solo

Yes, I see many parallels between your example and Suriname's. And I don't see how the people can benefit from this drilling. Even if he keeps his "vow" to give some money to the people, the local environmental devastation will be too vast for a country that is quite small. Meaning, I cannot see a scenario in which people would actually benefit from the drilling activities.

I think I understand your point, but it looks like I see things very differently.

Mining companies all over the world are breaking the laws because it is more profitable for them to pay some fines when they get caught, instead of following the law. This is the problem.

Since green energy needs mining, we should always talk about both green energy transition and mining as one topic in order to apply efficient solutions. This is why it is called the Triple planetary crisis, because the topics of climate, environment and biodiversity, intersect and viable solutions are only those that take this as a fact.

Tbh from an automated translation from this text, the impression I got was that the OP just wants to scam good-will people to get money, to create from Socks that stay white - not just socks, but a symbol of purity to Eco-friendly fuel for yachts and jets that does not destroy the ocean.

I dream of creating a brand ...

If you are an engineer, an entrepreneur, a designer, a scientist, a crypto enthusiast - and you feel that the world is suffocating, and you want to do something real - write to me.

@SIMA@lemmy.ml if you believe I got you wrong, I am open to hear more about it.

I haven't really followed deep ecology but to my understaning there is a lot of room for criticism. At least for the past? Idk how things are today on this topic. Anyways, the following article written in 1989, meaning a few years after the one posted. It is a harsh criticism on this movement but a well founded one imo.

Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement by Murray Bookchin

Let us face these differences bluntly: deep ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of "original sin" that accurses a vague species called humanity---as though people of color were equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor with the rich, and the exploited with their exploiters.

So, not only Climeworks is actually far away from achieving their own goals,

they also already sold 1/3 of the credits that

Mammoth capture plant is expected to capture from the atmosphere over the next 25 years

while

Climeworks cannot yet offset its own carbon footprint

Reality check is needed.

I think the rest of the article (just below the graph you added) gives a decent overvue on how the situation is, and includes some equaly decent projections. It looks like there is a possibility that they have peaked, and will plateau or hopefully will diminish emittions. Still, no certainty that this is a trend, or that it will continue.

And June is a month to keep an eye out to see how its new electricity pricing policy for renewable energy will be.

The carbon footprint sham: A 'successful, deceptive' PR campaign

British Petroleum [BP], the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals.

Economic growth makes us all better,

No. Economic growth under capitalism is the problem. Capitalism requires infinite growth on a finite planet, and this is what got us here in the first place. So this is not a sustainable economic system.

The answers are out there, but one problem is that we - the people - expect that those in power will implement them, and they don't.

So, we need imaginative solutions, in order for these fixes to be implemented.

I'm not really sure what the proper definition of a robot is tbh. Apart from that, the article does talk about sensors.

Each device would be equipped with biodegradable sensors for collecting environmental data like water pH, temperature, pollutants, and the presence of microorganisms, which could be read out after collection or by remote sensing.

Edit: I took a look in wiki and I think it tracks?

A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. (...)

I could say, I do share your anxiety about what will happen in the near future. Still, personally, I don't like doomerism because imo it restricts our collective imagination towards solutions.

Apart from that, lets keep in mind that this is an article about amphibians specifically, not about saving the planet or humans in general.

I would like to explain my downvote.

This quote is part of a stand up comedy by George Carlin that was performed many decades ago. When I saw it on yt I really liked it.

This quote here, out of context is pure doomerism.