Classic idiots : memes

[–] zazaserty@discuss.tchncs.de 122 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The problem here is that we all lose. They ignored the warnings about climate change but now we all suffer the effects of it.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (13 children)

The climate hasn't changed, the humans have changed.

We had electric cars over 100 years ago, and surprise surprise, those things didn't explode into hellfire.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works 65 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I'm confused by this because the climate is indeed changing

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Good, my confusing comment got you to thinking about these sort of things...

Now reverse my comment to back before the industrial/oil age, if humans hadn't mucked so much with nature, we wouldn't be anywhere near this predicament we seem to be in today...

[–] TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Your comments confuse me. What the hell are you trying to say?

[–] jdeath@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

nobody knows, but it's provocative

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Feels like you are going to propose developing a time machine instead of just doing literally anything else about it.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

The climate is only changing because the humans are rapidly changing.

Name me one other species that refines and burns gasoline, diesel, etc...

If humans had never interfered, the climate would be much more stable.

[–] nitrolife@rekabu.ru 6 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Where should the energy for electric vehicles come from? of course, I understand that living somewhere in Europe, you can talk about wind turbines, solar panels and everything green. But if you live in a region where, if the heating is turned off, you can freeze to death in less than a day, you start looking at wind turbines and solar panels with irony.

And I don't really understand, besides, how exactly replacing some energy emissions in random places with other emissions in random places will greatly help to cool the planet.

[–] dcat@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago (3 children)

in norway all the power is hydroelectric, and it’s been that way for the past 100 years.

and i don’t understand how wind turbines, solar panels, or “everything green” is somehow exclusive to europe.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] lemmychatwitpeeps@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Nuclear, but the climate people are too big of pussies to push for it. Can't have the peasents enjoying cheap energy!

[–] thisNotMyName@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

Nuclear has always been expensive af. It's just "cheap" because all the real costs are not carried by the providers, but the states. Try getting an insurance for a nuclear power plant, have to find a solution for the waste. Besides that just take a look at the French: having to shut down mamy of their nuclear power plants, because the rivers don't have enough water to cool them down these days. On the other hand renewables, that are much faster build and way cheaper, are amortized after a few years.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago

Honestly, I'm at the point now that I believe that if you follow the money and memes, you'll find the oil industry pushing the anti nuclear ideas. The anti nuclear environmentalists being useful idiots to them.

That being said, even if you can't use green energy everywhere isn't an excuse to use it everywhere it could be used. At the very least, it would buy use more time to figure out more solutions. The people who are saying that EVs don't help because our electricity is primarily from gas and coal are deliberately leaving out the fact that the demand and infrastructure of solar and wind are also rising. Not having EVs would only lessen the demand and makes me suspicious about the origin of that meme as well.

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

Nuclear energy is the solution, even though it's the boogeyman thanks to smear campaigns. Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

replacing some energy emissions in random places with other emissions in random places will greatly help to cool the planet.

We're not talking a 1:1 moving emissions around with electrifying everything. Even if the local grid is 100% fossil fuels a large stationary fossil fuel powered plant running 24/7 can be more efficient per unit of fuel than thousands of tiny little poorly maintained gasoline engines in vehicles, especially when the car's engine spends so much of its time far outside of it's most efficient ranges (idling, speeding, going up hills, etc.) Not to mention how capturing polutants at the plant is far more doable than capturing polutants from every single car.

And even if you don't believe the green arguments, electric cars are just plain cool! They cost a few dollars per full recharge to charge compared to $30-50 per gas tank, they often regulate their internal temperature while charging so no waiting ages for the car to warm up first thing in the morning while you scrap ice off the windows, and who doesn't love the instant insane torque that an electric motor provides? Lower maintenance costs, longer lifetimes of individual vehicles (especially as battery technologies continue to improve by leaps and bounds) plus idling is basically free so drive-thrus, listening to music while parked and stop go traffic wastes way less gas. Regenerative breaking not only provides some free charge to the motors but also spares your breaks so they last way longer. The list of benefits goes on and on

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Elden_Potato@reddthat.com 102 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Imagine hating a child for "shuffles deck" caring about the planet she lives on.

[–] Ktheone@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

No-no-no-no-no Dont you understand?? She's one of those extreme esss-jay-double-uuu libearls!!

[–] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 34 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How to tell the world your testosterone levels have peaked and the decline is making you a bit cranky.

[–] StrayRedditor@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Peaked? I haven’t even begun to peak. And when I do peak, you’ll know. Because I’m gonna peak so hard that everybody in Lemmy’s gonna feel it. I shall unleash my fury upon you like the crashing of a thousand waves! Begone, vile little girl! Begone from me! This car is a finisher car! A transporter of gods! The golden god! I am untethered, and my rage knows no bounds!

— That guy probably

[–] raspberry_confetti@lemmy.ml 32 points 2 years ago

She's living in their heads rent free

[+] ricecake@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

[deleted]

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 47 points 2 years ago (1 children)

People love this "gotcha", but really it just shows how terrible cars are on a fundamental level.

The solution isn't electric cars, it's electric micromobility and public transport.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 23 points 2 years ago

It's always "ah ha but did you know it's only 80% better for the planet? Gotcha, idiot!" Like yeah, we know.

The best solution is not to drive at all, but if we're forced to in this backwards country that has been mislead to believe public transport is a bad thing then we might as well take the option that's 80% better rather than 0% better

[–] Querk@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Gasoline cars produce, on average, about ten times more lifetime pollution compared to manufacturing pollution. So even if electric car manufacturing pollutes a bit more, it more than makes up for it over its lifetime of driving.

Your other claim that batteries can't be recycled is false. And that recycling pollutes more. More than 90% of battery materials by mass can and do get recycled - and the expectation is to reach 98+%. Recycling process is expected to produce less pollution and be cheaper than mining the equivalent amounts of material.

[–] oatscoop@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago

I don't get how the "lithium batteries can't be recycled" idea passes the sniff test.

Lithium mining requires moving insane amounts of earth to reach the ore: often a pit mine. Said ore contains around 1-2% Lithium Oxide by weight -- which still needs to be refined and processed into Lithium metal.

A battery is around 11% Lithium by weight.

There's money to be made, and people are already on it.

[+] ricecake@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 9 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Yes, we know all of that. It's still better than driving fossil fuels. Something that is only partially better is still better. It doesn't mean we just keep doing what we have been because "oh but it's only partially better".

There is no silver bullet solution right now. Batteries get better and easier every year. Alternatives will crop up. You're not proving your point, you just come off as unwilling to change but hiding behind thin "eco" reasoning.

Again, to really drive it home. We know they're not perfect. They're just better than the alternative. Better does not mean perfect.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 6 points 2 years ago

That 5% number seems extremely low to me. Is that maybe for all lithium batteries, like in phones and laptops? Or is that just car batteries?

The thing is, the vast majority of cars end up being stripped and recycled at the end of their life. Plenty of sources quote an 80+% recycling rate by weight. EV car batteries aren't going to just be thrown in the landfill, the materials are just too valuable. If they aren't being recycled now, I would expect they're being resold or stored until recycling capacity gets better.

[–] onparole@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago

You don't know. You said it.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 12 points 2 years ago

Electric cars are certainly better. The climate crisis is extremely bad. A significant percentage of the Earth will no longer be livable without AC within decades. Much of our ecosystems depended on a temperature range we won't see again within our lifetimes. It's much more likely to be our great filter than batteries are.

Someday we'll envy how popular the Baby Boomers were in their old age. They didn't understand, we do. We should be rioting, everywhere.

(I understand busses and trains are better still, I'm just addressing their not knowing which is worse)

[–] Cabrio@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

The ~90,000 shipping freighters that operate daily use twice the amount of fuel than all ~2.5 billion cars that are on the roads globally. We're electrifying the wrong shit.

[–] RexRegum@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

And how do you plan on electrifying such massive ships?

Electrifying cars is easy and electrified railways have existed for more than a century now, but good luck electrifying airplanes or cargo ships, they’re just too big and don’t run on tracks

[–] Cabrio@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Gotta try first, got a whole world filled with specialists in various areas of expertise that could if they actually had the backing and funding of their governments and their voters to make a concerted effort in developing a solution. But that's not profitable, ergo under capitalism, not financially viable.

[–] Cabrio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

An electric car is easy, 2.5 billion electric cars not so much. One electric ocean faring vessel is difficult, but once you can 90,000 is easy. And like I said, 90,000 cargo vessel are using twice the fuel resources of those 2.5 billion cars. That's approx ~56,000 electric cars vs one electric cargo vessal

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Just thinking out loud here, but if the main problem with building 2.5 billion EVs is making the batteries, why would that change anything if those 90,000 cargo ships each need 56,000 EV's worth of batteries? I'm sure there's some efficiency to be gained by making larger batteries, but it still doesn't quite add up.

Of course this also assuming a cargo ship is as efficient as a car in terms of replacing the ICE with an electric motor. I've heard the fuel these cargo ships use is some of the worst quality fuel that we have and it doesn't burn well, but it's very cheap in the insane quantities they need.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] radau@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

Start with banning nonessentials such as cruise ships and get rid of private jets while we're at it, to start at least.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] jannis@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

It's way easier to electrify cars than cargo ships, because you can refuel/recharge cars every few kilometres. This is simply not possible with ships, other more expensive technologies like hydrogen or artificial fuels are needed. Electrifying cars also helps to reduce other emissions like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which is good for your health.

[–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But I thought climate change was all my fault, and that if I just use less water in my garden everything will be fixed.

Are you saying that the news lied to me?!?

/s

[–] Cabrio@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It is all our fault, just not for the reasons you mentioned. It's our fault for allowing it to happen, it's out fault for voting for capitalism, it's our fault for being undereducated, it's our fault for not stopping it. The problem isn't that it's our fault, the problem is that we haven't killed anyone over their exploitation of us and our planet yet, except ourselves.

Society breeds civility through cowardice, we know this because it's immortal to attack a bad actor.

[–] maggoats@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's actually not true, right? https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-emissions-from-transport-by-sub-sector-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2000-2030

In 2019 there are 6.08 Gt from road vehicles compared to the 0.87 Gt from shipping. That's just overwhelming.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's not the same car.

[–] joolez@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

But thats how to get attention.

It's a big problem that even if the situation describes itself people make collages of pictures that have no direct relation just to make a point.

Ironically this behavior undermines the actual goal because it shifts the debatte to "this is fake" not to "Housten, we have a problem.".

And most ironically: My comment underlines the debatte shift even more.

Hoomans are fucked.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] jose423@lemmy.jgholistic.com 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Humans will come and go. The earth will continue doing it's thing. I'm more concerned with the crazies throwing trash out of their cars or not bringing their shopping cart to the shopping cart areas.

[–] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Mother Nature reminding humans that she's going to be fine and they're only killing themselves

[–] newguy208@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

In the words of late great George Carlin, "The planet is not going anywhere. We are. We're going away."

[+] scurzon@rammy.site 10 points 2 years ago

[removed by mod]

[–] somada2kk@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago

That's not human but corporation with inability to fix products, shrinkflation, shortening life cycle of product with software update.

We are paying higher price but corporations are using raw metrials and power inefficient

Memes

Rules: