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

memes

21016 readers
1559 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
 
all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 58 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is way overselling how effective it is in reality

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Stupid 2nd law of thermodynamics always getting in the way.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We live in a democracy. We can change laws with a sufficient majority

[–] prex@aussie.zone 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Malcolm Turnbull vibes:

The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.

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

The courts will have a real hard time figuring out who actually created this universe so they can be sued.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago

In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Douglas Adams

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In this house, young lady, we observe the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 2 points 5 months ago

I'm built different. Turns out if you stick your head far enough up your ass you turn into a Klein bottle.

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 49 points 5 months ago (4 children)

We absolutely do need carbon capture research and development, along with gradually scaling up carbon capture projects.

Unfortunately, carbon capture is useless if we're still burning fossil fuels for power, heat, and transport.

Carbon capture is actively harmful when used as an excuse to build new fossil fuel power plants.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 31 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Carbon capture is the best way to convert vague promises to subsidies.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

If you can scale it up on renewables only to somewhere around a few million tons a year, then maybe.

[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Look into the finances of carbon capture companies

They spend 90% of their budget on marketing across the board because they’re just fossil fuel companies in disguise

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Unfortunately, carbon capture is useless if we're still burning fossil fuels for power, heat, and transport.

Carbon capture is actively harmful when used as an excuse to build new fossil fuel power plants.

Yeah, it's a blank check to just produce more CO2.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Carbon capture is easy. Plant more trees.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And build more housing with them.

Woah there, wood? The stuff that blows over and not GLORIOUS STONE AND CONCRETE? I think you may be on yo something. Just don't tell Europe a lot of them get mad at the sight of wood houses

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Carbon Capture is hardly anything other than an excuse to not lower emissions and potentially their profits, on par with the nonsense argument we don't need to lower emissions because unspecified magic technology will be invented to solve anything any day now.

[–] 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.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The irony is that the pumpkin actually captured quite a bit of carbon

[–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 13 points 5 months ago

The further irony is that by decomposing it will release the carbon back in the atmosphere, plus the carbon it took to produce it and deliver it

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 4 points 5 months ago
[–] FreeBeard@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

Photocatalytic splitting of CO2 on liquid Metal could one day be really really effective and it doesn't need an additional energy source.

Currently it's just play pretend.

[–] Devjavu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

Guys, hear me out. We take a gigantic carbon capture machine, and just pump as much electricity into it AS WE CAN. Because of the incredible energy consumption, we'll be using the wood from the amazon rainforest as fuel, BUT IT'S OKAY because we're just capturing that carbon. Oh also, governments gonna have to pay, it's a social project after all.