solo @ solo @piefed.social Posts 36Comments 13Joined 1 mo. ago
For me, there are to many "ifs" and assumptions in this hypothesis.
Copy-pasting here my comment to this article from another community:
Carbon Capture and Storage/Sequestration (CCS) is a topic I changed my mind about, not that long ago, including its subsets like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Direct Air Capture (DAC), etc. Up to last year or something, I was thinking that it's important for these kind of tech to be researched.
Now I see things differently:
- To my understanding, the only CCS tech that makes sense is the one that catches emissions at the source, the factory chimneys.
- The others that claim to suck up GHG and store them "out of sight out of mind" are highly problematic for so many reasons. They are distractions from the real issue which is phasing out fossil fuel.
A few relevant links:
Fact or fantasy? Can carbon dioxide removal save the climate?
For fossil fuel corporations, keeping CDR on the agenda as a credible climate change solution is a Get Out of Jail Free card. Instead of stopping emissions, they promise to capture and bury them. Not now, but someday. As the CEO of Occidental Petroleum told a conference of her peers in 2023, “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time. This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”[
Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions
The carbon capture company Climeworks only captures a fraction of the CO2 it promises its machines can capture. The company is failing to carbon offset the emissions resulting from its operations – which have grown rapidly in recent years.
More articles in the relevant community:
cdr@slrpnk.net
How reducing the U.S. military budget would also reduce emissions
The Reality Behind JP Morgan’s 'Net Zero': Billions Flow to Big Oil
Your comment reminded me of a recent article from Carbon Brief:
Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning?
New Climate Report Warns of Imminent Climate Tipping Point As Emissions Soar
It was a huge disapointment that contrapoints demonstrated this way of thinking on the genocidal settler colonial movement called zionism.
Personnaly, I listen to anti-zionist Jews on on the matter, like Jewish Voice for Peace, since they are the largest Jewish anti-zionist organization in the world. Having JVP's input, I can say this word substitution doen't work for me.
Still thank you OP for posting this because, somehow I wasn't aware of it. I unsubscribed from contrapoint's channel, and I will not watch any of her videos again, unless she has a change of heart.
Wealthy nations accused of delaying loss and damage fund with slow payments | Wealthy countries have handed over less than half of what they promised to the loss and damage fund for victims of climate
Just to note that at some point in this article it looks like SDGs are portrayed as something positive. I don't share this view. I am more of the view that it is SDG-washing.
Edit: In principle, SDGs could be a step towards the right direction. In practice, to my understanding, they are used for PR. Companies and corporations, more often than not, are vaguely supporting some of these goals in order to be considered as SDG compliant, while covering up the sectors that are actively harmful. And that's perhaps one of the best case scenario.
Sand Mining Is a Booming Industry — This Mexican Community Is Paying the Price
Bigger crops, fewer nutrients: The hidden cost of climate change
Oil giant broke deal to deactivate thousands of pipelines and faced no penalty, documents reveal
BRICS+ delivers progress on nature, but climate ambition remains off-track
Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning? - Carbon Brief
UN Human Rights Council omits fossil fuels after mention is removed
Climate activists victim of flakey arrests | Environmentalists are being arrested and detained without any charges being brought in increasing police crackdown on protests
Why Climate Action Is Unstoppable — and “Climate Realism” Is a Myth | Al Gore | TED
They still walk among us
For socialism in the context of the so-called communist countries, I agree with you.
For socialism in the context of the nordic model, I am not sure because I am not well informed about how they have handled nuclear power.
Edit: Regardless of the past, it's capitalism that has prevailed globally for now, so currently this is what we have to deal with.
The way I see things, the unsafe part is more related to how capitalism works, more than anything else. Capitalism is not a safe system.
Super-briefly, time and money related to: planning, maintenance, decommissioning, and last but not least, nuclear waste.
Imo and due to climate emergency, we'd be better putting the money that would go for nuclear towards renewables. Let's keep in mind that numerous nuclear projects were funded with enormous amounts of money for 10-20 years, to be abandoned before producing any electricity.
Just a few relevant links:
It's a buy your right to pollute scheme.
To my understanding, the overwhelmingly vast majority of carbon offsets and carbon credits are at best ineffective or at worst just scams. Consequently, they lead to more emissions and are used to delay the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Company's carbon credits raise questions about unproven ocean technology to fight global warming
UN Climate Expert Urges Criminalization of Fossil Fuel Disinformation to Protect Basic Human Rights
UN Climate Expert Urges Criminalization of Fossil Fuel Disinformation to Protect Basic Human Rights
What does climate change mean for agriculture? Less food, and more emissions
If you look into the article, when this is mentioned, there is a relevant link. I think it is worth taking a look at it, because it gives perspective on this topic. Actually, a few, not only one.
The countries with the biggest skews in favour of boys in sex ratios at birth have seen a reversion towards the natural rate.
In a handful of places, the overall birth statistics appear to reflect a preference for girls over boys.
But in most countries, any preference for girls expressed in polls is not strong enough to show in the overall sex ratio at birth. Most parents-to-be seem to balk at sex-selective abortions, in other words.
The assumption that daughters will be more nurturing whereas sons will grow distant is ingrained even in the most egalitarian societies.
Edit: I rewrote the comment, when I realised there are a few links in the article that clarify things
[...] boys will be aborted and neglected in favour of girls
It's the first time I hear about this. Any relevant links you could share that corroborate this take?
This article is not really about mathematical talent. It mentions that stereotypes might be reproduced by attributing success in girls to diligence and in boys to talent, but it's about mathematical ability.
At the start of the first school year (when children are five or six years old), there are no differences, on average, between boys and girls in mathematical ability. But after just four months, boys have pulled ahead. The gap widens throughout the year.
For me, this is beautiful because thanks to the many rows, we can access more stuff in just one click.
I don't know how anyone would feel about the following, nor how easy or difficult it would be to implement something like that, but I'll say it anyways. I was wondering if we could somehow access all these in one click, instead of two. Meaning, what if these lists were on the sidebar? Or perhaps create a new, narrower sidebar on the left side? Possibly, them having the option to collapse as well?
Just some thoughts and thank you for everything.
That was fast! Thank you