this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38553 readers
2656 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sadly it affected profits.

[–] SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

We can not put an end to scorching the earth, because a Sheik wants to build a 170-kilometre-long and 200 meter wide city in the desert.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I’m 42 and I don’t remember a time when it wasn’t obvious that we needed to phase out fossil fuels. Global warming was already known. The 70’s oil crises had even convinced conservative politicians that “energy independence” was an important goal even if they couldn’t grasp the concept of an energy transition. The Exxon Valdez spill happened when I was in elementary school. (We did a “science experiment” where we put canola oil and water in containers and used different materials to remove the oil.)

Fossil fuels have been obviously awful for at least 5 decades. Imagine how much less CO2 would be in the air if in 1985, we got on the good timeline instead of the “Biff becomes president” timeline.

[–] chitak166@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Have you ever considered that first world nations are just going to use whatever energy source is the cheapest until it is no longer the cheapest?

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Then we'd be doing fission. Fossil fuels aren't required to pay for their externalities the way nuclear is, not to mention that the fossil companies have spent decades lobbying and campaigning to keep from having to be responsible for their own bullshit, as well as campaigning to make other forms of energy seem / be less viable (either through PR messaging or regulatory capture).

[–] pufferfischerpulver@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Nuclear fission is not paying for the biggest externality either, its waste products. That for some reason seems to be the people's problem. And even then there doesn't exist a permanent storage solution for it as of today anywhere on the planet (yes, I know Finland thinks they have it figured out next year, but at a capacity of 5500t it will only hold the waste of the 5 Finnish reactors). It's absolute insanity to me how this gets brushed away so easily.