• themeatbridge
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8919 hours ago

    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.

  • @NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1518 hours ago

    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.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36 hours ago

      Yeah no, it’s just about the latest money grab before we all die

    • @Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1218 hours ago

      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.

      • @qqq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        49 hours ago

        Hm I always remember hearing this:

        In a confidential memo to the Republican party, Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, which he called a “less frightening” phrase than the former.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/27/americans-climate-change-global-warming-yale-report

      • @Jackthelad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        517 hours ago

        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.

        • @Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

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

          We could cause a new ice age easily. Just fire off a few percent of the nukes, and we will revert to an ice age almost immediately.
          Of course a side effect would be massive starvation.

          • gian
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 hours ago

            There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

            As far as I remember, that was tried with ships and it has some collateral effects that cause different damages to the oceans.

            • @jj4211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 hours ago

              I think I recall the opposite. After having somewhat cleaner fuel, the ships cleaner exhaust caused more warming as the sulfur in the fuel was having a side effect of mitigating warming somewhat. It was raised as a point of maybe we should consider the approach of we are in dire straights.

              • gian
                link
                fedilink
                English
                144 minutes ago

                I remember to have read that change caused some other problems, and these collateral problems were unexpected.

                But I don’t remember if the problem were about the ocean currents or that the ocean was warmer or a mix of the two plus something else.

              • gian
                link
                fedilink
                English
                138 minutes ago

                My point was that this already tested on a smaller scale with ships: the fuel changed and that changed the exhaust fumes ability to reflect sunlight which cause some problems the proponents of the solution have not foresee.

      • @Karjalan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        014 hours ago

        I’m pretty sure it wasn’t renamed because people were morons about child weather, at least not completely. It’s always been “climate change”, because that’s a better representation of what is happening.

        The climate is changing, and one is the main side effects it’s global warming… But there’s extra fun side effects, like ocean acidification, that aren’t because of the warning