Put a fraction of that in wind, solar, or forced geothermal, and you'd get a real benefit. But the fossil fuel industry demands a fig leaf to cover its naked greed, so here we are.
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
98 points (99.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5205 readers
654 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
All we hear about is we don't have a smart grid, and can't a agree on storage. So, how about we put some of the billions into that?
Right on the money. I think wasting funds on solutions that don’t work is the point, if only so someone can point a finger and say look we tried (bad idea) and it didn’t work. Our bureaucratic strawman proves that climate changes is inevitable.
We are allergic to exploiting great solutions that already exist. Everyone wants to be "disruptive".
It reminds me of the investment that went into hyperloop stuff when our current best transit solutions aren't anywhere close to full saturation in the US. Similarly our current best green technologies are far from being fully exploited.
Also, part of the issue is real green technology requires some people to change their business and/or lose some profits. If we do carbon capture or other things, that creates a product to sell. It's a bullshit product that is worse than other options, but if they can it's easier for politicians to sell this to donors than something that'll hurt a very rich industry. Syphon money from taxpayers to make sure the rich dirty energy companies can keep making huge profits and give the tax money to some other rich people to clean up the thing the other guys are doing.
This is so true!
I think people are so in love with the idea of "innovation" because secretly we all just know that it means "easy-fix" and that sounds a lot better than "hard work".
US laundering stolen taxpayer money into “eco” contracts thanks to nepotism and buying off politicians
I don’t think that is wrong to subsidize research of new potential technologies that will help is control our carbon output… as long as we are also rapidly moving towards renewable energy.
Obviously most research runs into dead ends, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying new things.
The article is poorly written and vague, but I think much of the money is subsidizing projects rather than funding research. Basically supporting Exxon (mentioned in article) and others in installing CCS systems on their refineries and power plants.
"US Burns Last Bridge At Behest of Corporations"
Latest*
It's not even a particularly bad one, compared to Dole coups, Coca Cola assassination, and Uniroyal napalming civilians.
There are no other bridges after the climate is fucked. This is the End of the Line.
Wasting money on bad solutions is not the same as fucking it up completely.
Also, I don't know if you're being unrealistically optimistic or unrealistically pessimistic, but there are still deeper depths to sink to than just fucking up the climate. That still has a whole range from reducing the carrying capacity of the earth to 5 billion or to 5 million or 5 thousand or zero, and there are more or less horrifying ways to handle that drop too.
No idea what you're trying to get across but eugenics is not the answer
Yeah but this way the fossil fuel industry and a handful of dipshits in silicon valley make a lot of money so fuck the earth