technical solutions with little lifestyle change (beyond things that are mostly good for us anyway) to fuck off and die 25 years ago. We let this go untreated, and now that the body is so wracked with cancer it's effecting our range of motion, and the doctors are desperately scrambling to set up a course of radical chemo radiation starvation and cutting to the bone in the desperate hope that there's still room for luck, we have decided that okay, maybe we might feel a little under the weather, and we can finally take the doctor's advice, and treat that upstart henry ford fellow with a baby asprin. But nothing crazy is called for here!

    Am i the only one who feels insane when i have to explain this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)

    This kind of talk isn't really useful and is making the problem worse. Where are you getting all this from? You must have some good sources to make claims like this.

    There wasn't a time line 25 years ago where we could use only technological solutions as said technological solutions didn't exist. Those have only been invented since then, many still haven't been invented or are still being worked on now. Take batteries for example, it took us until the 2010s to manufacture enough lithium ion batteries with the right chemistry to even think about using them as grid storage. Said batteries still have limited lifespans and manufacturing them is costly to the environment and requires lithium which has a limited supply. We really need Sodium ion batteries but those are only ramping production now. Starting to switch over 50 years ago would have been even more impossible, not that we understood the problem fully 50 years ago. This is all revising history.

    Fyi CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now. None of this is actually new, it's just changing far faster than it would naturally. It's the speed that's the issue, not the actual magnitude of the change. It's a case of changing things faster than nature takes to adapt. We are still technically in an ice age after all. Pollutants like microplastics and forever chemicals are the new thing, not greenhouse gasses. No one has any idea what that might lead to in the long term.

    You feel insane because your suggesting things should have happened before they are actually possible. You are saying things that are extremely alarmist without giving evidence and without considering context.

    Edit: There was one way to decarbonize earlier than 25 years ago or maybe before. It's called Nuclear. I wonder who prevented that? Oh wait it was climate activists. Funny that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    25 years ago

    There was some tech stuff, new-deal-with-chinese-characteristics, and specifically a very climate conscious US president was elected, but everyone just let the other guy take office.

    climate activists stopped nuclear

    No. Dipshit appropriate environmental and residual anti nuclear activists, which were tangled up wuth a bunch of other movements, stopped it. Wouldve been nice though.

    only technological solutions

    I think i said 'no changes (that wouldnt have improved our quality of life anyway)', so things like modal shifts in transportation and moving to dense walkable cities or well cared for and/or utilized rural places

    Things like solar and wind power (and yes nuclear, especially back then)

    starting 50 years ago

    Bitch have you not heard of jimmy fucking carter? Do you not remember the solar panels on the white house? Dude wasn't perfect, but he proposed both renewables and nuclear power, and i assume knew what the hell he was talking about (given his education). It would have taken some time, but if we had started then, i think we'd be in a pretty good place. I dont know much about the situation on the periphery, but i assume the USSR would have matched the americans if only for the sake of appearances.

    whataboutism, absurd bullshit

    Okay you dont seem like a serious person; i wish you luck at the fracktory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    I don't use the term whataboutism in my post anywhere. So I don't know who you are quoting.

    The not serious person here is you, saying we are all going to die anyway instead of encouraging people to do anything. I had to look this up as I don't know anything about Carter, but it turns out the panels he was installing are for hot water. They don't generate electricity. This makes perfect sense as it took much longer than that to develop photovoltaics and get them ready for mass production. Even now modern photovoltaic panels are fairly inefficient devices.

    We already have walk-able cities in much of Europe. It's not a compete solution by itself, we still have cars. You are weirdly fixated on USA history when this is a global problem. It's not all about the USA. Stop pretending it's the only country that exists. India and China are the biggest polluters these days if I remember correctly, you should be focusing on them.

    Edit: Carter was also aiming for 20% of energy in the US to be made renewably by 2020. That wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to stop climate change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Usa was a major turning point. Went worst direction, could have gone best. Not all i brought up.

    for hot water

    As opposed to the fairy dust and prayers they used before.

    walkable cities in

    Used to hear a lot of people i knew on that continemt talk about cities getting less walkable, more car.

    was aiming for

    Renewable. Does not include nuclear. Assuming he wanted some amount of that, given his degree in that. But if we had started, we could have accellerated in the right direction instead of the wrong one.

    telling people to not do anything

    Okay you clearly can't read.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I can read fine. You can't write. Your messages so far have been full of spelling errors, are hard to understand, and you can't even quote properly. Come on now.

    You act like I should know all about this Carter person, when they were in power long before I was born, in a country I don't even live in. It's daft. Most people on this site either wouldn't have been born or would have been small when Carter was talking about this stuff. That happened in the 1970s. If it isn't absolutely clear using renewables for everything in the 1970s wouldn't have been practical. Nuclear would have been great, but it's mainly environmentalists that put a stop to that, as they keep trying to do now. It seems most environmentalists and climate activists even now don't want nuclear, even though it's the obvious choice for certain applications like data centers and AI. The most staunch anti-nuclear people have always been environmentalists. Nuclear also wouldn't have solved any of the problems caused by cars. It doesn't even work without large grid storage or demand management, at least not using the reactor technology available back then. Those are things we are only just figuring out now for goodness sake. It could have at least replaced coal for baseload power, which is much better than nothing.

    You can't say in one breath that the planet is already doomed, and in the next say we should make major changes. It's a contradiction. If people believe we are really doomed they aren't even going to try. This should be relatively straight forward to understand. So if you want people to make a change then stop saying we are already dead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No you're correct, the co2 levels act slowly over time to increase temperatures so we haven't even got a tiny fraction of the total warming. The only way to deal with it is to go sharply carbon negative as soon as possible and use Geoengineering to actively cool the planet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    geoengineering

    Maybe, but its like natural gas; going to be used as an excuse to mot fix anything else and jack off about svifi bullshit til we all die.

    Not that it couldn't alao be a useful tool in tje hands of responsible adults.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    At a certain point you have to ignore the " but someone will use it as an excuse" argument, that's been the response for decades. It can't mean that because someone could object you just have to do nothing ever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Geoemgineering needs to be discredited so people dont buy it as an alternative to everything else, but a supplimental.

    Because it's really tempting. It promises not having to change our daily lives, if you don't listen too close

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And that's been the statement people make every time for the last 15 years. But at a certain point there is only people that accept it and people who will never do so until they die.

    Small scale tests have to be done slowly over time, and it's best to do that now at the very least so we have a good grasp of what won't work at scale so we didn't chase means that are less practical.

    But the real point is that very few people commenting actually read the article. This was about marine cloud brightening, where they're only making clouds slightly brighter. It's the least offensive option possible that is technically a thing that everybody likes more anyway. People act like mr burns blocking the sun.

    The only one that has any real risk is the iron fertilization concept because changing the limited ingredient in an ecosystem could possibly have an effect on the system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    you don't exist

    Shit. Can i put you in front of my therapist? Been having this argukent and it woukd be great to have someone else on my side.

    thing completely unrelated to anything i said that you just like to think about

    There are less cool obsessions, sure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    power generation has come a long way but specially in the North America the story isn't as good, while we've made progress the amount of methane produced by our natural gas wells is not only frightening but difficult to track due to lack of accountability.

    it's my opinion if we want the sort of radical greenhouse gas reduction required to stave off the worst of climate change then we need three things:

    1. an aggressive plan to phase out coal and natural gas
    2. embrace public transportation and bikes
    3. drastically reduce the amount of red meat we eat

    I do believe it's possible I'm just also think it's really difficult to get political will for those sort of things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent