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

Technology

59566 readers
4839 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 3 weeks ago (5 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.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Instead of UBI, we should give every citizen carbon credits that they can then either use themselves for cars over certain (adjusting) emission limits or more likely sell to companies. Every company has to pay for their CO2 (and downline for imports)

The interesting thing would be people not necessarily spending their carbon credits like they do money. As there is no real incentive to sell to one company or another, other then tiny rate differences.

Also... always peg the price to what it costs to clean the carbon out. That creates a greater incentive to not skirt, as it might get cheaper over time.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So, because I can afford an EV , to electrify, to add solar, I also get a carbon bonus to sell or bury.

While normally I like where you’re going, we’re already past the point of early adopters deciding to do the right thing in lot of ways and need to scale up for affordability.

Or if your goal is to influence more personal decisions, like how much meat you eat and what temperature you set your thermostat, I’m not sure it’s enough

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Imagine if you could get FREE MONEY by not using all your energy coinz!

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's simple, you have a shared resource running out, nobody wants to grab less of it.

Grab less of it yourself - the others will compensate for you. Produce some of that resource - the others will just profit from it for longer.

The biggest emitters are too strong to be climate-crusaded, the smaller ones do successful bribing and greenwashing, but I think there will eventually be climate crusades - against those poor bastards who formally fail to do something right, but don't really contribute meaningfully to emissions.

Other than finding some wonderful (like in Total Recall) process to turn fossil fuels into matter practically not separable and not usable as fuel, I don't know what one can do.

Profitable personal mobile nuclear batteries are still not reality.

Some new magical principle of producing energy, sufficiently decentralized (here go big NPPs). There's none, so prepare for dark future.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

As far as energy production goes, we already have the technology: solar, wind, nuclear. We also already have the technology for cars and personAl transportation. Above all we have transit. If we can get our shit together with things we already know, we’d be in better shape. If we would have done it as little as ten years ago, we could have stayed within the Montreal targets for global warming.

Now it’s no longer enough. We need to fix harder areas as well: aviation, shipping, grid storage, steel and cement, etc, and we need it asap … how is there still not any urgency?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

You need technology cheaper than fossil fuels. Some of fossil fuels' downsides are upsides for some people (political control), which necessitates the difference in cost by a big enough margin to counter those invisible benefits. A revolution.

There's no urgency, I think, because Earth's population is going to start shrinking. The emissions are going to slow down for that reason.

Countries that won't have some quality, not quantity, approaches to their economies by then are going to fall hard.

I guess that's how EU is going to make the world owned by Europeans again.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Carbon capture does not make money, wtf?

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Carbon capture doesn't make money. Selling the service of carbon capture does.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

tldr; Greenwashing/marketing mostly.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds tenuous. Gimme the full version.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Here you can find more info. I hope it's helpful

https://is.gd/eFvIJN

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

So you got nothing. Nice.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago

Things that reduce consumption are frequently successful in capitalism. Generally, using less, costs less. There are always those selling a thing who are trying to increase the consumption of that thing, but often at expensive of those selling a competing thing. One successful way of doing that is to be cheaper to buy or run or both, by doing more with less.

However, sometimes we want something to be made with more a bit more to last longer and be repairable.

Raw capitalist won't do all this on its own. The invisible hand isn't very good at planning long term. Governments need to structure markets for outcomes they want, and keep measuring and correcting.