Not 10k but I would figure something out with 100k
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
131 points (94.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49451 readers
439 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Bury it deep enough to lock the carbon in. If you spend it, those dollars will eventually find their way back to the treasury where they'll be burned.
Get a vasotomy/tubal ligation.
Start a fund raiser, do advertisement, (make some donations your self so that it does not look dead) - ones you get a lot of money (lets say you have doubled) - start again and repeat until you double - within 10 cycles of doublings, you reach 10 million, and keep doing until you get rich enough (lets say 10 more cycles to reach 10B) then you have 2 paths to choose - either be a hero and actual invest in research and actively reversing shit done, maybe helping displaced or other good deeds, or the mlm path, and continue the doubling cycle, keep earning - with this much money, you can now have actors and fake donations, maybe even fake researches into how you are helping, and keep growing your wealth, and maybe then escape to a tax heaven.
Apologies for the dystopian ending, but realistically a person even going full carbon negative is not even a dent. If you actually want to do good, then you realistically require trillions, and then you feed that money to politicians, and reverse launder your way towards actual green solutions.
[removed by reddit]
I'd probably donate it to the Thorium guys. Either the ones that just built the reactor research lab in Texas, or the shipyard ones. If coal becomes economically obsolete, the gigatons of CO2 will drop off like a rock.
From what I understand nuclear in general is (at least now) a dead end as a climate change solution.
- From planning time to turning on the reactor is something like 15 - 20 years (note, that's longer than the global average of 7 years for construction, because construction is not the whole picture)
- It's difficult to have more than 1 plant project ongoing simultaneously due to the scale and complexity
- Nuclear plants take a lot of C02 to construct and maintain. The fuel has to be mined, resulting in emissions, and the amount of concrete required massive. 1 ton of concrete creates .8-.9 tons of C02, and a nuclear power plant has hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in it.
- We still don't have a good answer for handling nuclear waste.
Maybe at some point in the past nuclear could have resolved many climate change issues, but between project time, initial emission cost, and waste, it just doesn't seem viable anymore.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think the "shipyard guys" are trying to tackle 1 & 2 (as well as lessening the concrete on #3). Though, I would be surprised if your numbers for #3 are right... it seems odd to me that a ton of concrete would produce about a ton of CO2 (but maybe it's just one of those counter-intuitive things!). Thorium is interesting for #3/mining because it is produced (unrefined) by rare-earth mines (unlike special-purpose uranium mines). As for #4, I would argue simply that it is "better than coal" insomuch as we have neither found a good way of dealing with the fly-ash and soot-ash from coal power plants (yet they operate); i.e. ash ponds & coal ash impoundments.
I gotta say, the C02 number seems very high to me too, just got that from a quick search and saw that a couple of times. I haven't investigated it closely tbh.
I wasn't aware of the mining differences between uranium and thorium, that is encouraging.
Regarding the waste, that's a fair point as well. Thanks for the response! Interesting points.
I used to be very pro nuclear energy. Besides the waste and the occasional meltdown it seemed like a no brainer as a renewable supplement. After learning a little more about it though it just seems like we have more runway for positive growth with wind and solar than nuclear, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Become a shareholder for one of the many giant corporations responsible, and try to sway them into cleaning thier mess up.
Fund a sterilization program for young people who have come to understand the future that humanity is hurtling towards, and who want to avoid bringing a child into such a brutally cruel future.
Both my niece and nephew have sworn off of children, as they have good educations and have fully understood just how badly humanity is fucking itself over. Theyβre just trying to find doctors that will do those procedures on people under 30.
Humanity may be fucking itself over, but how does that lead you to conclude that taking yourself out is (part) of a solution?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Really good idea. Rid the world of enviromnetally responsible people so climate change is accelerated. Thanks for the counter-argument.
load more comments
(3 replies)