Science Memes

11161 readers

2947 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

SciBot@mander.xyz

304

Temporary Carbon Storage 🙃 (slrpnk.net)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Link to the actual 'paper' here: https://offset.labr.io/methodology/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 32 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think you might be reading a bit too much into the joke, which is the idea of a scientific paper on giving carbon credits to people conducting actual industrial sabotage, a hilarious concept in itself.

But taking it more seriously, I suppose the argument could be made that delaying large amounts of carbon from being released means reducing X amount of time that carbon in the atmosphere has to contribute to warming and potential feedback cycles. Producing something in a different factory may take time, and while the same amount would potentially be emitted at the new factory, delaying it may not be entirely useless (at least, in my uneducated intuition!).

There are too many variables to know with absolute certainty if a particular sabotage action is overall carbon positive or negative based on how much extra carbon would be emitted to fix the sabotage (depends on the type of sabotage). But if the sabotage results in that production not occurring at all due to making the whole ordeal more costly, it would likely be overall a positive carbon action.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I checked the publication date and it was not April 1, so I assume they’re serious.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 17 points 2 weeks ago

You might want to take a look at the About page, and their Disclaimer at the bottom:

Notice and disclaimer from the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art:

This digital commission is an artwork which has been supported by the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (ACCA) to link from this website, but remains the property and ultimate responsibility of the commissioned artists.

ACCA acknowledges the value of direct action and political activism. We note that this project is a speculative artwork and provocative intervention into the carbon offset economy. As an organisation, we do not promote illegal activities. ACCA does not make any guarantees, representations or warranties in respect to this artwork, including in relation to quality, operability or data security and has no responsibility or liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense you might incur if you interact with this project, including arising from any data breach, virus or other contamination.

That it looks like a real paper is part of the joke, it's pointing out the absurdity of companies trying to continue to emit carbon as long as they can use carbon credits, which doesn't address the root problem. The joke of the paper is essentially; what if a researcher who was paid by a mega corp to find a 'solution' (which the corp would want to be greenwashing), actually naively proposed a genuine solution using corporate friendly concepts and language.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Wow humans are limited to one day per year to make all satire, parody and humor?