Technology

59612 readers

3315 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

469

Trying to reverse climate change won’t save us, scientists warn (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world

137 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the point is that some capitalists, both in business and in politics, encourage us to put our faith in future carbon capture so they can keep profiting off their polluting activities for now without having to invest in carbon emissions reduction. This is unrealistic and just an excuse not to tackle the difficult task of reducing emissions. We can't afford to let the problem become that much worse before we attempt to mitigate it by sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, if there's ever a technology that can do that effectively (which right now doesn't look likely). We need to focus most of our efforts on reducing emissions.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

some capitalists, both in business and in politics, encourage us to put our faith in future carbon capture

Sure, and others go completely against that and call it for what it is, because they have different profit motives (e.g. green energy companies). Legislators will do something in the middle, because they have other motives (i.e. campaign donations and appealing to constituents to retain their seat). That's why it's important to be an informed voter and voice your concerns, so legislators can decide which side to listen to.

Carbon capture should absolutely be something we do, but it shouldn't justify expanding fossil fuel energy production, but instead help clean up what we have as we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which can extend the investments we've already made (for legislators, this means fewer people losing their jobs). Any solution we come up with will be a balance between immediate economic impact and longer-term economic and ecological impact.

In many cases, we prefer to pick the option that's more expensive, but isn't needed right now, and that's for two main reasons:

we'll probably come up with new approaches in the future
minimal rocking of the boat - big changes cause people to lose their jobs, which can change voting patterns

In any case, once we reduce emissions to something sustainable, the problem largely simplifies to spending money, and it's a lot easier for legislators to spend money that make significant changes to our everyday lives. So as long as we can delay the worst of the impacts as people gradually adjust to more sustainable living, we can probably spend our way out of the ecological debt we've built up.

I don't like it, but that's the way things tend to work.