this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
474 points (97.6% liked)

memes

21016 readers
1840 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] McLarny@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (5 children)

I have read somewhere, that the scenarios for becoming Carbon neutral in 2045 allways involve calculations using also some way of carbon capture. Not sure if true but it‘s definitely not reasuring for the path we‘re on.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 18 points 5 months ago

I've heard climate scientists argue that most estimates they see are bullshit that isn't grounded in the science and seems to exist purely to properly up the fossil fuel industry

[–] metoosalem@feddit.org 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

With every fucking ai company asking for ever more data centers and in turn ludicrous amounts of electricity demand we can kiss carbon neutral by 2045 goodbye

[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Any kind of carbon neutral scenario will almost definitely require carbon capture, simply because many processes are extremely difficult to decarbonise, e.g. heavy industry such as cement and steel manufacturing. Even beyond niche industries, fossil fuels still remain a crucial input to so many things; oil for example is required for aviation, road bitumen, and polymers in plastics, resins, and fibers.

As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 1 points 5 months ago

Capturing is good for cleaning up the last percentages. All the rest is stop blowing the stuff in the air in the first place.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world and most cars switching to electric. And even then, we would need to address cow farts, industry, the burning of forests along with a host of our sources of greenhouse gasses. And even then we have missed our target goals by a mile so the globe will still heat up to disastrous levels.

It's almost guaranteed that one of the larger countries with more population at risk from climate change will perform some unilateral attempt at geo-engineering, which could be either very good or very bad.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 2 points 5 months ago

About our only actual hope is a MASSIVE switch to nuclear power across the world

Even if it wasn't the most expensive and second most stupid form of power generation there is, it'd be a 50+ year "solution" (at the very least) for a 10 year problem. Look at the actual current project times for single new reactors, and then factor in every industrial nation trying to build a massive amount of them at the same time competing for a very limited amount of people who know how to do that.