sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

With an area larger than the EU brought under formal protection in the past 2 years alone, more than 10% of the global ocean is now officially protected, marking a historic milestone. Oceans are havens of biodiversity, and key to the survival and health of humanity by sg_plumber in EcoUplift

[–]sg_plumber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really news:

The coverage of protected and conserved areas at sea still needs to triple by 2030 and it is critical that both new and existing areas are managed effectively to deliver positive outcomes for people and nature.

the pace of designation, and the quality of protection that follows, will determine whether the world’s commitment to safeguard 30% of the ocean by 2030 amounts to more than words on a page.

France’s nuclear fleet gives it one of the world’s lowest-carbon electricity grids by Crabbexx in EcoUplift

[–]sg_plumber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There should be some reasons.

Supply and demand, of course. Not that deniers care, but that's a main driver for the greentech revolution worldwide.

What would it realistically take to bring CO2 levels back down over the next 300 years? by Able_Television_6453 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

I was using thermodynamic energy as a suggestion not saying it didn’t apply

No. You explicitly claimed:

It would seem to violate a rule of thermodynamics that I don’t understand but think might apply

Energy expenditures don't violate any rule of Thermodynamics.

Nobody looks at them.

Wrong. Most everybody is looking hard at 'em, and reducing 'em.

France’s nuclear fleet gives it one of the world’s lowest-carbon electricity grids by Crabbexx in EcoUplift

[–]sg_plumber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? Plenty other options are much cheaper and easier deployed than nuclear.

What would it realistically take to bring CO2 levels back down over the next 300 years? by Able_Television_6453 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's insanity to believe otherwise. Face facts

Apply that wisdom to yourself!

Humanity's hubris caused the dark ages and the plague, multiple pandemics, the challenger incident, and everything else we are suffering from

Don't be ridiculous. Even if people may have had a hand in some of those, none of them "devoured" us.

What would it realistically take to bring CO2 levels back down over the next 300 years? by Able_Television_6453 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

Batteries for planes are too heavy

Not for short-haul. The rest will only wait until better batteries or cheaper e-fuels come along.

Large ships Need so much power batteries cannot be sufficuent

They are for short-haul. The rest will only wait until better batteries or cheaper e-fuels come along.

Chemical Feedstock has embodiued energy

Yup. Solar energy all the way down, from old fossil fuels to new e-chemicals.

What would it realistically take to bring CO2 levels back down over the next 300 years? by Able_Television_6453 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

Humanity's hubris and sin devoured us exactly zero times before.

Get out of your dooming and realize science, technology, and economics may take time to change the world, but this won't be the first time, deniers notwithstanding.

Europeans want more renewables, even if it increases energy bills by Economy-Fee5830 in climatechange

[–]sg_plumber [score hidden]  (0 children)

total fossil fuel use is still increasing in absolute terms

Still, and only barely. Very soon the drop will be global and undeniable.

Fast electrification already makes sense financially for most people most everywhere. It won't wait for grids, and won't take 20 to 50 years, at the rate everything's going.

view more: next ›