News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Maybe it wasn’t clear that the goal was to produce less CO2. How about if we make a big banner or something, y’know, to really spell it out.
One can maybe alter emissions, but not much that one can do about El Niño.
El Niño is a certainty. Obviously the emissions are the controllable. Blaming this on El Niño is like shoving someone in front of a moving train and saying nothing can be done about the 5:05 express.
Nobody is actually blaming anything on El Niño. El Niño simply covered up how bad it was already for some time.
Which also means those emissions are indeed not controllable. Because they have happened years ago and we still can't do time travel. That's the whole actual point of talking about El Niño here.
We’ve been in La Niña since 2019. I think you mean to say the lack of El Niño has covered it up. That’s not true for climate scientists that track CO2 and methane emissions. The most recent large contributors were wildfires. That is also a controllable and preventable contributor. The primary problem remains, no VC is eager to fund the projects that will mitigate climate change without a return. It’s simply never going to be a priority in capitalism, and requires governmental financing.
Nope, it needs governmental regulations.
Financing-wise renewable energy has long surpassed fossil fuels. It's not capitalists in general blocking the change as they would make a lot of money. This is very specifically about a small amount of individuals making their money in fossil fuels and spending a lot on lobbying to slow the transition down as they try to squeeze as much out of their business model as possible before it runs against a wall they can already see (but try to hide from the consumer).
The same is true in other sectors, for example in traffic where totally insane bullshit gets pushed (hyper-loops, air taxis etc.) as magical alternatives to actually working public transport. That's also not some business that will ever make money. It's a diversion by people who want to keep making money in a very specific field (CE cars) before that whole sector also dies off. Also the scaling effect in EV production as well as improvements and development still have a massive potential with much money to be made by the people investing into a still developing and growing market. Unlike the dying market of combustion engines that competes on miniscule optimisations of the status quo still possible. Yet the very same companies knowing that combustion engines are dead and not even working on developing a next line but instead focusing on electric drives, still do marketing like the opposite would be true so they can sell that trash with no future perspective as long as possible.
There is quiet a lot to say against capitalism, but at the moment we don't have a capitalism problem (at least not where climate action is involved) but one of corruption that helps a few people to keep failing businesses alive a bit longer at the expense of everyone including capitalists in the future businesses that will replace them.
I agree, but I think we’re both right. Relocating subsidies from carbon positive industries to carbon neutral would absolutely help, and would also address my point about the lack of VC investment on climate change technology due to little or no return on investment.
Well I mean, America’s comedy president thought it might be a feasible option to drop nuclear weapons onto hurricanes (allegedly) so I’m sure someone would give stopping El Niño the ol’ college try.