this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1100 points (97.1% liked)

solarpunk memes

2872 readers
803 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 206 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

Inaccurate statement.

https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-consists-of-fossil-fuels

40% of traffic is for petrochemicals, which according to this article is coal, oil, gas, and things derived from them, which would include fertilizer and plastics and probably some other stuff too like industrial lubricants, asphalt etc. Not just fossil fuels, so not all that 40% would be affected by a switch to renewable energy. It's also worth noting that building out renewable energy generation involves shipping a lot of hardware around the globe as well.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That last sentence, yep. People don't tend to factor in the carbon footprint of building anything they deem environmentally friendly. There's a cost/benefit analysis to be made. A bad idea may actually be worse than what it's replacing, or not beneficial enough to pursue.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 45 points 1 month ago (4 children)

There may be carbon emitted in creating green energy but green energy is ultimately reducing demand for hydrocarbons, which is better than sequestration. Also you need to factor into the operational life of the green tech. If you do, it's pretty clear pretty fast that it's beneficial to go with green energy options. The argument you're making is a common strawman argument for not investing in green energy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] superkret 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)

For all the things you think of when you hear "renewables", that analysis has already been made, and it's overwhelmingly better in every way to ditch fossil fuels.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Do we know what the percentage is after subtracting out things derived from fossil fuels? I looked at the article and tried to do the math, but it seems like the stats are bundled together.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 112 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Joke's on you when we get even more ships sending the sun and wind around the world, idiot.

[–] SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

Fuckin demolished that snowflake. With climate change

[–] lefaucet@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 74 points 1 month ago

Bro just ignoring all the ships we'll need to carry all that wind and sunlight

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Another way to look at it: the shipping industry will take a beating while everyone transitions.

If anyone is left wondering why there's so much institutional resistance to changing our energy diet, its institutions like this that are lobbying and generating the propaganda behind it. Energy companies are just one faction.

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Or they'd just ship something else? They'd lose some money and scrap a few ships, but the drop in costs would make it more economical to ship whatever else people want, like lumber and funko pops.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Good lord I hate Funko Pops. Them and Minions™ are are the false idols of consumerism.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 points 1 month ago

Funko Pops are just Precious Moments for millennials.

[–] lemmyknow@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Look, let me tell you something. A Minion died for you. A Minion paid the price of sin for you and me that we deserve. Why? Because they love you. And if you think Minions are a false idol, then keep on scrolling. But if you know that a Minion died for your sins, type 'wonderful savior' and smash that upvote button

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If we switched to renewable energy, the cost of coal and oil would crash, but it wouldn't drop to zero. Wealthier countries would stop producing oil locally and shipments would still circle the globe from countries desperate enough to keep producing at lower profits, to countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

That's not a reason not to switch. We just need to be prepared for the reality that no single solution will resolve all our problems. Conservatives and energy barons will fight tooth and nail, and will point to the new problems as evidence that we never should have switched. was

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure

This presumes renewables are more expensive. But I would posit that a rapid adoption of renewables is going to occur as the cost of operating - say - a thorium powered container ship falls below that of its coal equivalents.

What I would be worried about, long term, is the possibility that advanced technologies further monopolize industries within a handful of early adopter countries. That's not an ecological concern so much as a socio-economic concern.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

a thorium powered container ship

If the experience of the NS Savannah is anything to go by, the major hurdle that ship is going to face is Greenpeace etc. fomenting irrational anti-nuclear hysteria until it's banned from so many ports that it'll be too difficult to operate it profitably. I hope I'm wrong and I wish them luck.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good luck, they'd have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.

Also fuck Greenpeace and their often more harmful than helpful stunts.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good luck, they’d have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.

No, that doesn't follow. I'm pretty sure nuclear subs -- or nuclear aircraft carriers, for that matter -- rarely dock at commercial ports, and there's no reason (other than hypocrisy, which is not relevant) that a country can't decide to bar nuclear ships from commercial ports while still allowing them at military naval bases.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] superkret 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuel power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 points 1 month ago

Would the price crash or would it stabilize at a much higher price as a specialized commodity where the cost of refining no longer benefits from economies of scale and instead only benefits from buyers who are unable or unwilling to use alternatives?

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago

Fun vaguely related fact: the 1800s are often hailed as the century of steamships, but in reality steamships had pretty short range and required frequent re-coaling in order to get anywhere and back. The coaling stations around the world were mostly stocked by sailing ships since there was no way to economically transport coal by using vessels that burned coal for their propulsion. So it's more accurate to say that the worldwide transportation revolution of the 1800s was a steam/wind power hybrid.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Why don't we just have one or two very big ships, powered by nuclear reactors. Like, 40-50 kilometers long each, with hydrofoils, top speed just under mach one. Zip around and deliver everyone's shit with big deck-mounted gauss guns that fire packages right to your doorstep as the ship screams past the nearest coastline.

[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

I see no setting where this could go horribly wrong.

[–] aquafunk@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Im gonna need some concept art first. for research puposes

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Currently seeking angel investors for 500m buy-in, or I'll take a 200kg of plutonium, if you've got that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Thats exactly how I want my buttplug delivered - shot via a rail gun directly at it's destination.

[–] dessimbelackis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What if I live in the geographic center of a continent? How do I know which coastline cannon to order from?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Honestly this does sound fucking awesome. It could be sold to the ‘murica crowd.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] superkret 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

No, they wouldn't. Capitalism is driven by supply, not demand.
If by some magic we switched to renewables over night, the owner class would open or expand another market to keep those ships moving.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

No, we would have an over capacity of shipping space, forcing the price down sharply. In the short term goods would be much cheaper to ship, reducing in a host of global economic changes- some good but alot not.

The ownership class is not physically capable of doubling our good production overnight to keep them running - long term though its quite probable. Ships will be refitted, a lot scrapped, new orders canceled- but it takes time.

And capitalism is absolutely driven by demand. Any organization that tries to tell people to buy something they aren't interested in will fail. They can alter demand, and yes they control that, but it us demand driven.

[–] philpo 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that worked totally well for the Guano and sodium nitrate businesses.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oil is used for more than just energy.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 month ago

70% of crude oil ends up gasoline and diesel.

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Idk why you're being downvoted. Petrochemicals are used for a bunch of stuff, including plastics manufacturing.

We should switch to renewables as quickly and completely as we can, but it wouldn't eliminate 100% of oil use

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I argue that if oil wasn't as cheap, ecological alternatives to plastic would have a chance or would be considered at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Steve@startrek.website 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] RagnarokOnline@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago

Yo, you right

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›