solo

For me, there are to many "ifs" and assumptions in this hypothesis.

Copy-pasting here my comment to this article from another community:

Carbon Capture and Storage/Sequestration (CCS) is a topic I changed my mind about, not that long ago, including its subsets like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Direct Air Capture (DAC), etc. Up to last year or something, I was thinking that it's important for these kind of tech to be researched.

Now I see things differently:

• To my understanding, the only CCS tech that makes sense is the one that catches emissions at the source, the factory chimneys.

• The others that claim to suck up GHG and store them "out of sight out of mind" are highly problematic for so many reasons. They are distractions from the real issue which is phasing out fossil fuel.

A few relevant links:

Fact or fantasy? Can carbon dioxide removal save the climate?

For fossil fuel corporations, keeping CDR on the agenda as a credible climate change solution is a Get Out of Jail Free card. Instead of stopping emissions, they promise to capture and bury them. Not now, but someday. As the CEO of Occidental Petroleum told a conference of her peers in 2023, “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time. This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”[

Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions

The car­bon capt­ure comp­any Cli­meworks on­ly capt­ur­es a fracti­on of the CO2 it promises its machines can capt­ure. The comp­any is fail­ing to car­bon off­set the em­issi­ons resulting from its operati­ons – which have grown rapidly in recent ye­ars.

More articles in the relevant community:
cdr@slrpnk.net

Απ' όσο βλέπω θα χει κ η ΑΔΕΔΥ στάση εργασίας.

ΑΔΕΔΥ: Πανελλαδική στάση εργασίας στις 16 Ιουλίου για την καταστολή εργαζομένων και φοιτητών

Your comment reminded me of a recent article from Carbon Brief:

Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning?

Just to note that at some point in this article it looks like SDGs are portrayed as something positive. I don't share this view. I am more of the view that it is SDG-washing.

Edit: In principle, SDGs could be a step towards the right direction. In practice, to my understanding, they are used for PR. Companies and corporations, more often than not, are vaguely supporting some of these goals in order to be considered as SDG compliant, while covering up the sectors that are actively harmful. And that's perhaps one of the best case scenario.

Η Φόνισσα του Παπαδιαμάντη μου ήρθε στο μυαλό.

Αλλά να σου πω, ακόμα δεν ξέρουμε τι έγινε. Θέλω να πω ότι επειδή έτσι λένε οι μπάτσοι και τα κανάλια, δεν το χω και σίγουρο. Όχι ότι το αποκλείω, ούτε αυτό λέω. Απλά ας του δώσουμε χρόνο, είναι νωρίς για συμπεράσματα νομίζω.

I tend to agree with what you say but I feel like mentionning a couple of things I see perhaps differently.

I believe saying marine mammals are a myth has nothing to do with claiming alpha males don't exist. The first is about a biological classification, the latter is about observed (or projected) social behaviors within one species.

Apart from that, and to my understanding, the manosphere has taken a hold of the alpha male narrative and expanded it far beyond the scientifically debunked myth. I do not imply that the fact that the alpha male myth has been debunked means that there are no hierarchical structures in species, just that when they are present, they are misrepresented in order to promote competitive narratives. This is why primatologist Frans de Waal inadvertently popularized the term ‘alpha male.’ Now, he’s debunking common stereotypes to explain what an ‘alpha male’ really is – empathetic and protective.

Just to clarify, not family dynamics, but wolves in captivity.

Edit: What we call "wolf packs" are just families. They are loving and take care of each other. In the unnatural environment of captivity, wolfs demonstrate different and aggressive behaviors, and studying these behaviors lead to the alpha-male myth

For socialism in the context of the so-called communist countries, I agree with you.

For socialism in the context of the nordic model, I am not sure because I am not well informed about how they have handled nuclear power.

Edit: Regardless of the past, it's capitalism that has prevailed globally for now, so currently this is what we have to deal with.

The way I see things, the unsafe part is more related to how capitalism works, more than anything else. Capitalism is not a safe system.

Super-briefly, time and money related to: planning, maintenance, decommissioning, and last but not least, nuclear waste.

Imo and due to climate emergency, we'd be better putting the money that would go for nuclear towards renewables. Let's keep in mind that numerous nuclear projects were funded with enormous amounts of money for 10-20 years, to be abandoned before producing any electricity.

Just a few relevant links:

• Why Nuclear Maintenance Equipment Requires a Single-Source Solution
• Dismantling work begins at Hamaoka nuclear plant
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia

It's a buy your right to pollute scheme.

To my understanding, the overwhelmingly vast majority of carbon offsets and carbon credits are at best ineffective or at worst just scams. Consequently, they lead to more emissions and are used to delay the phasing out of fossil fuels.

I don't think I understand why you say that the author is assuming 5% of GDP goes towards making guns, since they talk throughout the article about military expenditure and military spending, which are much broader terms.