this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
1192 points (99.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

11369 readers
100 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Carbon removal

holy 5 months later batman...

It will always be more expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere than to simply stop burning the fuels we have adequate replacements for.

No one is suggesting we'll have electric jets and shipping; but even industrial processes like steel foundries can go electric. Concrete too.

eliminating every producer of emissions objectively eliminates trillions in capture.

Furthermore, injection capture and other methods remain unproven for long periods - we don't want a solution that blows up 200 years from now.

You do you, but your sophistry about pets and killing all humans is unfounded and ridiculous. Akin to your premise.

[–] ThomasLadder_69@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

holy 5 months later batman...

I saw that I never posted a draft, lol.

It will always be more expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere than to simply stop burning the fuels we have adequate replacements for.

Irrelevant, if companies and governments are willing/required to pay for it, then the cost does not matter. Also, pretending like the entire world can just not use fossil fuels is wishful thinking at best. If you think rationally for even a second, you would realize that is a nearly impossible task. Carbon capture will be one of many essential ways to offset emissions in areas where conversion to electric is infeasible

No one is suggesting we'll have electric jets and shipping; but even industrial processes like steel foundries can go electric. Concrete too.

You are agreeing with my points here. My entire argument has been that shifting the onus to consumers for emissions is ridiculous. I have said multiple times that the manufacturing/energy production sectors are where we need to focus efforts rather than blaming inconsequential emitters like the consumers/ the FIA.

Furthermore, injection capture and other methods remain unproven for long periods - we don't want a solution that blows up 200 years from now.

The problem with CC is not that it is unstable. It is that the current amount of capture is not sufficient for how much we emit.

You do you, but your sophistry about pets and killing all humans is unfounded and ridiculous. Akin to your premise.

It would be sophistic if you didn't try to argue that anything that emits greenhouse gasses "needs to go." I am simply pointing out how that logic is fundamentally flawed.

The realistic solution to all of this is a combination of everything. Transitioning away for fossil fuels where possible. Carbon capture can aid in sectors where that is infeasible. Offsets through companies like Wren have been proven to reduce emissions. (Yes, there are plenty of offset/credit programs that are not helpful, but that is a regulatory issue.) Increased public transportation options, more mixed use zoning, and more stringent manufacturing regulations, can also help. Change NEEDS to happen at a higher level before anything else can meaningfullly affect our course. And there a many intermediate steps we need to take before we can simply stop using fossil fuels altogether.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I saw that I never posted a draft, lol.

LOL, gonna block you now, so don't bother replying. LOL.

Irrelevant, if companies and governments are willing/required to pay for it, then the cost does not matter.

you think they'll plunge BILLIONS or TRILLIONS into capture when we can't get them to reduce the fucking output?

You really are a silly twat.

you can't bring industry over by itself. the whole system has to transition. Transitioning industry without consumers would be pointless.

You really have absolutely no grasp on this subject at all. It's impressive how silly this discussion is.

Offsets and capture are fairy tales the POLLUTION INDUSTRY has spun for you so that you won't be in the streets screaming for them to be held responsible. Good job, you toolbag, you're carrying water for billionaires while avoiding anything productive happening.

I should have blocked you when I saw someone was responding to a 5 month old post and never bothered to respond. What a bellend.