this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
335 points (92.4% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2267 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022

Climate activists have thrown tomato soup over two Sunflowers paintings by Vincent van Gogh, just an hour after two others were jailed for a similar protest action in 2022.

Three supporters of Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery in London, where an exhibition of Van Gogh’s collected works is on display, at 2.30pm on Friday afternoon, and threw Heinz soup over Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888.

The latter was the same work targeted by Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland in 2022. That pair are now among 25 supporters of Just Stop Oil in jail for climate protests.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We don't have a means to replace energy needs today and we were even further away a decade ago.

[–] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You don't think maybe we would be closer to having that means of energy production now if we started 50 years ago when we noticed the impacts of climate change?

Youre assuming climate activists have the MORONIC idea of just transitioning to shit tech, instead of the idea of investing in making tech that can replace oil usage

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't assume all climate activists have the moronic opnion that we need to transition to shit tech, just the ones who say we need to be off fissile fuels a decade ago.

[–] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Again, why not assume people saying we should have been off fossil fuels a decade ago mean that we should have been researching and investing in alternatives 50 years ago? If we did, we would have a way better chance if being off fossil fuels a decade ago

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Assume people that who said "we need to stop producing fossil fuels a decade ago" really ment we need to do more to end fossil fuels usage in the next decade?

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And we never will if we don't start making progress on it, it'll always be unfeasible because the powers that be don't start making changes unless it's doable within one election cycle. Just Stop Oil isn't asking for immediate stopping of oil, just moving the deadline to 2030, which means there's a few years to realistically invest in other forms of energy generation like nuclear, green energy, and other ways.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The OP wanted a complete stop of production of fossil fuels a decade ago. That is a completely different statement than we need to curb fossil fuel use.

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes but by asking to stop it a decade ago naturally the rest of the timeline moves too, so we should've had a more aggressive push against oil and gas 2 decades ago or more and transitioned much sooner to green energy.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can't just cut and paste progress forward. Battery technology is still two or three decades away from being able to fully replace fossil fuel use. Lithium batteries are not the answer there's just not enough lithium and it can't be refined fast enough. Even completely replacing fossil fuel electricity generation would take three decades and there's no technological hurdles, it's just scaling manufacturing and construction resources to build that many plants. The scale of these efforts is hard to grasp.

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What stats are you working off of for those 3 decade estimates? Either way the point remains, the sentiment of "we should've done X decades ago" doesn't mean we should now be able to do it instantly, it just means we had the information and knowhow to start working towards it decades ago and we didn't do it.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

It's not states estimates it's estimates to create 4,000 Terrawatt hours of generation capacity (fossil fuel capacity in the US). To put that in context that's 2,000 Hoover dams $1,600,000,000,000 or 60 years of spending the whole GDP. Looks like my 30 year forecast was overly optimistic.

Transportation has technicological hurdles, no amount of effort can solve this problem without breakthroughs in technology. It'll be a long time before there is even a path to eliminating fossil fuels for transportation.