this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
836 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
85274 readers
4466 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's really not. There were papers about particles in the sky, nuke near the Antarctic, giant mirrors in orbit, etc. Climate experts just won't promote unproven solutions that may have even more disastrous unexpected consequences while we have proven solutions that we collectively just don't want to adopt.
We didn't "wait". We collectively elected people who didn't give a shit, over and over. We still do. So a proposal to "pay the oligarchs" with money we no longer have because they already hoarded most of it, so that they apply solutions scientists propose instead of keep hoarding more, while they're obsessed with power and are allergic to constrain is ludicrous.
No, they won't. Because whatever plan you come up with will come with constrains for them. You should have realized that by now. EVs are profitable. Solar panels are profitable. Musk got in both. And he also decided to launch rockets and get in AI, not only nullifying the benefits of the 2 first, but managing a negative overall contribution, all while claiming we have ample time to fix the climate crisis and other stupid statements.
If such solution existed, they would have done it a long time ago. What you propose is what? Public money that we give to them in exchange of a promise they'll do something useful? Ever heard of Hyperloop or hydrogen commercial planes?
No, the alternative is to elect people who give a damn and know what they're doing, go after the oligarchs, tax the hell out of them so that states actually have resources to get shit done. While you seem to believe "there is no way", some countries around the world are doing their transition way faster than expected.
Ok, so keep waiting for everyone to wake up while the temperatures raise. That worked great for the last 3 decades. I'm sure we can keep doing it for couple more with same results. Let's just move the goal to 3C and keep waiting.
I already explained. Not for a promise, for implementing it. We have to come up with actual, concrete plan that will lower temperatures. It will be very expensive. To implement it we will have to extract even more wealth from the 99% and pay private companies to implement it. 1% will benefit by implementing it, not by promising something. Private contractors make money on public projects every day. Look it up.
And let's be clear, I obviously know that the world will go with your plan and nothing will be done while everyone waits for revolution. I jut want people to understand what's going on.
You have two choices:
Did you get up? Are you storming? No? Then it's already too late the only solution is to pay up.
Maybe if more people will realize what the choices are something will move.
Look, I don't know if you're a troll or seriously delusional. But planting the solutions as "do nothing" or "give everything left to billionaires so that they follow a plan that addresses global warming but in a way that's profitable for billionaires without putting any constrain on them" is not just a fallacy, it's laughingly absurd.
Your plan does not exist, and will most likely never exist. And even if you could find some mad scientist proposing a plan (not backed by a scientific consensus), you have no way to convince billionaires to fund it. They don't need you to get the 99% money funnelled in their pocket.
But I will store that idea somewhere close to the proposal to burn every fossil fuel left on Earth to supply AI so that AI finds a solution to global warming.
What I wrote is really not that complicated but it's clearly beyond your understanding. I'm sure other people will get it.