this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1105 points (97.2% liked)

solarpunk memes

3044 readers
10 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Yo, you right

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 207 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (22 children)

Inaccurate statement.

https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-consists-of-fossil-fuels

40% of traffic is for petrochemicals, which according to this article is coal, oil, gas, and things derived from them, which would include fertilizer and plastics and probably some other stuff too like industrial lubricants, asphalt etc. Not just fossil fuels, so not all that 40% would be affected by a switch to renewable energy. It's also worth noting that building out renewable energy generation involves shipping a lot of hardware around the globe as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do we know what the percentage is after subtracting out things derived from fossil fuels? I looked at the article and tried to do the math, but it seems like the stats are bundled together.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah me too, I couldn't figure it out.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If we switched to renewable energy, the cost of coal and oil would crash, but it wouldn't drop to zero. Wealthier countries would stop producing oil locally and shipments would still circle the globe from countries desperate enough to keep producing at lower profits, to countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.

That's not a reason not to switch. We just need to be prepared for the reality that no single solution will resolve all our problems. Conservatives and energy barons will fight tooth and nail, and will point to the new problems as evidence that we never should have switched. was

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure

This presumes renewables are more expensive. But I would posit that a rapid adoption of renewables is going to occur as the cost of operating - say - a thorium powered container ship falls below that of its coal equivalents.

What I would be worried about, long term, is the possibility that advanced technologies further monopolize industries within a handful of early adopter countries. That's not an ecological concern so much as a socio-economic concern.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

a thorium powered container ship

If the experience of the NS Savannah is anything to go by, the major hurdle that ship is going to face is Greenpeace etc. fomenting irrational anti-nuclear hysteria until it's banned from so many ports that it'll be too difficult to operate it profitably. I hope I'm wrong and I wish them luck.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Good luck, they'd have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.

Also fuck Greenpeace and their often more harmful than helpful stunts.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›