• Gnubyte@lemdit.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m thinking of moving to a state that’s colder where I can buy land that has water within the property.

    I also think to do anything sizeable you need the resources a company can bring. Our problems are at scale. You need a scaled resource pool and reinvestment in that to work up to some of the issues. I like the idea of carbon extraction for example, but I don’t see any resources invested in it from US companies.

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Carbon extraction isn’t a viable solution until its whole area is running on green energy. With current technology, at least, running it on a green power source will make less of an impact than hooking that green power source up to replace some fossil fuels.

      In other words, don’t rely on heal spells until the battle’s over. They’ll never outpace incoming damage.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, as far as resource costs go, planting tree is more efficient at capturing carbon then any industrial scrubber. Research should still be done, but anyone trying to sell a scrubber plant is just fishing for VC funds.

        • pedalmore@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re also typically embraced by fossil companies, selling both the disease and cure. If they can socialize the costs of sequestration they can keep drilling for profit. We are in desperate need of a carbon tax.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You want to take out that CO2, you need to spend the same amount of energy to take it back.

        Non sequitur. Nobody said we had to turn atmospheric carbon back into the same fuel it originally came out of.

        Electrical trucks are not worth it because of battery weight.

        This is only an issue for long-haul trucks, so, obvious solution: electric trains. No battery required.

        Also, battery fires are a BITCH and are almost impossible to put out. All it takes is one electrical fire from a car in a tunnel that will kill a few hundred people to make people reconsider battery cars. Now imagine trucks.

        There are plenty of EVs on the road already. If that was as likely as you’re trying to make it sound, it would have happened many times already.

        Yeah, lithium-ion batteries are volatile, but they aren’t that volatile. Solid-state batteries are even less so.

        retards (yes, that is the acceptable word for people that have a good brain but refuse to use it)

        I won’t comment on whether it’s acceptable, but it definitely isn’t correct. The R word refers to people whose brains are impaired, not merely underused.

        Call me cynical all you like but I see a humanity ending problem in front of us and it can be solved but share holders and the rich must be kept happy before that!

        That’s the real problem, not the technology. We can solve this problem. We don’t even have to sacrifice our modern civilization and creature comforts to do it. But we won’t, because some very lucrative businesses would become obsolete in the process, and their owners would sooner burn down the world and rule over the ashes than tolerate the loss of their wealth.

    • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey, so be careful if you’re planning to move up north-up north.

      The ground has started exploding in some areas that have permafrost, and some of the lakes are starting to release a lot of methane. Think Alaska and Siberia.

      https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201130-climate-change-the-mystery-of-siberias-explosive-craters

      The weather is probably going to be fucky in one way or another everywhere you go. I don’t think there will be an area that you can move to to really escape climate change. Wildfires are kicking the butts of many communities that are further north, and the winter ice storms that happen are pretty deadly too. I can’t imagine that those things will go away or improve anytime soon, since they are heavily thought to be linked to climate change.

      Some of the great lakes are so polluted now that the governments of both the US and Canada have recommend a safe yearly maximum number of fish to consume. The limit for at least one of those species is literally zero, due to how much fish absorb from the water around them. These are “forever chemicals” that are being absorbed.

      We still need to try to work on climate change, regardless of location. I hope that people don’t think moving north will protect them from the effects of climate change, because it probably really won’t.

      I know that you probably already know that, but I would like more people to see this stuff. I’ve seen too many people saying that they think just moving up north will make them safe from climate change.

      • Gnubyte@lemdit.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for sharing some info. And no I didn’t know that. I appreciate that it was a mild sharing of info. I’m from New England and I think even just getting back to home and leaving the intense heat of California would feel far more comfortable.

        You’d be surprised what living on the other side of the mountain - in silicon valley - brings for heat. Santa Cruz feels nice normal and cool to me while the valley just gets so scorching it’s almost untenable living here.