Cyanide & Happiness

856 readers

80 users here now

About

Hello fellow Cyanide and Happiness fans!

Cyanide & Happiness (C&H) is a webcomic created by Rob DenBleyker, Kris Wilson, Dave McElfatrick and Matt Melvin. The comic has been running since 2005 and is published on the website explosm.net along with animated shorts in the same style. Matt Melvin left C&H in 2014, and several other people have contributed to the comic and to the animated shorts

Hope you enjoy and feel free to contribute to the community with art, media, cool stuff about the authors, tattoos, toys and anything else, as long it’s Cyanide & Happiness related!

History

@MrSebSin@sh.itjust.works started this community and wrote:

About this community and how I post the comics… Many moons ago, I would ask my Dad to save the newspaper for me everyday so I could read my favorite comic strips. Of course these days you can read your favorite comics online instead of a newspaper, but I love the nostalgia of reading the daily comics. Anyway, one of my favorite current comics is Cyanide and Happiness and I will be posting the daily release from their website (https://explosm.net/) and a an extra or two randoms.

Related Communities

Subscribe to all the daily comic communities!

Fine Print

All comics posted are freely available online. In no way is the poster claiming ownership, copyright or anything else. This is a not for profit community, we just want to enjoy our comics, thank you.

founded 4 months ago

MODERATORS

m_f@discuss.online

839

2019-04-06 (infosec.pub)

submitted 5 days ago by m_f@discuss.online to c/cyanideandhappiness@discuss.online

118 comments fedilink hide all child comments

🔗

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So you're describing net negative, not net zero?

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I guess I am. I didn't bother drawing a distinction between the two because the difference is one atom.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sorry if this is explaining something you've already heard, but net zero is a distinct concept that a significant percentage of humans agree with. Describing it as huddling around campfires might be counterproductive towards wider public support.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

You've misunderstood. Huddling around campfires is wasteful and we shouldn't do it. We need solar panels, trains, and vegan food instead.

Emissions can refer to all greenhouse gases or only to carbon dioxide (CO2).[1] Reaching net zero is necessary to stop further global warming.[2] It requires deep cuts in emissions, for example by shifting from fossil fuels to sustainable energy, improving energy efficiency and halting deforestation. A small remaining fraction of emissions can then be offset using carbon dioxide removal.

For example, some standards for carbon neutral certification allow a lot of carbon offsetting. But net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5 °C targets.

We can cut 25% of emissions with renewable electricity to replace fossil fuels. 28% by banning gas cars and airplanes except in emergencies. Maybe around 5-8% by banning animal agriculture. A few percentage points out of residential and industrial by banning onsite emission sources such as gas stoves. And maybe after all that effort we can get emissions down to 10% of what they presently are, but we might still need to radically rethink our industrial processes.