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

Technology

59087 readers
3485 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
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 223 points 1 week ago (7 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.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“Fuck it, might as well keep doing what I’m doing.”

And that last group is going to be angry when they can't keep doing their stuff when insurance rates go insane so they can't buy houses or cars, or when food prices keep going up even faster than they are now.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

But but but... It's because immigrants. And trans somehow idk

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

It's the modern version of sacrificing people in a volcano to appease the gods.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 29 points 1 week ago

It's the parable of office pizza: some people take 1 slice because there are many people to feed.

some people take 3 slices, because there are many people to feed.

[–] houstoneulers@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

And industrialists!

[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

It doesn’t make any difference what got us here in the first place. What matters now is what options are the best from now moving forward.

These scientists seem to say that trying to reverse climate change isn’t the right path forward. I wonder why.

edit: I wonder what makes them think that reversing climate change won’t work.

Someone was so offended by their misreading of my comment that they went through and downvote-bombed every comment in my history.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

What they're saying is that trying to reverse climate change won't be enough. It doesn't mean it isn't the right path, just that it won't go far enough.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Startups are developing a whole suite of technologies to try to help

Do not think that they are seriously trying to save the planet.

(If they had wanted that, they should have done it 30-40 years ago)

They just want to make money, like everybody else.

[–] kmaismith@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

I mean, the whole “startups are doing x” is really code for “venture dollars have been made available for entrepreneurs to explore x”. Startups these days are chasing fields which have investment dollars, so this means the rich are starting to invest in the tech a little more earnestly

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

If the people won't rise up for the sake of their own children then the only solution is to out spend climate change. Capitalism won't save itself, it will monetize the downfall. So in a way these tech companies are doing exactly what their suppose to but not really what they should.

[–] varyingExpertise@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People won't even rise up for their own sake. gestures in every general direction

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MrAlternateTape@lemm.ee 36 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The problem is people are only going to change their behaviour once the consequences hit them, and with global warming, the consequences won't really hit them until a long time later.

The second problem is the consequences are dramatic. And very hard if not impossible to turn around.

To really get people and companies to change their behaviour, we would need an immediate consequence to behaviour that is bad for the environment.

Bottom line is, some people try, some people don't give a shit, and in the end we will have to deal with it.

I hope governments are watching carefully, we will need to keep a lot of water away from us in the future, and we'll have to deal with the changing climate too.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Governments will fail. Wherever unpopular "Green" Measures are implemented, the right-wing cockroaches appear, destroying any discourse.

The consequence will be a global war by stupid populists who think that is one solution (which it kind of is,... Dead people won't emit CO2)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

We’ll have a big environmental 9/11 moment where a major American city becomes permanently uninhabitable and then there will alot of handwringing about “What could we have done!?” Then we’ll start getting lukewarm serious about it for maybe a few years, but by that point it’s way too late.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

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 1 week ago (15 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.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bstix@feddit.dk 21 points 1 week ago (5 children)

This is clearly a "why not both" situation.

Emissions must be cut and new technologies for reversing existing damage must be developed. There's a whole bunch of different things that needs doing, because there is simply no single solution, but using one approach to argue against another is certainly not helping anyone.

[–] alphabethunter@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

There's a point made at the end of the article that most people seems to have missed entirely:

Existing facilities that can filter carbon dioxide out of the air only have the capacity to capture 0.01 million metric tons of CO2 globally today, costing companies like Microsoft as much as $600 per ton of CO2. That’s very little capacity with a very high price tag.

“We cannot squander carbon dioxide removal on offsetting emissions we have the ability to avoid,” study coauthor Gaurav Ganti, a research analyst at Climate Analytics, said in a press release. The priority needs to be preventing pollution now instead of cleaning it up later.

It's obviously a matter of "why not both?", and both the article and the scientists behind the report agree on it. However, a lot of people are betting their eggs on the idea that climate reversal technology will suddenly become a lot more effective and cheaper than it is right now. And sure, that may be the case, or not. For how many years have we heard of flying cars or self-driving autonomous vehicles and predicted that they were just around the corner, at most a few years away, but nada so far? Betting on the invention of a new technology that'll make a very expensive process today way cheaper is a VERY naive and bad approach.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Do people seriously think we could "reverse" climate change?

That's not how the climate works.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Remember it used to be called global warming, because that's what's actually happening. But morons thought a cold winter day disproved global warming, so it was renamed climate change.
And yes we can reverse global warming, but obviously that won't recreate polar or mountain ice, or lower sea levels quickly, but we can get the temperature down to stop it first, which will also curb the increase in natural disasters, then the restoring of sea levels and ice will take at least decades and probably centuries.

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (7 children)

My point is that slowing down the heating of the planet is doable (though you'd need the majority of the world contributing, which is highly unlikely to happen), but we can't reverse the damage that has already been done, which some people seem to think is possible.

We're not as powerful as we think we are.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Glaciers formed over millennia. If they melt, they’re gone, even if we drop CO2 to pre-industrial levels. The Antarctic ice sheet is millions of years of snow that fell at the rate of a few inches a year and just didn’t melt. If significant portions of that fall off and melt, it’ll be millions of years more for the water it adds to the oceans to cycle back to the ice sheet again. The changes we have made will not be reversed automatically or in many cases at all.

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

It's because I didn't go on a rant about capitalism.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The only examples this article gives of irreversible damage:

  • homes destroyed by hurricanes: clearly and obviously reversible. Build new houses. Fin.

  • rising sea levels: reversible. Cool the climate, get more glaciers, lower sea levels. Obviously it's more of a "100 years from now" solution, but it's definitely a solution.

  • lives lost: yeah, that's a fair point.

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 26 points 1 week ago (7 children)

And also irreversible is The decline of biodiversity. Once a species is extinct it won't come back.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week 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.

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